Guide
- Summary of the Emory Report
- Bellesiles's Response to the Report
- Other Responses to the Report
- Remaining Questions
Chronology of Events
On April 19, 2002, two months after Emory announced it had launched a formal investigation of Mr. Bellesiles's book, Arming America, the school newspaper, theEmory Wheel, called on the university to complete its work quickly, noting that"by remaining silent on the issue in the face of national controversy, Emory appears to be implicitly supporting Bellesiles.""If Emory has already completed its investigation," the paper's editorial continued,"it has an unquestionable duty to its students to release its findings. And if it has not yet, the University should reach a verdict before he sets foot in the classroom. Whatever the final outcome, Emory must eventually participate in the national dialogue surrounding Bellesiles' research, either to support or denounce him." The editorial included this stinging accusation:"an overwhelming amount of evidence has surfaced to suggest that Bellesiles was indeed guilty to some degree of fraud."(Note: Mr. Bellesiles is currently a fellow at the Newberry Library in Chicago. He is scheduled to return to Emory in the fall.)
On April 24 National Review, which published several highly critical articles about Mr. Bellesiles in the fall, reported that Columbia University's Bancroft committee was considering taking away the Bancroft Prize, which was awarded to Arming Americain 2001. The magazine cited Roger Lane as a source; Lane himself was a winner of the Bancroft Prize. Doubt was cast on the story the next day when Eric Foner told the magazine,"I've heard nothing about Columbia rescinding the prize. The University's trustees would have to do it, not the Bancroft Committee."
Another report by National Review was more portentous; the magazine reported that Bellesiles's Newberry fellowship may be in question:
The National Endowment for the Humanities has sent a letter to the Newberry Library in Chicago which raises serious questions about the Library's $30,000 grant to Michael Bellesiles for the second book he is writing on guns. In a letter to Dr. James Grossman, director of the Newberry Library, the NEH asks the Newberry to provide a written notice of the institution's"procedures for handling alleged cases of academic misconduct and fraud." If the Newberry's response fails to satisfy the NEH's concerns, officials there are prepared to take any"necessary and appropriate actions including but not limited to removing the NEH name from the Newberry Fellowship to Michael Bellesiles."On April 25 Andrew Ackerman, the Wheel's assistant news editor, reported that Mr. Bellesiles"suggested this week that one of his main critics fabricated e-mails in his name." The charge referred to a controversy first reported by History News Network on April 15, when Mr. Bellesiles denied writing certain emails to critic James Lindgren. According to the Wheel, Mr. Bellesiles this week went further, charging Lindgren with manufacturing the emails:"I don't know how to break this to you, but anyone can print up anything and say I received this e-mail." Bellesiles added:"Shouldn't you go by what I say I said rather than what someone else asserts?"
In a separate article, the paper charged that"Bellesiles may have lied to the Wheel" about the emails, including an email Lindgren wrote Bellesiles. The paper reported obtaining"an e-mail confirming Lindgren wrote Bellesiles on Nov. 11, 2000, offering to assist the Emory professor. The e-mail was forwarded to the Wheel by Randy Barnett, a visiting professor of law at Harvard University (Mass.) who was copied the message when Lindgren originally sent it." The paper also reported that Bellesiles had told the paper that"he was driven off e-mail in September 2000." The Wheel reported that"this statement appears to be a falsehood."
Six days after the Wheel encouraged Emory to reach a decision about Mr. Bellesiles quickly, the university issued the following statement:
On February 7, Emory University announced that its History Department and Michael Bellesiles had jointly initiated a formal process to address allegations of misconduct in research concerning Professor Bellesiles' book, Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture. That internal inquiry is now complete, and based on it, Robert Paul, Dean of Emory College, concluded that further investigation would be warranted by an independent committee of distinguished scholars from outside Emory University. That investigative committee's work is now underway and should be concluded no later than summer's end. During the course of the investigation the committee's work will remain confidential. Professor Bellesiles has concurred that the outcome of the investigation may be made public.
This statement was reported by National Review online. It was not posted on the university website.
On May 2, 2002 Atlanta Journal-Constitution, reported that the Newberry Library had provided answers to the NEH's detailed questions about the $30,000 fellowship awarded to Bellesiles to study the history of American gun laws."The NEH request is unprecedented," said the Newberry's James Grossman, vice president for research and education:"They're asking questions that they're entitled to ask, and we're answering them as best we can." The library refused to disclose the answers provided to the NEH. Grossman told the newspaper that the grant was awarded before the controversy arose and that it was up to Emory to investigate Bellesiles, not the library.
George Will weighed in on the Bellesiles story with an essay in Newsweek (dated May 20) titled,"Gunning for a Bad Book." The article--posted prominently on the last page of the magazine--recounted many of the allegations Jerome Sternstein leveled in HNN in March and April (though without citing Sternstein by name). According to Will this"academic scandal" has produced evidence of"Bellesiles's malfeasance" that is"startling in its sweep, brazenness and apparently political purpose."
Shortly after the Newsweek story appeared, the Weekly Standard published an article about"the continuing misadventures of award-winning author Michael Bellesiles." Author David Skinner, the magazine's assistant managing editor, reviewed in detail the Vermont court records Bellesiles cited in Arming America and a previous book, Revolutionary Outlaws, and concluded:
even if Bellesiles did find pre-1790 Superior Court Records for years other than 1778 to 1782--records that do not exist in Rutland county where he said they reside; records that are not listed in the Windham county inventory held by [state archivist] Gregory Sanford; records he did not refer to in 'Arming America' or list in the long and detailed appendix of 'Revolutionary Outlaws'--such records would still fail to cover the years mentioned in his original claim." (Disclosure: Mr. Skinner based his article in part, he acknowledged, on work published on HNN by Mr. Sternstein.)The week of May 20 HNN published two articles about Mr. Bellesiles. Jerome Sternstein cast doubt on Bellesiles's story about the"great Bowden Hall flood" that allegedly destroyed the yellow legal pads on which he says he recorded probate data related to gun ownership in early America. Don Williams noted that because Arming America was cited frequently in legal briefs filed by gun-control advocates, the serious questions about the book may very well undermine the position anti-gun groups took in court.
On May 21 the National Endowment for the Humanities asked the Newberry to remove the NEH name from Mr. Bellesiles's fellowship. The Newberry said it would comply. This is the statement the NEH released to the media:
May 21, 2002On May 22 National Review online drew attention to the Newberry's contention that the library had not been aware of questions about Bellesiles's scholarship when his fellowship was awarded."How the Newberry thought they could get away with this assertion is remarkable," observed NRO's Melissa Seckora.
Statement by Chairman Bruce Cole on Newberry Library Fellowship AwardThe issue of trust and truth is at the heart of our decision to require the Newberry Library to remove the NEH name from Professor Michael Bellesiles' fellowship. The authorities at the Newberry Library neglected to take seriously the many substantial questions that had been raised about the accuracy of Mr. Bellesiles' scholarship. These questions were widespread before the award committee made its decision; indeed some of them were discussed in the national press, in the letters of support for Professor Bellesiles, and on a web discussion group on which the Newberry was regularly posting notices before the award was made. It was the responsibility of the Newberry Library to have known about these charges and to have held Professor Bellesiles, or any other applicant, to the highest ethical standards. By not doing this they failed to weigh and consider all the factors surrounding Professor Bellesiles's previous research, his proposed research, and indeed the credibility of the researcher himself. By neglecting its crucial oversight responsibilities the Newberry Library failed to meet the high scholarly and ethical standards necessary for any award bearing the NEH name. Consequently we have asked the Newberry Library to remove the NEH name from Professor Bellesiles' fellowship.
Bruce Cole
Chairman
National Endowment for the Humanities
As the NEH notes, questions regarding Arming America were raised in the press as early as October 29, 2000--about five months before the Newberry gave Bellesiles $30,000 to write a second book on guns. What is most fascinating about the NEH's follow-up letter to the Newberry is that two of Bellesiles's letters of recommendation for the grant" clearly called attention" to"extensive criticism" of Arming America. States NEH:"One opined that Arming America had 'created a sensation,' arguing that awarding Professor Bellesiles a fellowship 'would be a public service' in light of the 'financial resources available to gun rights groups.' Another forecast that 'his next book, which focuses on the history of gun laws, promises to upset even more people."
NRO also reported that NEH deputy chairman Lynne Munson chided the library for flawed procedures."[I]t is the Endowment's opinion that the Newberry procedure...is flawed, in part because it does not extend to claims made in applications to the library. Please know that the federal government defines research misconduct as 'fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing, or in reporting research results.'" Munson added:"because the serious questions concerning academic integrity, which the Newberry gives no evidence of having considered, Professor Bellesiles' application must be deemed insufficiently competitive to warrant an NEH-sponsored fellowship."
Mr. Bellesiles responded to the NEH action in an email sent to the Chronicle of Higher Education (May 23, 2002):"They simply made a political decision that should send chills through academics everywhere. The spirit of Joe McCarthy stalks the halls of the NEH." He said the NEH's action was" completely gratuitous." He added:"I regret that my name has been associated with an agency that values so little the principles of the First Amendment, due process, and academic freedom." The NEH awarded the Newberry $270,000 in 2000 for fellowships. Mr. Bellesiles received $30,000.
On May 23 the Newberry released a statement defending its fellowship practices. Library President Charles T. Cullen wrote that questions about Arming America in scholarly journals (as distinguished from the mass media) were not raised until after February 2001, when Mr. Bellesiles was awarded his fellowship:"We disagree that our review process was 'flawed' and that our actions afterwards reflect inattention to issues of academic misconduct." As evidence of the high esteem in which the book was still held at the time, Mr. Cullen noted that"in April 2001, two months after the Newberry's review committee's meeting, Columbia University awarded Professor Bellesiles its Bancroft prize."
Mr. Cullen did not defend Mr. Bellesiles or his book. He insisted that questions about the book should rightly be referred to Emory University. On May 30 Mr. Bellesiles is scheduled to talk at a seminar at the Newberry regarding a paper he recently completed,"The War of 1812 in experience and memory."
On June 3 HNN published the letter the NEH sent to the Newberry.
The Bellesiles story attracted international attention in June when the Guardian published an article about his book. In the article, for the first time, Mr. Bellesiles was quoted as claiming that the flood at his Emory University office lasted six hours. Emory's official report on the flood (May 8, 2000) says:
On the evening of Sunday, April 2, a connector on a sprinkler main broke on the building's third floor. Contractors had been working on the plumbing. When the water was finally cut off about 25 minutes later, standing water was two inches deep in some places, and practically no part of Bowden Hall escaped completely dry.
Mr. Bellesiles says that his probate notes were destroyed in the flood.
In the June 10 edition of the Weekly Standard David Skinner reported that the Bancroft Committee apparently had no plans to consider withdrawing the award from Mr. Bellesiles. Arthur Goren, professor at Columbia, told Skinner,"I have nothing to say." Jan Ellen Lewis, professor at Rutgers University, told Skinner she was too busy to comment. Berkeley professor of history Mary P. Ryan, also too busy to comment, told Skinner when he pressed for details, that he was being rude.
The Wall Street Journal, in a stinging editorial by Kimberle A. Strassel on June 6, 2002, charged that Emory University, Columbia University and publisher Alfred A. Knopf have abdicated their responsibilities by refusing"to take a professional or moral stance." Strassel added:"The silence of these bodies--groups charged with maintaining the standards and ideals of the academic profession--has been so deafening, that even the traditionally closed-mouth world of scholars is calling for some public disclosure." Strassel, an editorial writer for the Journal, concluded that only the NEH had acted properly by ordering the Newberry Library to remove the agency's name from Bellesiles's fellowship.
On July 23 HNN noted that the panel appointed by Emory to investigate Mr. Bellesiles had reportedly completed its work. The school declined to confirm this report, telling HNN that an announcement would be made at the end of the summer, as had previously been indicated.
Mr. Bellesiles spent much of the summer in England in the Emory at Oxford program. His course: History 341,"The American Revolution from the British Perspective. 4 hours."
At the end of July HNN published an article by Donald Kates,"Do Guns Cause Crime?" The article prompted a spirited debate between Mr. Kates and critic Tim Lambert. The article did not specifically address Mr. Bellesiles's books, but subsequently was cited by his critics in response to the publication in August of an article by John G. Fought, which was also published by HNN. Mr. Fought questioned Mr. Bellesiles's claims that he and his family had received physical threats after the piublicaton of Arming America. Mr. Fought reported that Mr. Bellesiles had apparently never filed any reports with local police agencies, suggesting that the threats either were never made or were not taken seriously by Mr. Bellesiles. Reader response to the article was extensive. One reader claimed that the members of the Emory History Department did not believe Bellesiles's story that his office door had been set on fire. Another reader noted that Mr. Bellesiles had moved his family out of his Atlanta house prior to the controversy over Arming America and not as a result of it, as some media accounts had falsely indicated.
On August 15 Glenn Reynolds published a link on his blog to historian Jim Lindgren's Yale Law Review article,"Fall from Grace: Arming America and the Bellesiles Scandal." Unlike the earlier Lindgren/Heather article published this year in William & Mary Law Review("Counting Guns in Early America"), the new Yale review focuses mostly on issues other than the probate data. In an Appendix to the Yale review, Lindgren lists apparent discrepancies between Arming America and the sources it cites.
Reynolds reported on August 22 that the Lindgren article was downloaded 74,000 times the first week it was posted.
On the morning of Thursday August 22 HNN learned that Emory College's interim dean, Robert Paul, scheduled a meeting with the Emory University History Department for Friday morning to announce the outcome of the Bellesiles investigation.
Late in the afternoon on August 22, the scheduled meeting between Dean Paul and the History Department was called off, Emory releasing a surprise announcement:
Professor Michael Bellesiles will be on paid leave from his teaching duties at Emory University during the fall semester. The University's inquiry regarding Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture is continuing. Professor Bellesiles and the University have agreed that the results of the University's inquiry will be made public when the inquiry is completed.
Just last month the university told HNN that at the end of the summer there would be an announcement concerning the outcome of the investigation.
Jerome Sternstein, commenting on the latest turn of events, told the Chronicle of Higher Education:"What they're doing now is hard to understand. It appears that Emory is so fearful that it is unwilling to make a judgment that will meet the concerns of those who believe that Bellesiles has committed academic misconduct."
On August 27 HNN published a digital version of Mr. Lindgren's devastating review of Arming America. The long, convoluted and seemingly unending story finally took a decisive turn on September 24, 2002, when Emory's interim provost Woody Hunter announced that Mr. Bellesiles was filing an appeal of the decision of the independent panel appointed earlier this year to investigate charges that he had invented and manipulated evidence.
The university declined to reveal the panel's finding. But it was obvious from the announcement that the scholars had ruled against Bellesiles. (Would he appeal a decision that was favorable?)
The panel's report is being withheld from the public while the appeals process goes forward.
The story was broken by the Emory Wheel, the university student newspaper. (This was a needed scoop for the paper. This summer the university snubbed the Wheel, releasing infomation about the Bellesiles investigation to the Boston Globe before bothering to call the reporters on the university's own paper.)
HNN asked the school on Tuesday September 24 to confirm the provost's statement as quoted by the Wheel. A spokesperson with the school's communications office, Jan Gleason, told us she could not corroborate the provost's statement. We asked her to get back to us when she had details. She agreed. As of Thursday September 26 she had not called back.
On October 17, 2002 the Nation, which had earlier published an article by Alexander Cockburn critical of Bellesiles, broke with the growing media consensus that Bellesiles was guilty of fraud. The article, by contributing editor Jon Wiener, a history professor at the University of California, opened with a nightmarish scene in early 2001 at which Bellesiles was harassed at a college lecture by"four unusually large men passing out a brochure titled 'The Lies of Michael Bellesiles.' One wore a flak jacket, one had a shaved head; they did not look like faculty members or even history grad students." Two of the men asked precisely the same question about Bellesiles's use of probate records:"I want to ask about your use of probate records. You say probate records showed few guns, but my father owned several guns that did not appear in his will when he died." Wiener concluded:"So this is what it's like when you're the target of a campaign to destroy your work."
Later in the article Wiener recounted charges that Bellesiles critic James Lindgren had pressured historians to retract positive reviews they had given of Bellesiles's book. Then Wiener went further.
Who is James Lindgren? He told me he has no connection to the NRA and has never been a member or accepted funding from the group; furthermore, he contends that he is pro-gun control, dislikes guns and has never owned one. He accuses Bellesiles of bias, but apparently has some of his own: Before he weighed in on the Bellesiles debate, he published an article using data gathered by the right-wing Federalist Society that purports to prove the American Bar Association has been biased against George W. Bush's judicial nominees. Lindgren's methodology was exposed as deeply flawed in an article last December in the Journal of Law & Politics co-written by Michael Saks, a law professor who is also co-editor of the book Modern Scientific Evidence.
One of the chief allegations against Bellesiles is that he claimed to have done research on probate records in San Francisco.
That seemed unlikely to many historians, who know the San Francisco archives were destroyed in the 1906 earthquake and fire. Bellesiles had re-created from memory the list of the counties where he researched probate records, after the flood destroyed his notes. He went back to San Francisco and found the documents in question across the bay, in the Contra Costa County archives. He photocopied and distributed the documents in question and posted examples on his website (www.emory.edu/HISTORY/BELLESILES/index.html). They are indeed headed"City and County of San Francisco." The Contra Costa archivists confirm that the documents are real--and that they come from the Contra Costa County archives, not San Francisco. That's error, not fraud.
Many historians who originally praised the Bellesiles book have declined to publicly rescind their favorable reviews; Wiener drew the conclusion that they remain Bellesiles supporters. In addition, he noted, Mary Beth Norton is now publicly endorsing the book:
Mary Beth Norton, a Pulitzer-nominated historian of early America who has worked in [the records Bellesiles covered], went back and checked them herself for the sake of the debate [following a symposium held by the William and Mary Quarterly]. She concluded that Bellesiles's interpretation of the documents was"just as plausible" as that of his critics,"if not more so." She did find Bellesiles's use of probate records"slapdash and sloppy," but contends that the rest of the criticisms of Arming America"strike me as the usual sorts of disagreements historians always have about how to interpret documentary evidence, although those criticisms have been expressed more vehemently than is usual in the scholarly literature."
Wiener reported that Bellesiles has written a new introduction for the paperback edition of the book, though Vintage, the publisher, has not decided whether to publish one."The original introduction opened with the contemporary debate on guns and criticized Charlton Heston and the NRA. That has been cut from the new introduction."
The Bellesiles case remains under review, according to Emory. Weiner suggests that the secret panel investigating Bellesiles may have recommended that he be demoted.
Wiener concluded:
Perhaps the secret Emory review board has come up with new evidence, though that seems to me unlikely. Barring that, in the end, despite dozens of researchers devoting weeks and months to checking every line in the 125 pages of notes at the end of Arming America, the critics have come up with errors but have produced no proof of intentional deception, no proof of invented documents, no proof of fraud.But the campaign against Bellesiles has demonstrated one indisputable fact: Historians whose work challenges powerful political interests like the NRA better make sure all their footnotes are correct before they go to press.
RESPONSE OF JAMES LINDGREN TO STATEMENTS MADE IN THE NATION
After HNN posted the above summary of the Nation article, James Lindgren complained that Wiener had made several inaccurate statements:
As anyone familiar with the Bellesiles matter can plainly see, the Nation article by Professor Jon Wiener has a large number of errors and exceedingly misleading statements. Since the Nation was unable to find any factual errors in my scholarship, it instead attempted some rather crude ad hominems, most of which HNN decided to excerpt on this site. Here I will confine myself to pointing out the ones that HNN repeats about me here.Referring to me, the first paragraph that HNN quotes from the Nation falsely states: "He accuses Bellesiles of bias . . . ." I have never accused Professor Bellesiles of bias (nor of prejudice). To the contrary, I have repeatedly argued that such claims of bias are incoherent in this matter.
Also, HNN repeats and inadvertently embellishes the Nation's false charge that I have urged people to retract their reviews of Arming America. If I had done so, that would indeed have been unusual, though not improper. What I did was urge two authors to correct or retract one statement in each of their separate reviews (on an issue not central to their reviews), merely by an online post to H-Net lists. Eventually they each retracted the false statement I asked them to, because the particular statements were indeed factually wrong, something the Nation fails to mention. Also, I never said the words that one of those authors, Matthew Warshauer, attributes to me in the Nation article.
[Editor's note: Mr. Warshauer published a favorable review of the Bellesiles book. According to the Nation, Warshauer said that Mr. Lindgren pressured him to publish a retraction:"He added something like he would hate to have this affect my career. I viewed that as a veiled threat." Warshauer originally reported ( on H-Net January 23, 2002) that Lindgren had pressured him to publish a correction. At the time Warshauer did not mention that he had received a"veiled threat."]
As for my studies of ABA ratings of federal appellate judges in the Journal of Law & Politics, I used data from many sources, including the ABA, the Federal Judicial Center, and Michigan State University, in addition to the Federalist Society (which got its data almost entirely from the first two sources). Further, I spent three very happy years as a Project Director at the ABA's think tank, the American Bar Foundation. Indeed, it was my affinity for the ABA that led me to wonder what the judicial ratings data might suggest. I strongly urge those interested to read the exchange in the Journal of Law & Politics to determine whose work is actually "deeply flawed"--mine or the people the ABA Litigation Section hired to oppose me.
CONTINUING DEVELOPMENTS
In response to the Wiener article, Bellesiles critic Clayton Cramer posted a rebuttal on his website. He indicated that the fellow with the shaved head was not white:"Did you picture a bunch of neo-Nazi skinheads? Did you notice that he didn't describe the race of the 'shaved head' guy? If he had, it would have damaged this image of neo-Nazis a bit."
Cramer also reminded readers of the abundant charges that have been made about Bellesiles's use of evidence:
Bellesiles has a history of putting up false materials on his website. Too many independent researchers have now examined the 'San Francisco' probate records that Bellesiles FAXed to reporters--and they are all Contra Costa County probate records. Weiner [sic] also makes the claim that the probate records are only a small part of Arming America. Very true. But Weiner, for some odd reason, neglects the much larger set of problems with Bellesiles's pack of lies: the altered quotes, the altered dates, and the misrepresentation of sources.
A main theme in Arming America was that the absence of gun smiths in the United States prior to the Civil War is a strong indication that the country lacked a"gun culture" until then. Wiener emphasized this point. Cramer argued that Wiener failed to understand that Bellesiles's claim had been contested:
So few gun manufacturers? So few gun sellers? Let's see, how about visiting this site? It is a data base that I am only part-way through to completing that lists 2,273 gunsmiths and gun makers in America before 1840. For every gunsmith and gun maker that I included in that data base, there was at least one for whom we know that there was a gunsmith or gun maker, but for whom we don't have any exact dates. In a number of cases, we have guns of this early era with a maker's name, but we don't know where he lived, or when.
On Friday afternoon, October 25, 2002, Emory University made the following announcement:
"Dr. Michael Bellesiles has resigned from his position as Professor of History at Emory University, effective December 31, 2002."
Three documents accompanied this announcement:
- The report of the independent committee appointed by Emory in May 2002 to investigate Bellesiles.
- Bellesiles's response to the report.
- Emory's announcement that Bellesiles had resigned, his resignation to take effect at the end of 2002.
Click here to read HNN's summary of Bellesiles's response to the Emory report.
Click here to read general responses to the Emory report.
Click here to read HNN's list of the"Remaining Questions Concerning Michael Bellesiles."
On October 28, 2002 Jerome Sternstein, in an article published by HNN, reported that both Garry Wills and Edmund Morgan have distanced themselves from Bellesiles, whom they once had praised. Sternstein's disclosure, heretofore unreported, came in the course of an article critical of historian Jon Wiener's recent defense of Bellesiles in the Nation:
And what about Garry Wills and Edmund Morgan, considered by Wiener to be two of America's"top historians." Wiener makes much of the fact that neither of them has publicly retracted their glowing reviews of Arming America, though, he says, they have been under pressure to do so. He doesn't say whether he interviewed them for his article. But it is safe to say he didn't -- and it's probably a good thing too. One can only imagine how Wiener would have responded to Garry Wills, who, when asked last spring to appear on a panel to speak in favor of Bellesiles, emailed his refusal back with the blunt message,"nobody defends him." And last April, when asked by a colleague at Northwestern what he presently thought of Arming America, Wills replied:"I was took. The book is a fraud." As for Morgan, he, too, might have upset Wiener. Recently, on his own volition, Morgan sent a highly complimentary letter to one of Bellesiles's leading critics, praising both the substance and the tone of his work, concluding that the critic was right and Bellesiles was wrong.
The Federal Lawyer has become the first periodical to repudiate the Arming America after publishing a favorable review. The review was written by Michael Coblenz in January 2001. In the October edition of the periodical Coblenz writes that the common sense premises of the book misled him.
While the rest of the country was busy wondering about the outcome of the mid-term elections, many Bellesiles observers were wondering about the Bancroft Committee. Rumors floated around the Internet that the committee planned to issue an announcement about the prize it had awarded to Arming America. Meanwhile, Eugene Volokh, a UCLA law professor, criticized a summary of the Emory Report posted by the National Coordinating Committee for the Promotion of History (NCCPH), which was written by Bruce Craig. Volokh asserted that Craig's summary left the false impression that the Emory" committee found that Bellesiles had made errors, but not intentional ones." Glenn Reynolds on Instapundit.com immediately picked up the story, giving Craig's summary the"airbrush award.""If we can't trust historians to be honest about the past week, how can we trust them to be honest about things that happened years ago?" Reynolds asked.
On November 7, 2002 the Nation addressed the Emory Report for the first time in an editorial which summarized the case against him without reaching a conclusion that he had done anything wrong. The editorial ended with a quotation from Jon Wiener, the contributing editor who rallied to Bellesiles's defense just days before the Emory Report became public. The report does not seem to have changed Wiener's conclusions about Bellesiles scholarship. In a passionate coda, Wiener defended Bellesiles while attacking the committee that wrote the report:
Since the issue here is Bellesiles's integrity as a historian, the Emory inquiry should have been as sweeping as the stakes, instead of being tied to a few pages in a great big book. And if Bellesiles is right in his reply, then those distinguished historians are guilty of some of the same sins they accuse him of committing: suppressing inconvenient evidence, spinning the data their way, refusing to follow leads that didn't serve their thesis. The point is not to condemn them for their inability to achieve the scrupulousness they demanded of Bellesiles. The point is that historians have to deal with the messy confusion of things, and they offer interpretations of it. Historical knowledge advances by the testing of interpretations, not by stifling interpreters, and not by indicting the interpreter's character for flaws in a table.In mid-November the Internet percolated with speculation regarding the fate of Bellesiles's multiple prizes. Would they be taken away? The Emory Wheel reported on November 19 that"Columbia's board of trustees will meet during the second week of December ... to discuss the possibility of revoking the Bancroft Prize and have asked a group of historians to review the 40-page report released by Emory's external panel at the end of October," according to an unnamed source.
The Wheel also reported that the OAH is considering withdrawing the"Binkley-Stephenson Award, given to Bellesiles in 1996 for an essay published in the group's journal."
Why did Bellesiles resign? On November 20 the Chicago Tribune reported that Bellesiles resigned because he had heard that Emory was going to demote him and"that would have been an affront to my honor." About the Emory Report, Bellesiles told the paper:"I was absolutely shocked! Obviously, they were very angry at me." The paper conducted the interview with Bellesiles at a coffee shop across the street from Emory:"Since resigning his professorship last month, Bellesiles has avoided the university's Atlanta campus. He doesn't want to present former colleagues with the embarrassing choice of either lowering their eyes or saying hello to a pariah, he explained. He has also avoided the media."
Bellesiles indicated to the paper that he believes he was the victim of an"intellectual lynching" (Trib's phrase). He continues to insist that he made few mistakes, noting that the Emory Committee found errors in just five of 1,347 footnotes."Look, I've never been good at math," he explained when asked about the errors in counting guns.
There have been rumors that Emory paid off Bellesiles in order to avoid a lawsuit. He told the paper he did not receive any cash payout:"I only wish that were true." His plans now that he will no longer be teaching at Emory?"He intends to keep up the fight to vindicate his theory. He has lined up visiting professorships in England for the next academic year. After that, he would like to remain in teaching, possibly at the high school level."
Jack Rakove, one of Bellesiles's original supporters, told the Trib that he still includes Arming America on class reading lists, but indicated that he no longer believes the book is trustworthy."It's clear now that his scholarship is less than acceptable," Rakove told the paper."There are cautionary lessons for historians here." On November 22, 2002 the OAH issued the following statement:
At its meeting on 8 November 2002 in Baltimore, Maryland, the executive board of the Organization of American Historians (OAH) discussed the report on Michael Bellesiles recently issued by Emory University. Board members agreed that this matter raises larger questions about trust and integrity in the scholarly process and the ways in which historical argument and interpretation are conducted. The board agreed that these issues should become the subject of wider discussion across the profession. The Organization will use the OAH Newsletter as a vehicle for further consideration of the matter. In addition, sessions on the subject will be planned at upcoming annual meetings in Memphis and Boston in 2003 and 2004. The editorial board of the Journal of American History will consider a commissioned essay or a roundtable to address the ethical issues of this and other recent cases and how much historians rely on trust in practicing their craft. Finally, the board agreed that it would continue this discussion at its meeting next April in Memphis.On November 23, 2002 the Orange County Register published a long essay by senior writer Alan C. Bock outlining the history of the Bellesiles controversy. The essay included this provocative statement:
Don Kates, a Washington state lawyer and professor affiliated with Academics for the Second Amendment (who furnished me with extensive info on the Bellisles affair about a year ago), told me he thinks it is possible that Bellisles is a sociopathic liar of the kind who responds to being found out with more fabrications. I can't claim to know. If so, he has managed to ruin himself and damage the cause.
On Friday December 13, 2002, the trustees of the board of Columbia University announced that they had rescinded the award of the Bancroft to Michael Bellesiles and asked him to return the $4,000 prize money. The Associated Press reported that this"was the first time in the 54-year history of the Bancroft award that Columbia has taken such actions." Eric Foner told the AP:"The Bancroft judges operate on a basis of trust. We assume a book published by a reputable press has gone through a process where people have checked the facts. Members of prize committees cannot be responsible for that." (Note: Mr. Foner was not on the Bancroft committee when Bellesiles was awarded a prize.) According to the wire report, Knopf, the publisher of Bellesiles's book, indicated that it does not intend to withdraw the book.
The AP report noted that the paperback edition published by Vintage"includes corrections." Critics have charged that the paperback contains numerous errors. A new edition of the paperback with a fresh introduction by Bellesiles was scheduled for publication in 2003. It remains unclear if the publisher will issue the new edition. Bellesiles has stated that the new edition would contain many corrections.
Reached by telephone shortly after the announcement was made, Bellesiles told the New York Times:"I have nothing to say."
The statement by the board of trustees included the following statements:
Columbia University's Trustees have voted to rescind the Bancroft Prize awarded last year to Michael Bellesiles for his book Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture. The Trustees made the decision. Based on a review of an investigation of charges of scholarly misconduct against Professor Bellesiles by Emory University and other assessments by professional historians. They concluded that he had violated basic norms of scholarship and the high standards expected of Bancroft Prize winners. The Trustees voted to rescind the Prize during their regularly scheduled meeting on December 7, 2002 and have notified Professor Bellesiles of their decision....Columbia's Trustees considered the report of the Emory investigating committee and Professor Bellesiles' response to it. They also considered assessments by professional historians of the subject matter of that report.
After considering all of these materials, the Trustees concurred with the three distinguished scholars who reviewed the case for Emory University that Professor Bellesiles had violated basic norms of acceptable scholarly conduct. They consequently concluded that his book had not and does not meet the standards they had established for the Bancroft Prize.
In making their decision, the Trustees emphasized that the judgment to rescind the Bancroft Prize was based solely on the evaluation of the questionable scholarship of the work and had nothing to do with the book's content or the author's point of view.
Eric Foner came under attack on December 16, in an article published by National Review . Melissa Secora, citing a student's account, reported that Foner allegedly attempted"to suppress knowledge of possible problems with the book" after the Bancroft Prize was announced but before it was awarded:
"On April 4, I e-mailed members of the history department and the Bancroft committee with a summary of the case against Bellesiles including some clear cases of fraud. I received no responses," explains Ron Lewenberg, then president of the CCCC [Columbia College Conservative Club]. He tried again and was shunned again."I was not allowed to put the packets in the mailboxes of professors and staff, so with the approval of the secretary, I placed them on the desk. According to a friendly TA, whose anonymity I have kept secret for the protection of his career, Professor Eric Foner, saw the handouts and threw a fit. All of the packets were thrown out."On the day the Bancroft was awarded to Bellesiles two weeks later, Secora reported, the CCCC held a rountable symposium devoted to his book:"Not a single Bancroft committee member or member of the school's history department attended."
By the fall of 2002 enough questions had been raised about the book that Columbia began a careful slow review that culminated in the withdrawal of the prize last week, according to Columbia Provost Jonathan Cole. Columbia even asked outside historians to begin an independent review of the book's merits.
But National Review noted that critics believe the school easily could have determined earlier that the book was seriously flawed. The article cited a comment by Joyce Malcolm:"The sad part is that if the prize committee had taken the trouble to read the serious criticism of the book before bestowing this award they would never have been put in this embarrassing situation. The award was meant to be for a work of impeccable scholarship, and it was clear before April 2001 that Arming America was not such a book."
HNN contacted Mr. Foner for a response to the National Review article. This was his reply:
There is something entirely implausible about Mr. Lewenberg's account. The mailboxes of history professors in Fayerweather Hall are in a public hallway. Anyone can leave material in the mailboxes at any time. We receive not only mail, but term papers, announcements of campus events, etc. in these boxes. They have large slots in the front and his materials could easily have been placed in each mailbox without the permission of anybody. In addition, I absolutely deny throwing out materials relating to this controversy or anything else -- I would never do such a thing.My quote about the Bancroft committee was simply an attempt to explain to the reporter how such prize committees generally operate. I was not on the committee that awarded the prize to Bellesiles and obviously know nothing specific about their deliberations.
Editor's Note: Mr. Lewenberg responded to Mr. Foner in a posted comment on HNN.
On December 19, 2002 the Wall Street Journal congratulated Columbia University for withdrawing the Bancroft Prize and denounced Knopf for keeping the book in circulation:
Released in 2000, the book caused a sensation among the left, who used it to bolster their anti-gun readings of the Second Amendment. The plaudits piled around the Emory historian -- that is, until serious scholars began to examine his work.Their dogged investigations found that Mr. Bellesiles's truth wasn't just stranger than fiction -- it was fiction. By October, an academic panel declared his scholarship"unprofessional and misleading," and Emory announced his resignation. Finally, Columbia's trustees announced the book didn't meet their standards and revoked the Bancroft.
Unfortunately, Mr. Bellesiles's shoddy work lives on. A federal appeals court referred to it in a footnote in a decision this month upholding a California gun ban. And even as the controversy kicked in, a Knopf imprint released a paperback version, which again extolled his Bancroft Prize. Might we suggest that Knopf send out stickers -- of the sort stores affix to books after authors win prizes. Only these would read: First Ever Loser of the Bancroft Prize.
The week following the withdrawl of the Bancroft Prize, Jerome Sternstein, writing in HNN, assailed Knopf for keeping the Bellesiles book in circulation. Mr. Sternstein concluded:
It is clear that the impact of this scandal on Knopf's reputation as the premier publisher of history trade books is likely to be considerable. If Knopf continues to stand"behind" Arming America and fails to confront the fact that it is not simply a slightly flawed book that can be tinkered with and fixed with a few" corrections" here and there but it is rather a deeply dishonest book, one that is racked by invented, falsified, and grossly distorted renderings of the historical record, then Knopf will be doing itself and its great publishing tradition a monumental disservice. More importantly, however, by keeping Arming America in print and not recalling it Knopf will be doing an even greater disservice to the reading public. It will be saying to those who care about history that even America's leading publisher is more concerned with profits than integrity, and is more interested in selling deceitful, though politically correct books than works of enduring merit. The editors at Knopf need to rethink their position, just as Emory University and Columbia University reconsidered their positions. And they need to do so quickly. They should cease printing the Vintage paperback of Arming America and recall all remaining copies from the bookstores. They can do no less and live up to the example of the firm's founder who, though he valued loyalty to his authors, valued scholarly integrity and intellectual honesty even more.
History News Network Poll: The week of December 16, 2002 HNN asked readers if they think Knopf should withdraw the Bellesiles book from circulation. As of Friday December 20, 487 readers had responded; 61 percent indicated that Knopf SHOULD NOT withdraw the book.
On the afternoon of Friday December 20, the software used to measure the number of readers responding to our poll jumped in the course of a few hours from fewer than 500 to over 1,800. The overwhelming number of votes cast during this brief period were"no." Between Friday afternoon and Saturday afternoon, in yet another sudden shift, thousands of"yes" votes were cast. The sharp increase in"no" votes on Friday afternoon and"yes" votes afterwards cast doubt on the poll's reliability as a measure of reader response.
Apologists for Bellesiles have argued on several occasions that anybody can make mistakes. As evidence they have pointed to a passage in the Emory Report taking James Lindgren to task for mistakenly claiming in his Yale Law Journal article that 57 percent of the troops in one unit of a 600-man Connecticut militia assembled to invade Canada in 1746 were armed. In fact, 57 percent of the men belonging to this one unit--the least-armed unit in the militia--were unarmed. As soon as the mistake was brought to his attention, Lindgren corrected his article and owned up to the mistake on HNN and other websites.
That was the end of the matter until a pro-Bellesiles writer self-identified on HNN's discussion board as "Benny Smith" again assailed Lindgren for making an error. That prompted Lindgren to post an extended explanation on December 20, 2002. In the course of his comment, posted on HNN, Lindgren noted that the Emory Report itself included several mistakes and misleading statements. This was the first time he had publicly drawn attention to them. For one, he wrote,"referring to fact that 57% were unarmed in the worst armed unit, the report stated, 'In this case, Bellesiles' number was right.'"
As the Emory Report makes clear [elsewhere], however, this number is not the right number for the state of arms of the Connecticut militia, which is what Bellesiles said the 57% applied to. It is the right number for the state of the worst armed unit, which is something Arming America offered no numbers for. So Bellesiles's number is not right as applied to what he applied it to.
In the conclusion to his post Lindgren took note of several other flaws in the Report:
The Emory Report makes several small errors in describing the 1746 CT militia. It considers a “hanger” a person, when a hanger was a “sword,” an error that slightly affects their count of the state of arms. They assume that a unit has its full complement of 100 men, when [historian Robert] Churchill reports that the background records show that the unit had only 98 men, another apparent mistake that slightly affects their count.Most significantly for me, the Report claims that I misread documents that I never read, mentioned, cited, or claimed to have read, even attributing to me the research assistant’s own ignorance about the meaning of the word “hanger.” If I had counted the original 1746 CT records, I would have cited them, rather than citing just Churchill.
At the annual meeting of the American Historical Association (AHA) in 2003 one session was likely to draw more attention than all the others: Session No. 161, which was scheduled to be held in the Hilton Waldorf Room on Sunday January 5 at 11 AM:"Comparative Legal Perspectives on Gun Control." Two historians were to present papers: Peter Squires of the University of Brighton and Michael Bellesiles, who was supposed to talk about"The Interaction of Law and Culture: Guns and the Common Law in Early America," a subject he studied during his controversial year-long fellowship at the Newberry Library.
According to the AHA's Arnita Jones, Bellesiles was still scheduled to appear at the session, which was selected months ago, as of the end of November; that is, after the release of the Emory Report. At that time she told HNN:"We expect a vigorous debate among the many scholars who are intensely interested in Mr. Bellesiles' and others work on this subject."
At the end of December, however, the panel was abruptly cancelled. Jones told HNN:"The participants decided to cancel and notified us."
The OAH, it was disclosed in early January 2003, arranged for Jon Wiener, the long-time defender of Michael Bellesiles, to host a" chat room" concerning the Bellesiles scandal at the annual meeting of the organization in Memphis. Chat rooms are informal venues designed to give scholars an opportunity to consider topics of interest to the profession. OAH executive director Lee W. Formwalt told HNN:
"Since the Bellesiles controversy is an important one for our profession, and since there was not enough time after the release of the Emory report to create a special session for the Memphis meeting (we do plan to have such a session at the 2004 meeting in Boston), we decided to use the chat room as a vehicle for discussion by individuals registered for the annual meeting."
Upon learning about Wiener's selection, Ralph Luker objected on the grounds that Wiener was not an expert on the history of guns. Formwalt then asked Luker if he would like to serve as co-host of the chat room."I think you would provide a good balance in leading this informal discussion," Formwalt told Luker in an email. Luker declined:"I think it would be inappropriate for me to co-host the chatroom session because one of my objections to Jon's solo hosting was [that he was] inappropriate because he had no particular expertise in the field. If I cohosted the session, it would only mean that both cohosts lacked any expertise in the field."
On the afternoon of January 8, 2003 the OAH asked Paul Finkelman, Chapman Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Tulsa College of Law, to join Jon Wiener as co-host of the Bellesiles chat room. Finkelman promptly agreed. (Mr. Finkelman is known to HNN readers for a lively debate with Clayton Cramer in July 2001 concerning Timothy McVeigh.)
On January 8, 2003 the Associated Press reported that Knopf had decided to stop selling the Bellesiles book and to end its contractual relationship. Bellesiles reportedly had offered to revise the book; the revisions were considered inadequate. The decision to cancel the book contract was made weeks ago but not disclosed.
Jane Garrett, Bellesiles's editor, told the AP:"I still do not believe in any shape or form he fabricated anything. He's just a sloppy researcher."
Knopf told the wire service that Arming America had sold 8,000 in hardback and 16,000 in paperback.
In the February newsletter of the OAH historian Jon Wiener, the Nation columnist, disputed the significance of the findings of the Emory Report, noting that it"found 'evidence of falsification' ... only on one page: Table 1, 'Percentage of probate inventories listing firearms.'"
In fact, the probate records criticized by the committee are referred to only in a handful of paragraphs in a four-hundred page book, and Table 1 is cited in the text only a couple of times. If Bellesiles had omitted all of the probate data that the committee and others have criticized, the book's argument would remain a strong one, supported by a wide variety of other evidence that the committee did not challenge.Wiener noted that Bellesilles had offered an explanation--reasonable to Wiener--that the table omitted two years of data (1774-1775)"not to deceive readers, but because those years were not relevant to his thesis: 'the colonial governments were passing out firearms to the members of their militia . . . in preparation for the expected confrontation with Great Britain' therefore these two years give 'an inaccurate portrait of peacetime gun ownership' by individuals."
Wiener went on to contrast what happened to Bellesiles's career with that of the historian whose book about Denmark Vesey had to be withdrawn and then reissued because of transcription errors. Both historians had been subjected to criticism at the same time and coincidentally in the same issue of the William and Mary Quarterly:
In the Bellesiles case, the parallel would be the publication of a revised edition with errors corrected. Indeed, Bellesiles had conceded serious problems in his probate data, and was working on correcting those errors when he and his publisher parted ways in early January. His plans included a corrected version of Table 1. Do Gray, Katz, and Ulrich consider that an appropriate resolution of the problems they found? They refuse to say.Wiener closed with a vigorous condemnation of the authors of the Emory Report, arguing that they had"abdicated their intellectual responsibility" by letting the pro-gun crowd--which has tried to discredit the book by"focusing attention on errors in a tiny portion of the documentation"--set the terms of the debate.
As a result, their report has ominous implications for other historians dealing with controversial issues. Of course every historian has an obligation to provide full and accurate citations of evidence in a form that makes it possible for others to replicate their work. But I know of one historian coming up for tenure who, after reading the Emory report on Bellesiles, decided to remove all the tables from his book manuscript, to treat the evidence anecdotally instead, in order to avoid facing the same kind of critique.
In the February 2003 newsletter of the OAH executive director Lee Formwalt argued that the Bellesiles controversy cannot be put to bed as quickly as some would like:
Although the case appears to be closed for many observers, the Bellesiles matter, like many historical problems, is not a simple matter of determining unprofessional conduct, condemning it, and moving on. As professional historians, we offer our readers, students, and clients a complex understanding of the past, often with inherent tensions. Why should this case be any different? Yet, there has been a growing drumbeat, fed by the media, to condemn Bellesiles and move quickly beyond this unpleasant affair. The questions that historian Jon Wiener ... and others raise, however, indicate this is not the simple open and shut case that some believe it to be. We have an obligation to deal with ambiguity and tension in this matter and not simply wash our hands of it. Wiener's essay and his article in The Nation touch on these matters. Other concerns have been raised and others, no doubt, will be raised. OAH provides members with the logical forum in which to discuss various perspectives on matters ranging from the use/abuse of probate data to the bigger issues of trust in the world of research and publication.In mid-February 2003
Soft Skull Press announced that it would be issuing a revised edition of Arming America. From the press release:
"This is not the first time it has fallen to Soft Skull to ensure the American public can read books the Right doesn't like," says Publisher Richard Nash."It is imperative that we stand up to the NRA smear machine. We believe in allowing readers to evaluate for themselves how Bellesiles has responded to the legitimate criticisms and whether the core thesis of the book-the undermining of the creation myth of the Second Amendment-stands up."The book will feature a new introduction by the author, as well as several clarifications concerning research and a new Table One (the original being the source of much of the controversy) in which the author recreates the contested data.
"I challenge anyone to show how the revised paragraphs addressing probate materials undermine in any way the thesis or logical structure of this book," said Bellesiles, who is currently teaching in the U.K.
In March the NYT published a provocative cartoon by Alan Stamaty ridiculing Bellesiles. In one panel Bellesiles can be seen shooting a hole through his own foot.
On December 16, 2003 Soft Skull Press issued a news release indicating that a revised and corrected edition of Arming America would be published on December 18. Along with the press release the publisher distributed a pamphlet to the media which outlines Mr. Bellesiles's response to his critics:
Please find enclosed a gratis copy of the pamphlet Weighed in an Even Balance by Michael Bellesiles. Bellesiles, for those of you unfamiliar with the name, is the former Emory professor who wrote Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture. Published to critical acclaim in 2001—“Bellesiles has dispersed the darkness that covered the gun's early history in America. He provides overwhelming evidence that our view of the gun is as deep a superstition as any that affected Native Americans in the 17th century,” wrote Garry Wills in the New York Times Book Review—the book and its author were subjected to vicious attack by the pro-gun Right. In an orchestrated series of web and print articles, organs such as the History News Network and the National Review furiously denounced the book.However, serious historians also raised a number of questions concerning what appeared to be sloppy research. In the January 2002 issue of the William and Mary Quarterly, some of Bellesiles’s research in probate records was criticized for misattribution and lack of verifiability. Facing a political firestorm, Emory University in Atlanta appointed a committee to investigate the allegations. Following the committee’s report (available on Emory University’s website), Bellesiles resigned from Emory, and Columbia University rescinded the prestigious Bancroft Prize it had awarded the author. In early 2003 Random House decided to end their contractual relationship with the author. Shortly thereafter, I announced that Soft Skull Press would issue a revised version of the book.
The enclosed outlines exactly what changes the author has, and has not, made to Arming America. It demonstrates, I believe, that the totality of any errors Bellesiles (wittingly or unwittingly, I hold the latter) introduced into the book’s text do not undermine the central thesis of the book.
This will no doubt come as a surprise to many. The conventional wisdom is that this book is “discredited.” The idea that a few changes could be made that address the totality of the legitimate criticism is at odds with the widely-held perception that the book irredeemably flawed, lock, stock and two crooked barrels. We knew that if this book were allowed to disappear, the publishing records would reflect this perception only. The world would believe Bellesiles was completely wrong. This, to me, was a completely unacceptable outcome. Financially it perhaps made little sense for Knopf/Vintage to keep it in print, or to issue a revised edition, but if there’s a larger cultural raison d’etre for independent publishers, it’s to keep important books like this one available to the American public, especially when it is necessary in order to counteract a campaign that was 1/10 truth, 9/10 smear.
Click here to read excerpts from the pamphlet, Weighed in an Even Balance.
Click here to read responses by Jerome Sternstein, James Lindgren and Clayton Cramer.
Disqus seems to be taking longer than usual. Reload?
MORE COMMENTS:
Norman Brendan Coulson - 10/2/2009
The Graccahiae have little woth praising about them. The Senators didn't kill them because of their land reform efforts. They left numerous tribunes historically who advocated popular policies alone. Most of them were not in the least bit corrupted members like Cato the Younger, and his ancestor Cato the Elder were great ascetics. This was the group that refused control of Egypt(a wealthy kingdom) when it was offered to them. On the other hand Tiberius caused a riot in Rome and drew it into a bloody war to conquer Pergumum. And when Gaius came to power corruption spiralled out of control when he gave control of the courts to the Equestrians.
Earl D. Quammen - 2/23/2008
The following explains our God-given, Inherent and Inalienable Natural Right as it was INTENDED by the men whom framed our Constitution:
"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government . . . The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms..."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #28.
http://gunshowonthenet.com/FederalistPapers/FedNo28.html
"The opinion of the Federalist has always been considered as of great authority. It is a complete commentary on our Constitution; and is appealed to by all parties in the questions to which that instrument has given birth. Its intrinsic merit entitles it to this high rank; and the part two of its authors performed in framing the constitution, put it very much in their power to explain the views with which it was framed..."
- Chief Justice John Marshall, U.S. Supreme Court, Cohens v. Virginia (1821).
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/CohensvVirginia.html
"Also, the conditions and circumstances of the period require a finding that while the stated purpose of the right to arms was to secure a well-regulated militia, the right to self-defense was assumed by the Framers."
- John Marshall, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice. [As quoted in Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846); State v. Dawson, 272 N.C. 535, 159 S.E.2d 1, 9 (1968).]
http://gunshowonthenet.com/AfterTheFact/NunnVsState.html
“Afforded us by God & Nature”
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/AffordedGodNature.html
“Agreed to found our Rights upon the Laws of Nature....”
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/LawsofNature.html
“...Which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them...”
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/God&;Nature.html
Life, Liberty and Property
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/LifeLibertyProperty.html
George Washington: Concerning Arms in the hands of the People
http://gunshowonthenet.com/SecondAmend/GeorgeWashingtonArms.html
"the overruling law of self preservation"
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/SelfPreservation.html
'for the common defence' (?)
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Precedent/SenateJournal09091789.html
"Rights of the citizen declared to be --"
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/CitizensRight.html
"The Right to Self Defense"
http://gunshowonthenet.com/AfterTheFact/RightofDefense.html
"The right of self-defence never ceases. It is among the most sacred, and alike necessary to nations and to individuals."
- President James Monroe, Nov. 16, 1818 message to the U.S. House and Senate. [Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, November 17th, 1818.]
http://gunshowonthenet.com/AfterTheFact/Senate11171818.html
Right to Keep and Bear Arms - Historical Directories:
Origins
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Origins.html
Precedent
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Origins&;Precedent.html
After The Fact
http://gunshowonthenet.com/AfterTheFact/Contents.html
Amendment II and the Law
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/Contents.html
"No, surely, No! they meant to drive us into what they termed rebellion, that they might be furnished with a pretext to disarm and then strip us of the rights and privileges of Englishmen and Citizens."
- George Washington, March 1, 1778 letter to Bryan Fairfax, Valley forge.
Earl D. Quammen - 2/23/2008
The REAL ORIGINAL INTENT behind the Second Amendment:
The Shay's Insurrection, "These the Legislature could not infringe, without bringing upon themselves the detestation of mankind, and the frowns of Heaven", Jan. 12, 1787
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Precedent/ShaysInsurrection01121787.html
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, "and shall obtain an order for the re-delivery of such arms", Feb. 16, 1787
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Precedent/CommonwealthOfMass02161787.html
Journals of the Continental Congress, "...impolitic and not to be reconciled with the genius of free Govts...", Feb. 19. 1787
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Precedent/ContCongress02191787.html
Letters of Delegates to Congress, "...An Act to disarm and Disfranchise for three years...", Feb. 27th, 1787
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Precedent/AnActToDisarm02271787.html
Letters of Delegates to Congress, "...this act has created more universal disgust than any other of Government...", March 6, 1787
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Precedent/IrvineToWilson03061787.html
Journals of the Continental Congress, "That a large body of armed insurgents, did make their appearance...", March 13, 1787
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Precedent/ContCongress03131787.html
James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, "a great proportion of the offenders chuse rather to risk the consequences of their treason, than submit to the conditions annexed to the amnesty", March 19, 1787
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Precedent/MadisonToJefferson03191787.html
A Proclamation, "and of being again renewed to the arms of their country, and once more enjoying the rights of free citizens of the Commonwealth", June 15, 1787
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/AProclamation06151787.html
The Debates in the Federal Convention, "...let the citizens of Massachusetts be disarmed. . . . It would be regarded as a system of despotism.", Aug. 23, 1787
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Precedent/FedDebates08231787.html
James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, "A constitutional negative on the laws of the States seems equally necessary to secure individuals agst. encroachments on their rights", Oct. 24, 1787
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Precedent/MadisonToJefferson10241787.html
"The people cannot be all, & always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independent 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusetts: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen-yard in order. I hope in God this article will be rectified before the new constitution is accepted."
- Thomas Jefferson, Nov. 13, 1787 letter to William S. Smith.
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Precedent/JeffersonToSmith11131787.html
That's RIGHT people, it was intended to SECURE the God-given, Natural, Inherent and Inalienable Right of those that HAD transgressed the law. ALL 'gun control laws' are REPUGNANT to the U.S. Constitution.
Benny Smith - 7/19/2004
"Except that the sources which Williams quotes, and which aren't favorable to Bellesiles, predate the source you quote."
What Mr. Williams provided was his report and interpretation of what those historical figures said, not those historical figures speaking in their own words, so we’re back to the original subject title of this thread.
Name Removed at Poster's Request - 6/3/2004
Here's an item from Clayton Cramer's weblog discussing costs of guns during colonial times, and comparing their cost to the cost of bread:
http://www.claytoncramer.com/weblog/2004_05_23_archive.html#108587418604973544
Andrew Ackerman - 4/25/2004
Oh... so Smith was booted from HNN? Anyone else have any correspondence with him/Bellesiles?
-Andrew
Richard Henry Morgan - 3/11/2004
PS
If you check the California state statutes, for instance, you'll see that at least California continues the custom of adding it's own list of exemptions to the state militia, and the Governor can call out the state militia (apparently) at his whim, without asking the federal government:
CALIFORNIA CODES
MILITARY AND VETERANS CODE
SECTION 120-130
120. The militia of the State shall consist of the National Guard,
State Military Reserve and the Naval Militia--which constitute the
active militia --and the unorganized militia.
121. The unorganized militia consists of all persons liable to
service in the militia, but not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.
122. The militia of the State consists of all able-bodied male
citizens and all other able-bodied males who have declared their
intention to become citizens of the United States, who are between
the ages of eighteen and forty-five, and who are residents of the
State, and of such other persons as may upon their own application be
enlisted or commissioned therein pursuant to the provisions of this
division, subject, however, to such exemptions as now exist or may be
hereafter created by the laws of the United States or of this State.
123. Whenever the Governor deems it necessary, he or she may order
an enrollment to be made by officers designated by the Governor, of
all persons liable to service in the militia. The enrollment shall
include any information that the Governor may require. Three copies
thereof shall be made: one copy shall be filed in the office of the
clerk of the county in which the enrollment is made, and two copies
in the office of the Adjutant General.
124. Enrollment shall be made upon such notice and in such manner
as the Governor may direct. Every person required by such notice to
enroll who fails or refuses so to do is guilty of a misdemeanor.
125. The following persons shall be exempt from military service:
(a) Persons exempt from military service by the laws of the United
States.
(b) Regular or duly ordained ministers of religion.
(c) Students preparing for the ministry in recognized theological
or divinity schools.
(d) Pilots and mariners actually employed in sea service by a
citizen of the United States.
The above persons shall not be exempt from enrollment but shall
file verified claims for exemption from military service in such
forms and manner as the Governor may direct.
126. The Governor shall appoint boards in number and personnel as
will best accomplish the enrollment and such boards shall be vested
with the authority and power of passing upon and determining the
claims of exemption filed under section 125. An appeal to the
Governor may be taken from the decision of the boards by the State or
any person interested in the matter and within the time prescribed
in regulations promulgated by the Governor.
127. When the National Guard and Naval Militia are on duty as a
combined force at any time, the commanding officer of the whole force
shall be designated by the Governor. When two or more officers are
on duty in the same place, camp, field, command or organization, the
Governor may assign the command to any one of such officers without
regard to seniority of rank or branch of service.
128. The unorganized militia may be called for active duty in case
of war, rebellion, insurrection, invasion, tumult, riot, breach of
the peace, public calamity or catastrophe, or other emergency, or
imminent danger thereof, or may be called forth for service under the
Constitution and laws of the United States. Whenever it is
necessary to call out any portion of the unorganized militia, the
Governor may call for and accept as many volunteers as are required
for such service, under regulations provided by this division.
129. Every member of the militia who is ordered out, or who
volunteers or is drafted under the provisions of this division and
who does not appear at the time and place designated by the Governor,
or under his authority, within twenty-four hours from such time, and
who does not produce a sworn certificate of physical disability from
a physician in good standing, is a deserter and shall be dealt with
as prescribed in the Articles of War of the United States, or by this
division.
130. Members of the militia of the state shall not be segregated on
the basis of race, national origin or ancestry, or color, nor
discriminated against on such basis in enlistments, promotions, or
commissions.
It is hereby declared to be the policy of the State of California
that there shall be equality of treatment and opportunity for all
members of the militia of the state without regard to race, national
origin or ancestry, or color. Such policy shall be put into effect
in the militia by rules and regulations to be issued by the Governor
with due regard to the powers of the federal government which are, or
may, be exercised over all the militia of the state, and to the time
required to effectuate changes without impairing the efficiency or
morale of the militia.
------------
So the question suggests itself. Is the right guaranteed by the Second Amendment "muted" by the fact that the Governor has not called out the militia, or had all enrolled, or had them drill? U&M; suggest yes. I'm not sure. In any case, should the Governor actually enroll every citizen (plus), would that be enough to give the Second "voice" under U&M;'s view?
Richard Henry Morgan - 3/11/2004
Don and Josh, I'm not sure we really disagree all that much.
As I think you pointed out before, Don, the National Guard is authorized under the military power, not the militia clause. It is a select militia. And further federal legislation gives the Governor of a state the ability to apply for its use. This obviously goes beyond the militia clause.
When Rufus King reported out of the Committee of Style, he explained thet the federal constitutional power to provide ofr organizing the militia meant deciding what portion were officers, what portion enlisted. Since I don't put much store in Madison's notes (for all kinds of reasons I've beaten to death elsewhere), I rely instead on the exact same distinction being made in Congressional debates that do form a part of legislative history for purposes of analysis. This is supported by the fact that states maintained their right to exempt people from militia service -- the definition of who was eligible or mandated for militia service was left to the states.
Then the Knox proposals "clarified" this body, followed by the Militia Act of 1792. But, I submit, the power to define membership in the militia is not within the power of the federal government -- it is only within its power when it defines a militia for the purposes of the draft and the National Guard (which are not within the meaning of the militia in the militia clause of the Constitution).
What I'm saying is we have two animals here: (1) the militia of the Constitution, as found in the militia clauses and the Second Amendment (to be defined by the states); (2) the militia defined by US Code, for the purposes of drafting and the National Guard (to be defined by the federal government).
My thesis is that the definition of the militia for militia clause and Second Amendment purposes lies beyond the power of the federal government. So even if Uviller and Merkel are followed, and there is no militia corresponding to the militia of the militia clauses and the Second Amendment (because the states have not exercised the power), the right (whether individual or collective) of the Second Amendment could be activated simply by state statute defining the militia. Everything else said on the militia defintion front is either just federal usurpation of state power, or federal defintion for purposes of its military power and National Guard. Or, the militia of the militia clauses and the Second Amendment is simply the common law definition -- all citizens.
In either case, Don, we're on the same page. I'm not committed to agreeing with Uviller and Merkel, just saying that even their objection could be met by having a state enact a militia statute. Most states have, but they have blindly dovetailed theirs to the federal definition (for the most part), apparently unaware that they have separate authority. U&M; haven't addressed my possibility -- at least not in their Chicago-kent paper, though maybe in their book (which I haven't read). What I do find amusing is all the collectivists merely assume that "organizing" (a federal power) includes defining membership. Rakove does this, based on a "plain meaning" of the Constitution, apparently unaware that history goes against him (funny, for a historian). It is all the more "amusing" inasmuch as Rakove quotes King from the very same page (when it suits Rakove's purpose) of Madison's notes, and then promptly forgets King and retreats to a "plain meaning" when King runs against his preferred interpretation. The virus of Wills spreads. Bad logic by Wills, Bellesiles, Finkelman, and now Rakove.
Don Williams - 3/10/2004
Something I forgot to point out above: The concept of the militia has always been that it is largely inactive until a time of danger. As Madison noted in the Federalist, societies have economic difficulty in supporting much more than 2% of the population as full time soldiers --and such "standing armies" are a temptation for abuse by central authority.
The idea, propounded by Bellesiles and gun control advocates, that the militia is ineffective is nonsense. Only a small percentage of the US army is actual combat troops and roughly 40% of those combat troops are National Guard. If you look at the nine weeks of National Guard basic training, only about 2.5 weeks are spent on actual combat training.
(Over time, however, Guard members in Combat MOSs do take advanced infantry training.)
Moreover, many modern military skills (radio communication with combat support and service support units, avoidance of fratricide, Military Code of Justice, organization of the US military, drill and cermonies, etc.) would be irrelevant to an insurgency.
By contrast, many skills relevant to an insurgency ( improvised explosives, industrial sabotage, covert communications, surveillance detection,etc.) are not taught even to army combat troops --although such skills are obviously known by operatives in the CIA's Clandestine Service and the Green Berets.
Don Williams - 3/10/2004
In a curious sign that even negative publicity can help sales, the Soft Skull edition of Arming America rose in sales rank at Amazon.com -- from around 900,000 to around 99,000 as noted above-- for a week or two after the Wall Street Journal article. However, it has since fallen back to around 690,262. At BarnesNoble.com, it's sales rank is holding at a very low level (397,602 ). It may be that some sales are occurring due to academic sales --i.e, to Arming America being used as an example in courses on historical method (see, e.g, http://www.history.ccsu.edu/syllabi/Warshauer_syllabus501.htm , http://www.unc.edu/depts/history/faculty/pdf/hist209hoffert.pdf ).
The Idaho Librarian has an interesting post mortum on Arming America at
http://www.idaholibraries.org/newidaholibrarian/200305/RecordEnrichedII.htm .
Don Williams - 3/10/2004
Re your comment above: "the right is conditioned on the actual existence of a militia, which no longer exists in the US "
I would point to US Code Title 10, Part I, Chapter 13
("The Militia"), Sect 311:
---------------
"Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female
citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are--
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Ref: http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/title10/subtitlea_parti_chapter13_.html
----
The above definition is what, in part, gives Congress the power to draft men into military service.
In my opinion, the above definition is merely a clarification. Congress does NOT have the constitutional power to define who is a member of the militia -- else Congress could restrict membership to "all registered Republicans of the Caucasian race".
The militia consists of ALL citizens. At the time the Constitution was created, citizenship (right to vote) was free white males --in some cases, with property requirements. Since then, the duties and privileges of citizenship has been expanded to a broader mass of the people.
Congress only controls the organization of the militia , who is in active federal service at any one time, and who (state governor or President) has operational control at any one time.
Congress has no power over state officials --hence, the exemption for state officials from militia duties in section 312. The number of official positions in a state could be greatly expanded if a state government so chose.
Curiously enough, Congress has indicated in Section 312 that state legislators are not exempt from militia duties. (heh heh heh)
Name Removed at Poster's Request - 3/10/2004
"Now maybe Uviller and Merkel have a point -- the right is conditioned on the actual existence of a militia, which no longer exists in the US (the National Guard is organized and authorized under the military provision of the federal constitution, not the militia clauses)."
I thought I'd read that as recently as 1970s some law somewhere in the federal code said that the militia was basically all able-bodied adults (amended at that time from all able-bodied men) capable of bearing arms.
Phil Lee - 3/9/2004
I'd take the win at the Federal level since that would invalidate Federal regulations that prevent a person going to another state to buy a firearm.
The elimination of that Federal law, so obviously in violation of the equal protection of the law provision in the Constitution, would allow our states to operate to protect freedom by placing the burden for stupid local requlations on the individual states that wanted them.
So, states wanting to ban or license handgun ownership could pass their own laws which would operate only in their jurisdictions. These states would have the burden of finding and prosecution citizens going to another state to buy what was legal in that state. It would be impossible, and only regulations of genuine merit (those passed in most of the states) would survive.
Richard Henry Morgan - 3/8/2004
I don't happen to agree with Judge Kozinski on this matter -- that's why I stated it as a hypothetical. Here's the actual wording from the Miller decision:
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158."
Here's the rub. The appeal (by the US government) came to the Supreme Court directly, as the District court had sustained a demurrer -- they quashed the original indictment before the matter ever went to trial. Thus, no evidence was ever taken in the case, and the Supreme Court only has appellate jurisdiction in this area.
Seems that Miller was a bootlegger who jumped bail once the District court ruled, and was not represented before the Supreme Court. Having only appellate jurisdiction, the Supreme Court is not a determiner of fact, but only law. This throws a different light on the wording of Miller. The Supreme Court does not say that an individual right to a sawed-off shotgun is not protected by the Second Amendment. It says it can't decide the issue based on the evidence -- there is no evidence, as the case came to them on appeal from a demurrer. The Supreme Court then says it can't decide the matter by judicial notice -- judicial notice meaning a fact so indisputable that a judge need not take evidence on the matter (such as, say, the law of gravity).
Now why would the Court even entertain the notion of judicial notice if it had just, in the previous line, said the weapon was outside the scope of Second Amendment protection? Secondly, the Supreme Court cites a Tennessee Supreme Court decision (!!) interpreting the differently worded Tennessee constitutional provision. That is the Aymette decision. Now why is the Supreme Court citing a Tennessee decision based on its own constitution? Beats me. But the interesting fact is the Tennessee Supreme Court in Aymette said citizens had an unqualified right to keep arms, but not an unqualified right to bear arms!!
And Miller even says of the militia: "when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." Miller even defines the militia thus:
"The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense."
Now maybe Uviller and Merkel have a point -- the right is conditioned on the actual existence of a militia, which no longer exists in the US (the National Guard is organized and authorized under the military provision of the federal constitution, not the militia clauses). In any case, it's not clear that the Supreme Court addressed Miller on the merits -- it remands the case to the District for further action (but the appeal was multiple -- there was more than one issue implicated). If it did address it on the Second Amendment merits, then it granted standing, which seems to preclude a collective right interpretation (Kozinski's point).
In this case (Silveira) there is another issue. Even if the Supreme Court did recognize that it had decided, via standing, for an individual right, that does not apply to the states. California is still free to ban assault weapons, as the Supreme Court has never held that the 14th Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment as a limitation on state power. The NRA could win the federal case, and still lose out at the state level.
Matt Siroki - 3/6/2004
If the that is the case, one would think the NRA would challenge the assault weapons ban. However, I think the NRA realizes they would face certain defeat.
Ronald W Best - 3/3/2004
The latest Amazon.com sales rank for the new edition of Arming America is 689,269.
Tim Lambert - 2/27/2004
I guess it must be one of those irregular verbs the way you use it: Lott was "gaming Amazon" whereas Bellesiles was "lying through his teeth". So when Lott wrote: "A couple of friends of mine have been nagging me to read this book for a couple of years. When the second edition came out I finally gave in and got it (for $9.60 I couldn’t argue that the price was too high). Anyway, I am only sorry that I didn’t read this book earlier. As an academic and a person who has been somewhat anti-gun,...", he wasn't lying, no sir, he was just GAMING.
And thanks for letting us know what the real problem with Lott is. Apparently it's not that he fabricated a table, it's that I'm "shrill". The post is here, if anyone wants to judge themselves:
http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/2004/02#athletesguns2
Alec H Lloyd - 2/18/2004
I refer to it as "gaming" because that is what it is, just as having your buddy write a favorable review in the NY Times Book Review is "gaming" the system.
Perhaps you are aware that partisans regularly manipulate Google searches and other reviews using public input? It is a form of advertising.
Amazon makes no claim that every reviewer is thoroughly vetted or has even read the book in question. The reviews there are exactly what they purport to be: testimonials from people you don't know.
Now whether you think it is more dishonest to have a bunch of friendly academics pose as unbiased reviewers in a major publication or write glowing emails on a public site is your business.
I think they're equally tawdry, but also part of the rough-and-tumble world of book sales.
However, I see neither as a career-ending offense. Do you?
As for your obsession with Lott, you are merely the latest entreant into a cottage industry. I've watched Lott get creamed from the day he released his data. Most of his early critics were incompetent, which is partly why your (perhaps more valid) arguments are getting short shrift.
To many of us, it seems like more of the same old. To put it bluntly, the gun control movement uses so much junk science that your criticisms of Lott seem simply like background noise. Indeed, I have to wonder if he does things now just to make you even more irate.
I went to your web site last week where you were having a fit over some chart he quoted and I have to admit the thought did occur to me: does he do this just to get under your skin? He knows you're watching Mr. Lambert.
Assuming he is the charlatan you say, he may also know that the more shrill you get, the less people will listen.
That is why I suggested that you confine your criticisms to a few very narrow and specific areas. Once those are proven, we can try him for rigging Amazon's review system.
Richard Henry Morgan - 2/18/2004
Cornell is an ingenious constitutional historian. But he's not a lawyer or jurist. If Judge Alex Kozinski (in his dissent in the enbanc opinion in Silveira) is correct, and the US Supreme Court addressed Miller on the merits vis-a-vis his Second Amendment appeal (and a collective right would be inconsistent with standing), then the Supreme Court has already decided the issue -- the Second expresses an individual right. Law trumps even Cornell's history.
Matt Siroki - 2/17/2004
Saul Cornell is publishing a book (Oxford University Press) that purports to prove the collective right theory.
Robert Bryan Haskins - 2/17/2004
Richard, you are right about standing, it always comes first. For example: An officer searches a car at a traffic stop, finds cocaine stuffed under the driver’s seat, and then charges you with possession of it. If you want to suppress that search on a claim that it was an unreasonable search and seizure, then you must first establish that you have standing to do so. That is, you must first show that you had some connection to the car that gives you an expectation of privacy in it which society accepts as reasonable (a good example would be that you were the operator of the car when it was stopped). Only then does the court consider the merits of the search and seizure. Many times I concede without argument that standing exists. It appears that the court did the same in Miller.
Additionally, judges often write opinions that go far beyond that which is required to decide the case--sort of a “and this is how I would have ruled if the plaintiff had proven he had standing and we had actually heard this case on its merits” opinion. This is called “dicta,” and while it has no bearing on the outcome of the present case it is designed to help establish a roadmap for how future lawsuits should be styled.
In Silveira, I think the majority is correct to have considered the collective right—individual right issue, because it does affect whether the plaintiff had standing to raise his claim. If, as the majority suggests, the right is collective, then the plaintiff had no standing to bring his claim before the court.
I think the court is wrong in deciding that the right is collective—but that’s an argument for another venue. The issue here is to what extent AA (or Lott’s work, for that matter) has been used to support either the collective or individual right opinions, and how judges should react to the disclosure that the research which they cite in support of their interpretation has been discredited.
Richard Henry Morgan - 2/16/2004
Had another brain fart. Silveira is consistent with Hickman. In Hickman the Ninth said the USSC had taken no position on the individualist versus collectivist question. The Ninth now says they were wrong, and that Miller endorses a collective view.
Richard Henry Morgan - 2/16/2004
The SAF website is linked to by the Potowmack Institute, an anti gun site. What does that do for your logic?
Richard Henry Morgan - 2/15/2004
PS
Rakove has a pretty sophisticated treatment of originalist problems in his preface and first chapter to his book Original Meanings. It admits most of the problems of originalism, seems to concede that original understanding is the only theoretically coherent form of originalism, and then he promptly reverts to original intent.
Actually, he marries original understanding to the strategy that original understanding is dispositive for all time (precludes later precedents). I see it different. I see original understanding as the only way to determine original meaning, which may be adjusted by later precedents. He seems to marry the two in order to dismiss original understanding as the sole legitimate means of originalism, thereby allowing him to privilege the writings of Madison (who, by the way -- and Rakove admits this -- himself endorsed original understanding).
Here's a quote from Rakove, from his preface (p. xv):
"I am often asked whether I think originalism offers a viable or valid theory of constitutional interpretation. My preferred answer is, I hope, suitably ambivalent. In the abstract, I think that originalism is vulnerable to two powerful criticisms. First, it it is always in some fundamental sense anti-democratic, in that it seeks to subordinate the judgment of present generations to the wisdom of their distant (political) ancestors. Second, the real problems of reconstructing coherent intentions and understandings from the evidence of history raise serious questions about the capacity of originalist forays to yield the definitive conclusions that the advocates of this theory claim to find. On the other hand, I happen to like originalist arguments when the weight of the evidence seems to support the constitutional outcomes I favor -- and that may be as good a clue to the appeal of originalism as any other."
I disagree that originalism seeks to subordinate judgment to ancestors. The Constitution was arrived at by supermajority, by the people. We have a method for avoiding subordination -- it's called the amendment procedure. Liberals hate this, as it involves honest labor. Much better to get some judges to privilege their own views over those of the people expressed in the Constitution.
On a larger question, Rakove just doesn't seem to appreciate that the roles of historian and judge differ as to evidence. Historians must, of neccessity, go beyond the evidence with responsible conjecture to fashion a complete narrative. The problematic materials for such simply aren't appropriate to constitutional interpretation. Rakove appropriates (as one might expect for an historian) the widest possible role for history. There is an historian's Constitution, however, and a judge's, and we should be ruled by the judge's.
I'll give an example. Rakove says (and Wills and the 2-1 majority in Silveira follow suit): "I have tried to give the Anti-Federalists their due by allowing their most trenchant objections to the Constitution to lay a foundation for the response they elicited from their Federalist opponents."
This is precisely the unacknowledged assumption (unacknowledged as an assumption) that so many commentators make. Was the Second, though, meant to address major Anti-federalist objections (which would have entailed structural change in allowing the states to arm themselves, thereby asserting sovereignty), or was it an appeal (as Madison put it) to the people directly (over the heads of the most outre Anti-Federalists) over their concern for individual liberties? Rakove, Wills, and the Ninth merely assume the former, as do so many others, despite the fact that Madison himself wanted to address individual liberties without affecting structure (and said so!!).
Richard Henry Morgan - 2/14/2004
I've just re-read the original majority opinion of the Ninth in Silveira. Interesting. The court admits it departs from Hickman (their own Ninth Circuit precedent), as Hickman concluded that Miller neither endorses nor dismisses the collective rights theory. The Ninth then, supposedly based on recent scholarship (though the weight of recent scholarship suggests the opposite), endorses the collective rights view -- while admitting in a footnote that the question is still open to controversy. The Ninth admits that in Fresno Rifle it ruled on the basis on non-incorporation -- that the Second is not incorporated by the 14th as a limit on state power (presumably the implicit ruling of standing stemmed from the Ninth's refusal to interpret Miller one way or the other on the question of individual v. collective right). The Ninth then states that it must decide standing first -- but cites no authority or precedent for doing so. Somebody who knows legal procedure much better than I do should be able to answer this. I think it quite possible that a determination of standing is a prerequisite to assuming jurisdiction, rather than the other way around -- though I've found some legal dictionnaries that say the opposite.
Richard Henry Morgan - 2/14/2004
Rakove is a strange bird. He has an article in the NYU Law Review called Confessions of an Ambivalent Originalist. He admits he used originalist arguments in the impeachment hearings, specifically original intent. As a history professor he quite naturally thinks history has the answers. He quotes Madison's notes, without any apparent concern that they are incomplete, not contemporaneous, not official, and not available to the ratifiers. That the Philadelphia Convention did not have plenary power seems to leave him unfazed in his original intent analysis. In fact, he seems blissfully unaware that history is just one modality of constitutional analysis.
He is ususally portrayed as a critic of originalism, but he resorted to it in the Clinton impeachemnt. He also cited Bellesiles at length in his Chicago-Kent article, and when Bellesiles blew up, Rakove stated in his William&Mary; article that Bellesiles had very little to say "directly" on the Second Amendment (a new minimizing strategy? -- sure he had little to say directly, but Rakove had found him mighty useful in his Second Amendment article). Rakove now admits he read Bellesiles for his Second Amendment implications. Now here's the fun part. Bellesiles thanks Rakove for reviewing every page of his manuscript, and Bellesiles had the Militia Act of 1792 stating that the governement would supply arms to the militia -- when the act said the people had to arm themselves. Rakove missed this incredible howler, as did the peer-reviewers for Knopf. Now I ask you, if you don't even know the content of the Militia Act of 1792, are you even competent to pronounce on Second Amendment interpretation? That's a rhetorical question.
Name Removed at Poster's Request - 2/14/2004
"Originalism has more than one face, as even your post suggests."
Which face does Rakove attack? And is his attack on "originalism" just a screen for his 2nd Amendment revisionism, or is it a position he thoroughly believes in?
Richard Henry Morgan - 2/13/2004
Just saw your post at this date, and decided to answer right away.
Originalism has more than one face, as even your post suggests. First you ask of "precedent and original intent", then speak of "the original intent of the framers and the contemporary meanings of the words put into the Constitution and Bill of Rights...".
'Original intent' is considered, by many, as the most problematic and retrograde form of originalism. First, there is no official record of debate at the Philadelphia Convention, nor in Congressional Committee concerning the Bill of Rights. When it comes to the Constitution, most delegates were not vested with plenary power, so their intentions are meaningless.
Other mistakes abound by those wishing to employ original intent. Some collectivists actually cite Hamilton's Federalist paper concerning a select militia as either governing the meaning of militia, or because it contrasts with Madison's militia view, establishing an intent to leave the characterization of the militia up to statutory definition. Problem is, Hamilton wasn't a framer. He was one of three delegates from NY, the other two being Antifederalists who left early, depriving NY of a vote at Philadelphia. Hamilton, ever the self-promoter, though without a vote, signed the Philadelphia document. Moreover, Hamilton's Federalist, like most of the Federalist articles, were not widely published in much of thew South, and therefore can't have informed the ratifier understanding from that area.
"Ratifier understanding" comes closer to "contemporary meanings", and was endorsed by Madison on a half dozen occasions. The ratifiers were actually vested with the power to enact.
It's hard to figure out, sometimes, what was meant back then, so we muddle through. And in muddling through, we create new ambiguities. Some take advantage of this to read their own ideology into the law. There is no law unless there is an honest attempt to discover original meaning, and correct meaning of precedents. There is no test for sincerity, though.
By the way, Rakove realizes that his arguments vis-a-vis the Second smack of the originalism he deplores, and he has sheepishly as much as admitted it. I think a good many liberals oppose originalist analysis because it acts as a check on the expansion of government power, which they tend to see as an unmitigated good. I suspect that liberals like Tribe of Harvard, Amar of Yale, and Levinson of Texas have come to see the wisdom of the individualist interpretation at least partly because the professional officer corps of the military has become overwhelmingly Republican. Maybe those framers (and Justice Story) were right -- the militia is needed as a moral check on the designs of ambitious men and standing armies.
Don Williams - 2/13/2004
This morning's sales rank for Arming America (Soft Skull edition) at BarnesNoble.com is 410,178 -- down from the 398,000+ area of a few weeks ago (see above) and approaching what submariners call crush depth.
However, this mornings Amazon sales rank is around 99,969-- a huge leap in the past two days from the roughly
800000 range where it laid for weeks. Amazon doesn't update its sales rank --especially for slow sellers -- daily as does Barnes Noble, so only time will tell if this is a one time spurt in sales.
Re Richard's complaint above --that Arming America is still outselling some of his library's dust collectors -- I would observe that Arming America is in a strange Hisenbergian universe --in which we cannot measure the position of an electron because our measurement disturbs the electron.
Negative publicity seems to spur just enough sales to improve Arming America's bleak position. I noticed a brief spurt in sales when Chronicle of Higher Education put out it's largely negative article. Kimberly Strasser's recent Wall Street Journal article seems to have had the same effect. Briefly, People stop to look at car wrecks.
As I once noted to Ralph Luker in a post above, the worst fate in academia is not to be criticized --it is to be ignored.
Richard Henry Morgan - 2/12/2004
I think you're right, and Kleinfeld makes an interesting point, colorfully expressed. Then, so too does Kozinski. What I loved about their dissents is that they seem alone in taking Supreme Court precedent seriously. They make the point that in Miller the court did not deny standing by asserting a collective right.
The question of standing should precede the question as to whether a sawed-off shotgun could be a militia weapon. But Miller involved federal law. And the question of jurisdiction should precede that of standing -- to pronounce on standing is an assertion of jurisdiction. What I can't find is any mention in the dissents (and I admit I read them quickly) of the jurisdiction problem -- I can't think of Supreme Court precedent holding that the 14th incorporates the Second as a limitation on state power.
To my mind, the 3 judge panel of the 9th stepped over the jurisdictional issue to address the issue of standing, precisely in order to set precedent vis-a-vis the collective nature of the right. Even the strongly anti-gun Potowmack Institute says the 9th politicized the court.
Robert Bryan Haskins - 2/12/2004
Here is the point I think Judge Kleinfeld was making when he mentioned Lott: Current public policy research, which attempts to establish either the present day benefits or dangers to individual ownership or firearms, is irrelevant to interpreting the nature and the scope of the “right to keep and bear arms.”
The more interesting comment appears earlier in his dissent (around footnotes 11 & 12): “Historical context has its uses in understanding the context and purposes of any law, constitutional or legislative, but like legislative history, the use of history is subject to abuse. Where the historical scholarship is partial and tendentious, relying upon it becomes like relying upon legislative history: ‘entering a crowded cocktail party and looking over the heads of guests for one’s friends.’”
Using this analogy for Lott, we have him throwing a big cocktail party at which he wins a 98 percent rate door prize. Tim Lambert poses this question: “What if Lott threw a party, and nobody came?” The jury, to my mind, is still out on whether Lott’s party took place, and, if so, then why the need for fictional flattery from our non-existent “social scene” reporter, Mary Rosh?
The same analogy can be used by Bellesiles’ critics: (1) He never went to a party in San Francisco, (2) Whenever he did attend a party, he avoided the crowd to focus on his friends, (3) When his friends didn’t agree with him, he chose to misquote them so it looked like they did, etc.
Tim Lambert - 2/12/2004
My Lloyd, why do you keep trying to pass off Lott's reviews of his own work as "gaming"? They are not "gaming". "Gaming" would refer to manipulation of the system while staying within the rules. Amazon's rules permit authors to review their own books, but they have to identify themselves as the author. Lott was well aware of this because he actually followed the correct procedure in one review. His conduct was not "gaming". It was dishonest.
I am against academic fraud whether it be by Bellesiles or Lott. You and the WSJ only seem to care about Bellesiles' misconduct and give Lott a free pass.
Alec H Lloyd - 2/11/2004
Once again, Mr. Lambert, you are allowing your distaste for John Lott to crowd out your arguments.
Regarding the book reviews: explain to me how gaming Amazon is different than having your academic buddies publish paean to your lastest work. It's just another form of advertising.
As far as your concerns with other data, I eagerly await your relentless assault into gun control researchers, which are far easier to dismantle. I believe you have a web site, and I'll see what numbers you are talking about there rather than trying to argue abstracts here.
You're welcome for the advice.
Richard Henry Morgan - 2/11/2004
I would add that the text quoted above is from the dissenting minority (and has no legal force as precedent) -- dissenting from the opinion and order that a rehearing be denied. So even those who thought the case should be reheard believed that Lott and the questions he addressed were irrelevant to the constitutional meaning of the Second Amendment.
Just why did they bring it up then, if only to deny its relevance? I suspect that the appellate brief requesting a full en banc rehearing mentioned Lott, but I can't know that. The courts don't publish the briefs. Interested parties do sometimes post them on a website of their own choosing. For instance, keepandbeararms.com, has a copy of the initial appeal brief to the Ninth, which includes a mention of Gary Kleck in the text, but not Lott. But no sources are included in the post, so maybe Lott appears in the endnotes of the initial brief. I couldn't find a copy of the appeal brief for an en banc hearing. Maybe he appears there. Or maybe a well-read judge among the dissenters just decided to throw it in, in order to dismiss its relevance.
Richard Henry Morgan - 2/11/2004
Tim, you're an Aussie, I believe, so I'll take this from the start at the risk of insulting you.
The pro-gun position, via a kitchen-sink brief, lost the appeal before the Ninth Federal Circuit by a vote of 2-1. To get to the Federal courts, they had to raise a federal issue -- they claimed that the Second Amendment bars the states from gun control. Whatever the Second means, the US Supreme Court never has ruled that it applies to the states (the original case was in state court, suing the Attorney-General of California for enforcing a state law that the pro-gun side thought violated the federal constitution). Many other provisions of the federal constitution do bind the states, via the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution.
Having lost 2-1 in the federal appeals court, he then asked for an "en banc hearing" -- essentially asking the entire court to rehear the case. A panel of the Ninth federal circuit court of appeals refused to rehear the case. That is the opinion you linked to -- a refusal for a rehearing.
Here's the relevant passage from the en banc opinion:
---
Indeed, while
some think guns cause violent crime, others think that widespread
possession of guns on balance reduces violent crime.114
None of these policy arguments on either side affects what the
Second Amendment says, that our Constitution protects “the
right of the people to keep and bear Arms.”
-----
Footnote 114 then cites Lott, but only as an example of a source that discusses the effect of gun possession on crime. The opinion then goes on to say that such considerations simply aren't relevant to the constitutional issues at hand.
If you go to http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov and hit the link to 'opinions', you can then search by date. Select '2003', then select 'May', and then you'll see the Silveira en banc opinion listed among others (May 6). It's a PDF and takes a while to load.
Tim Lambert - 2/11/2004
Here is the decision where Lott was citied:
http://www.rkba.org/judicial/silveira/EnBancOrder.txt
Richard Henry Morgan - 2/11/2004
PS
Here's an excellent article on the case making the point that the appellate lawyer kitchen-sinked the brief with false and extraneous material, didn't even have standing, yet Reinhardt went to substantive issues of interpretation given the open opportunity. I'll try to find the specific reference to Lott.
http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel200309230925.asp
Richard Henry Morgan - 2/11/2004
Tim, a lot of extraneous and dubious material gets into briefs, and even into decisions. I just scanned the decision in Silveira v. Lockyer and found no mention of Lott. I'm trying to track down appellate briefs and reply briefs, and check them. Maybe he's cited in there. I'll let you know when I find out.
Tim Lambert - 2/10/2004
Just how much knowledge of statistics does it take to divide 26 by 28 (the numbers that Lott claims he got in his survey) and see that the result is not 98%?
Forgetting to carry the 1 isn't even close to what Lott did, either.
And Lott altered quotations too. How hard is it to check what he says against his sources? Here's an example from just three days ago. Lott publishes an op-ed in Fox News where he claims that NCVS data proves that in a violent crime passive behaviour is by far the most likely to result in an injury. I post a response with the actual numbers that show that this isn't true. Lott responds with a table of numbers that purport to show that his claim is true. Except that his table is falsified, constructed by mixing numbers from two different columns so that he is comparing apples with oranges.
And gee, thanks for the advice about concentrating on only one or two issues. Maybe you could talk to all the folks who argue that Lott just did one thing wrong not like that horrid Bellesiles.
Giving your own books a dozen five-star reviews is not just vain, it is dishonest. No, it is not the same as fabricating evidence, but it certainly suggests that he is the sort of person who would fabricate evidence.
Tim Lambert - 2/10/2004
Richard, I'm not interested in the constitutional questions, but if Lott's work doesn't touch them, why was he cited in Silveira vs Lockyer?
Ralph E. Luker - 2/10/2004
Richard, You teach me a lot when your spleen is tweaked. I do understand your hesitation to comment on Lott's credibility. You can imagine Tim Lambert's frustration that there is apparently no authority to whom Lott is accountable in the same way that there was an authority to whom Bellesiles was accountable.
Richard Henry Morgan - 2/10/2004
Ralph, I now see that I forgot to address your question as to whether I am anti gun control (I like that expression better, as 'anti-gun control' introduces ambiguities, suggesting that 'anti' applies to 'gun' rather than 'gun control') and whether that has influenced my apparently blase attitude toward Lott. The second part of your question I addressed, but I will be more explicit here. If the facts are as Lambert alleges, then Lott deserves to be pilloried. The WSJ editorial page has its conservative bias, and that might account for their treatment of Lott. Or, they might simply think the issues raised by Lott not as pregnant with constitutional implications. Or they might believe the case has not been made against him, or that he is not sufficiently large a target. Or all of them.
The other part of your question seems to betray an attitude or assumption often seen in the collectivist Second Amendment literature -- that an individualist interpretation is inconsistent with gun control tout court. If I'm wrong, please forgive me. But any number of liberal commentators who support an individualist interpretation think otherwise -- Tribe of Harvard, and Amar of Yale, to mention just two.
The far wing of the individualist camp seems to often conflate 'bear arms' with 'carry arms'. Wills is right to correct them on this. They rely on only three quotes -- one from Coxe, one from Adams, and one from the Pennsylvania Minority. The overwhelming evidence from usage suggests otherwise. It seems to me that a large sphere of gun control, including a ban on carrying, is consistent with the individualist interpretation.
Wills strikes me as correct on two other issues. One can't simply read Antifederalist ideology into the Second, and the Second does not express a constitutional right to rebel. On just about every other issue his claims are either correct and irrelevant, or relevant and incorrect.
He gets Miller exactly backwards. He claims that preambles determine the scope, when they may have merely been used on occasion to interpret scope. There is only one hard and fast rule for preambles -- they don't expand the scope. In any case, if used to interpret the scope, there are any number of scope interpretations that are consistent with the language and with an individualist interpretation (his choice of scope interpretation is not the only possible one, nor necessarily any better than competing ones).
Wills uses two analytical categories to interpret the Second -- Federalist and Antifederalist. He then invests the Antifederalist category with the most outre stance -- that of Patrick Henry. It would appear, rather, that the term 'Antifederalist' more closely approaches a 'family resemblance term', in the Wittgenstein sense. For instance, Wills argues that the Antifederalists opposed a standing army, the Second doesn't do away with that, therefore the Second has no Antifederalist content. Yet Mason, surely an Antifederalist, saw a necessity for both a standing army and a militia. Wills is right that one can't simply read Antifederalist ideology into the Second, but one can't simply read it out either.
Wills thinks the meaning of the Second, quoting Jefferson, is to be determined by those who wrote it, supported it, and voted for it. This simply commits the error of reading Federalist ideology exclusively into it. Moreover, this reliance on ideology as an interpretive tool is necessitated by the fact that those who wrote it, supported it, and voted for it, nowhere laid down an interpretation of it -- except for Tench Coxe, who gave it an individualist interpretation. This is such an embarrassment that Wills then abandons his standard, and points out that Coxe was not a constitutional authority (though Coxe came from a distinguished legal family, studied the law, and was intimately involved in supplying arms to the militia). In fact Grayson, an Antifederalist, is the only other contemporary to characterize the meaning of the Second, when he claimed all of Madison's proposals had to do with individual liberties (on this point my memory is hazy, as I can't remember offhand if Grayson and Coxe were addressing Madison's proposals, or the finished Second text). What are we to make of that?
In any case, the views of the writers are unknown, as Madison did not write the Second!! It was written in committee, whose records don't exist.
Madison expressly said that his proposals were aimed to address individual liberties, and affect the structure as little as possible. Which has less affect on the structure -- letting the people arm themselves on an individual basis, or letting the states arm the militia? I submit the former. The power of the state to arm the militia seems in tension with constitutional provisions banning states from raising a navy or a standing army, or making treaties with foreign powers (without federal permission). It seems the Federalist thrust was to strip the states of the marks of sovereignty, including the power of the sword. Why then would they allow states, via the Second, to arm the militia?
Madison came to believe that because of its limited powers, the federal government would sit more lightly upon the shoulders of the people than the states, and would therefore gain their loyalty. He had faith in their support, and thought (presumably) that the federal government could gain more loyalty from a populace -- why wouldn't he want his followers armed, rather than directly give the state the right to determine who could be armed, which might just be Antifederalists? In any case, the Shaysites were mostly militia, as were those who defeated them. Madison seems vindicated.
I could go, citing chapter and verse. Wills proceeds, without argument, from a claim that the Second is a positive right of states to be armed by the federal government (from 'keep' to 'be provided' seems a gulf), to the claim that it is a mere pledge (which is not enforceable). He takes a proposal by Trenchard as analytic of militia, and then by truncated quote conflates firelocks with arms (which he elsewhere says includes cannons -- and Jefferson's proposed constitution would therefore have an individual right to cannons? -- I think not). His argument from etymology is fallacious, and uses the wrong etymology to boot, ending up with a proposed synonym for 'arms' in 'equipage', whose meaning as revealed by usage doesn't even include individual's weapons!!
I think your question might be better directed to Wills. Has his demonstrated anti-gun bias (demonstrated in op-ed pieces available on the net, where he says that those who wish to have guns have declared war on their neighbors) affected his interpretation of the Second? I think so, though that is not a point to be made in a journal article. And this from a reputable scholar whose Lincoln at Gettysburg is a veritable jewel. We are all human after all.
I actually think there is a defensible collectivist interpretation that is weakened only or mostly by the interlineation problem. Since the Federalists aimed to strip the states of sovereignty, perhaps the Second expresses a collective right in the people (a tip of the hat to popular sovereignty) -- a right, through their legislature, to arm a militia (as opposed to a right granted to the states by the constitution).
Many of the criticisms by the collectivists of individualist scholarship are spot on. What I find so disturbing is that their own are so often equally weak, or even worse, which doesn't seem to stop their triumphalist rhetoric. Wills overflows with it, the Washington seminar overflows with it, and the Chicago-Kent contributions follow suit.
A brief mea culpa. I'm a hypocrite, but trying here to be less so. I've tried here (where elsewhere I haven't) to be civil to the collectivists, which is hard given their own practice. I will endeavor to do so in my final version. Will there come a day when a certain degree of civility returns to journal articles on the subject? I say this without confidence, because I suspect that the lack of civility might very well be a deliberate tactic. Cicero's dicacitas, or intermittent ridicule, seems to have obtained its usual ends -- to obscure the weaknesses of argument. Aimed at obscuring or not, the ridicule by Wills in his NYRB article did just that. The responding professors largely devoted themselves to protesting his ridicule, and missed the weaknesses (for the most part) of his arguments. Rhetoric will never be abandoned entirely where the aim is to win assent rather than discover and reveal the truth. Sorry for the lecture, but the implicit assumption (?) that I oppose gun control tweaked my spleen. I'm merely focussed on the constitutional questions, which Lott's work doesn't touch.
Alec H Lloyd - 2/9/2004
The problem with Lott is that if you have no knowledge of statistics, you can't really understand the points in dispute.
Sorry, but forgetting to carry the 1 isn't even close to what Bellesiles did.
I mean, Bellesiles altered quotations! You don't need a PhD to compare what he said originals sources said to what they actually SAY.
As far as the rest of Mr. Lambert's charges, I'm sorry, but lots of people use aliases on the Internet. Ghosting good reviews is silly, perhaps vain, but hardly rises to the level of fabricating evidence.
Mr. Lambert has developed a visceral hatred of John Lott. It's sad, because it clouds his judgement. If he could simply focus on one or two clear-cut issues, he might get somewhere (among the math crowd, at least).
But for the rest of us, the charge list goes from serious (fabricating evidence) to ludicrous (gaming Amazon's search function).
John Lott has performed a huge service in providing us with the first real set of numbers on guns and crime. His numbers may be crude and the methods inexact, but they were better than anything else out there.
That ludicrous Kellerman study ("guns are 43 times more likely to kill a family member than a criminal") is far worse. Indeed, most gun control scholarship can't even compare with Lott.
I wish Mr. Lambert luck. Perhaps he will finally discover the "true" set of numbers and we can go from there. Until that point, the topic is simply to inaccessible for most people to figure out who is right and who is wrong.
Richard Henry Morgan - 2/9/2004
Apparently, Ralph, there isn't a question about whether a writer is ever so discredited that he shouldn't be published -- if Bellesiles is a guide. Seems he has a contract for another book with the OUP. From Knopf to the OUP is not exactly a case of Down and Out in London. Bellesiles the Canuck seems to have successfully marketed himself to his fellow Commonwealthmen as a martyr -- I anticipate a picture for his next dusk jacket not of him in his library, but tied to a post a la St. Sebastian, though bleeding from gunshot wounds rather than arrows. I would have thought the OUP standards would be more rigorous than those of the WSJ, but as has become my habit of late, it appears I'm wrong.
I don't know that Lott has wronged, as I have not pursued the matter (I'm interested in Second Amendment scholarship, and only got hooked into the Bellesiles affair via my confrontation with the writings of Garry Wills). I'm so little engaged with the questions raised by Lott that I've neither devoted much time to looking into Arthur Kellerman's work, nor seeking professional discipline for him for withholding his data for such a long time (the fact that he hadn't read Lindgren before dismissing him does give me pause -- but no, I have other chores, and miles to go before I sleep ...). Release the hounds. If Lott has wronged, have at him.
I further don't know if Lott has or will pay a price. As far as I can tell, he has survived on a succession of two-year non-tenured appointments, which may very well dry up. Time will tell. The difference for me is that I actually read Bellesiles, and Lindgren, and others, and came to my own conclusions. I'm not in the same position with Lott.
Ralph E. Luker - 2/9/2004
O.K., Richard, you've taken a fair pro-gun shot at Tim's grievance. Tim isn't the only one complaining about Lott's op-ed appearances. Kevin Drum at CalPundit recently complained about a Lott op-ed in the _LA Times_ -- or did Tim already say that? Chalk it up to my senior moment.
But there's a more interesting question here about whether a writer is ever so discredited that work by him should not be published. Michael has paid an enormous price for his mistakes. So far as Tim and Kevin and I can see, John Lott has paid no price whatsoever. You seem to think that difference not terribly important. Could it be because you are anti-gun control? Tell me not!
Richard Henry Morgan - 2/9/2004
"When is the Wall Street Journal going to take a moral stance on John Lott?"
Maybe they're waiting for Lott to get favorable frontpage reviews in the New York Times Book Review and the New York Review of Books. Or maybe they're waiting for the CDC to fund Lott's program. Then again, maybe they're waiting for him to win a prestigious prize. Or for his colleagues to mindlessly defend him. Or for a professional organization to turn over their newsletter to him to use as a vehicle to attack his critics. Or perhaps they're waiting for his Parthian shot of innocence as he resigns, rather than take his case to the AAUP. Or maybe the WSJ editorial page has as much an ideological agenda as the New York Times Book Review and the New York Review of Books. I'm putting my money on the latter. I think you'll see the WSJ take on Lott about the same time as you see the New York Times Book Review and New York Review of Books run frontpage correction notices withdrawing their positive reviews. Such is life.
Tim Lambert - 2/8/2004
I don't think that Soft Skull should be promoting a fraud like Bellesiles. But the Wall Street Journal is hardly in a position to crtiticize Soft Skull when it continues to publish John Lott.
In the pages of the Wall Street Journal, Lott claimed that polls by the Los Angeles Times, Gallup and Peter Hart showed that 98% of the time, merely brandishing stopped an attack. When he found out that those polls showed no such thing and other polls give a very different number Lott changed his story and claimed that the 98% number came from a survey he had conducted. His stories about how and when the poll was conducted have kept changing. He claims to have lost all the data from this survey and can't produce any evidence that it was ever conducted. He also miscoded his "More Guns, Less Crime" data and when this was discovered he tried to conceal the effect this had on his results by changing the way he did his calculations. When this, too, was discovered he tried to cover up the changes by altering dates and switching files on his website. Lott also made over a dozen anonymous five-star reviews of his own books and on and on.
In an earlier comment on Bellesiles, Strassel wrote:
"But perhaps the most disturbing aspect of L'affaire Bellesiles is that despite the enormity of the scandal, nearly every institution involved---from Emory University, to Columbia University's Bancroft Prize Committee, to the publisher--has refused to take a professional or moral stance."
When is the Wall Street Journal going to take a moral stance on John Lott?
Samuel Pearce Browning IV - 2/7/2004
Great they used my full name instead of just Samuel Browning. Okay I admit I fell out of the WASP tree and hit every branch on the way down, but it wasn't my intent to appear that formal or stuck up! I swear!
Samuel Pearce Browning IV - 2/7/2004
Benny has always puzzled me. In the last month as the econd Edition of Arming America was published he finally broke his year old policy and actually attempted to argue some historical facts. (cowpens) Notice I didn't say successfully, but it was a step up as he actually started to mention real books in his writing and not just internet sites. I was suspicious that this was so because he and Bellesiles were in touch and he didn't want to roll out Bellesiles's arguments before their public debute when they could be 'traced' back to Bellesiles. I suppose we will never know the truth but there was always something odd going on.
Ralph E. Luker - 2/7/2004
Josh, Don't forget to get those quotation marks or indents in place to make sure that we know what Josh is saying and what Ms. Strassel is saying.
Alec H Lloyd - 2/6/2004
Unfortunately, the audience that Bellesiles is writing for won't bother to consult those sources, either.
Look, even assuming he was scrupulously honest (ahem) it is clear that, like many anti-gun historians, he doesn't know much about the things.
His book is full of slight-of-hand about how dangerous/unreliable/crude firearms were, and this is supposed to explain why no one bothers to use them.
Now anyone who knows anything about period firearms knows that they had their limitations. However, given the choice between standing in front or behind a Brown Bess, I think we know where the safer position is.
One of the most frustrating things about dealing with the topic of fireams in general is the amazing amount of wilfull ignorance about them. This isn't subjective knowledge; it's applied physics.
A flintlock is no more mystical than a hand drill or steam engine. For someone to write on colonial carpentry without ever seeing a block of wood would by insane, yet historians think nothing of doing the equivalent when guns are involved. With military history, it is even worse. They not only haven't seen a block of wood, their knowledge of trees is purely speculative.
I appreciate the effort, but I'm afraid its wasted here.
Alec H Lloyd - 2/6/2004
Which cut is that?
Name Removed at Poster's Request - 2/6/2004
Bellesiles Misfires
An antigun "scholar" as today's Galileo? Oh please, just shoot me.
History has its fair share of persecuted geniuses, men who were ahead of their time and made to pay for it. There's the hemlocked Socrates, the house-arrested Galileo, the exiled Rousseau. And to this list of giants it seems that we are now expected to add the name of Michael Bellesiles.
...
The officials of the prestigious Bancroft Prize stripped him of his award, he left Emory and Knopf chose to stop publishing his book. Most of us sighed happily and figured that was the end of that academic scandal.
But oh, no. It turns out that Mr. Bellesiles is still riding his dead horse, his nonexistent guns still blazing. Soft Skull Press (which takes pride in putting out books that other publishers avoid like ricin) has not only agreed to reissue "Arming America" but has decided to release Mr. Bellesiles's latest response to his critics. This 59-page pamphlet, "Weighed in an Even Balance," is a spirited attempt by Mr. Bellesiles to turn himself into the world's latest misunderstood genius. As such, it's worth reading for pure
entertainment value.
...
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/kstrassel/?id=110004653
Charles V. Mutschler - 2/6/2004
Checking In!
No sign of the ususal suspects, like Benny Smith or Think Tank.
Charles V. Mutschler
Name Removed at Poster's Request - 2/5/2004
Richard, thanks for your response to my questions. It seems that constitional law isn't for the weak of mind or the unpersistent. Chasing down all the relevant writings from all the valid state delegates and other contemporary legal authorities is clearly a whole history career by itself.
If I can ask another question here, what is behind Jack Rakove's attack on "originalism"? Isn't our entire legal system based on precedent and original intent? What happens to our legal system if it is decided that the original intent of the framers and the contemporary meanings of the words put into the Constitution and Bill of Rights over 200 years ago don't matter?
Richard Henry Morgan - 2/2/2004
Don, I've actually found some of my bookshelf dustcollectors that Bellesiles is outselling at B&N;:
Geometry Civilized, by J. L. Heilbron
The Meaning of Evolution: the Morphological Construction and Ideological Reconstruction of Darwin's Theory, by Robert J. Richards
Purgatorio, by Dante (a new verse translation by W. S. Merwin)
Can't you do something, Don, to drive Bellesiles' numbers down more?
thomas j smith - 2/2/2004
Benny has been shut out by HNN. His last contribution a week or so ago was rejected by the HNN editor. I understand he got an email from HNN saying for him not to post any more unless he used his "real name." There had been earlier efforts to track him down by his internet addresses and by phone. He didn't want to give HNN any more personal information for verifying for those reasons. So the rest of you fellows can call eachother ignorant and talk about whose diaper needs changing and whatever else it is intelectuals do here. Just don't look for Benny. He's moved on
Robert Bryan Haskins - 1/30/2004
My prediction: This spells the end for "Think Tank," but Benny will survive it.
BTW, I prefer the Kimber CDP II .45. I got so excited when I found out it had these cool glow-in-the-dark tritium sights that I almost sewed a holster for it into my PJs. (just kidding, Benny)
Ralph E. Luker - 1/30/2004
Did Benny make the cut?
Name Removed at Poster's Request - 1/30/2004
Also, they're comfy in the hand, powerful enough for most self-defense situations, and fun to take to the range. :)
I don't think this forum is going to have much fake-name dropoff, whatever the contents of anyone's gun cabinet.
Don Williams - 1/29/2004
is that one doesn't fear to use one's real name on Internet posts.
(Note to any of Mr Ashcroft's Homeland Security lurkers.
I, of course, own no firearms. none. I was just citing
a hypothetical situation. )
Don Williams - 1/29/2004
Soft Skull's Arming America Sales ranks on this morning's http://www.BarnesNoble.com site is
402,230, down from 396,696 in my previous post above.
For comparison, I enclose the CURRENT sales rank of some of my other books:
a) The Confidence Man --Herman Melville: 182,747
b) The Big Con --David Maurer(1940): 60,162
(Has Soft Skull Press been ..er.. " put on the send"? )
c) Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong --
James W. Loewen : 1,339
(I haven't acquired it yet but plan to do so)
d) A Devil of A Whipping --Lawrence Babits (Battle of Cowpens): 108,955
e) A People Numerous and Armed -- John Shy (Revolutionary
War militia) : 176,368
f) Corruption and the Decline of Rome --Ramsay Macmullen:
308,186
g) Discourses on Livy -- Machiavelli : 40,793
h) Guns, Germs , and Steel --Jared Diamond: 867
i) The Annals of Imperial Rome -- P Cornelius Tacitus:
57,688 (probably much higher sales rank if you accumulated the current sales of this work by several publishers/translators )
j) The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire --Edward Gibbon: 6,594
k) The History of the Peloponnesian War -- Thucydides: 7,003
John G. Fought - 1/29/2004
Surprise! Surprise!
But hey, I always used my real name.
Ralph E. Luker - 1/29/2004
I suspect that some of us didn't make the cut.
Don Williams - 1/26/2004
Normally, a newly released book will rise quickly in Amazon.com and Barnes&Noble; sales rank . The moneymakers , of course, have "legs" and will hold relatively high sales for months.
By that standard, the Soft Skull edition of Arming America appears to be doing extremely poorly. Amazon.com currently lists it's sales ranks as 846,752 . Barnes and Noble ,which appears to have a smaller inventory, lists its sales rank as 396,696. Those rankings suggest to me that very few copies of Arming America are being sold -- even with big discounts -- and that Arming America will sink beneath the waves within the next few weeks.
Don Williams - 1/26/2004
I\'ve perused the 74 page pamphlet given to the news media by Bellesiles with the release of the Soft Skull edition of Arming America. In Chapter 5 \"Specific Challenges: Matters of Interpretation\" ,page 54, Bellesiles addressed one of my criticisms of Arming America made on H-OIEAHC:
------------------
\" 9 Cowpens
“Bellesiles appears to show a strong bias against the militia concept in his
description of the Revolutionary War battle of Cowpens.”
This author does not question my sources, but rather insists that I disagree with some
web sites. As Professor Joan Gunderson responded to this particular statement:
\"Historians do differ on the degree of orderliness in the militia’s retirement from the field
at Cowpens, but that is typical of historical interpretation. We don’t all read the same
evidence in the same way.\"
Professor Richard Bernstein added what should be obvious to any student of history:
\"People can read historical evidence differently and draw different conclusions from that
evidence.30\"
Repeatedly, critics of Arming America find it difficult to accept that people can disagree
on how to interpret a specific historic event or body of evidence. And yet, without such a will-ingness
to disagree, history would quickly become dormant, as lifeless as any tyranny’s official
story. \"
30 Quotations from the h-oieach e-mail list, April 2002.
-------------
In my opinion, Bellesiles\' response is more false and misleading than his description of the militias at Cowpens.
For one thing, the \"web sites\" I cited in my H-OIEAHC post (April 10,2002 --see http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=lm&list;=H-oieahc ) were
, as I noted, online copies of published works by the US Army.
One was the book \"American Military History\" , published by the US Army\'s Center of Military History(CMH). CMH\'s mission, as it notes, is \" to write the official history of the United States Army. This history provides a comprehensive account of Army activities in peace and war and serves as an important tool in training officers and noncommissioned officers in the profession of arms.\".
Another work I cited was the US Army\'s monograph for the Cowpens Staff Ride -- the detailed lesson the Army develops for military officers touring historical battlegrounds to observe terrain, maneuvers,etc. The third work I cited was the National Park Service\'s historical account of Cowpens. For Bellesiles to casually dismiss all three official accounts as \"web sites\" is, I think , to grossly mislead his readers.
Two, I also cited Lawrence Babits\' detailed study of Cowpens --\"A Devil of a Whipping\".
Three, I noted on H-OIEAHC (August 9 2002) why I cited those works:
\"1) Some people here appear to think I\'m attacking Bellesiles\'\"interpretation\" of history. My argument is that an \"interpretation\" is false and misleading if it (a) omits important and relevant facts (b)makes false statements or (c) states facts in a misleading and
deceptive way. I do not criticize Arming America\'s description of the Battle of New Orleans because it fails to incorporate the views of contemporary historians like Remini. I criticize it because it does not reflect the facts provided in the most important primary sources
for the battle -- the papers of Andrew Jackson and his chief engineer,Arsene Latour. I criticize it because I think it misrepresents what Andrew Jackson wrote about the militia. I do not reference other historians because I favor their \"interpretation \" over Bellesiles\' --
I reference them when I see that they cite factual information contrary to Bellesiles\' thesis --factual information which Bellesiles has not
addressed. Mr Bell misunderstands my point re being selective about sources but not about the facts one is not obliged to incorporate the opinions of other historians if such opinions are ill-reasoned or
unsupported by evidence, but one is obliged to address the facts submitted by others. I refer readers again to my post of July 20 -- the
issue is over facts, not interpretations.\"
The primary sources I cited above , which agree with the Army descriptions of Cowpens, were all mentioned in Lawrence Babits book \"A Devil of a Whipping\", with the exception of the John Marshall history (Babits preferred to cite Col John Howard\'s letters in the Bayard papers.)
Four, contrary to what Bellesiles says above, I explicitly noted in a May 1 2002 post that Bellesiles\' own sources --Higginbotham and Tarleton --did not support his description of Cowpens.
Would not a honest historian, notified of his mistakes on H-OIEAHC , make an attempt to example cited sources and see if he was in error?
Note that Bellesiles did not address my comments on H-OIEAHC re why I thought that his description of the militia in the Battle of New Orleans was also false and misleading.
It appears to me that Bellesiles did not respond to review comments as a historian -- rather he, in my opinion, merely went through a hypocritical pretense of doing so.
- 1/26/2004
Bellesiles’ summary of the Cowpens battles, as quoted by Mr. Williams, bears a remarkable resemblance to the history of the battle recounted in "An Eyewitness History: The American Revolution." That book is a mainstream historical reference work found in many libraries and lauded by educators, particularly for its use of primary sources by author David F. Berg. As I alluded to in my previous thread, it then becomes a matter of whom do you trust. Mr. Berg holds degrees from Depauw University, Washington State University and the University of Pennsylvania. He has authored, co-authored or edited books and articles on American history, politics, folklore, etc., including the aforementioned book on the American Revolution, which was part of the Facts on File acclaimed ‘Eyewitness History’ series. Mr. Williams, to my knowledge, has not offered his credentials. For all we know, Mr. Williams’ version of history has as much veracity as the tales concocted by Hector Heathcoat, of Terrytoon fame. I am not sure how many history buffs know about Hector, whose narrator announced, "History has recorded many great names, but only we know about Hector Heathcoat."
Perhaps, we could paraphrase that famous cartoon line to make it relevant here: "History has been recorded by many great names, but only we know about Don Williams."
Don Williams - 1/22/2004
a correction to the post immediately above. Where I say
"The unit on Howard's far right which caused the unplanned retreat was a Virginia Continental unit --located to the left of Triplett's militia"
I should have said
"The unit on Howard's far right which caused the unplanned retreat was a Virginia Continental unit --located to the RIGHT of Triplett's militia"
Don Williams - 1/22/2004
In his recently released 74 page pamphlet, Bellesiles acknowledges the criticism I posted on H-OIEAHC re the description of Cowpens contained in Arming America Vers 1 (Knopf). I was surprised that he therefore left his description of Cowpens essentially unchanged in Vers 2 (Soft Skull) --not because my arguments were so compelling but because of the information contained in the sources I cited. I'll discuss this later. In the meantime, recall Bellesiles description of the militia at Cowpens (Arming America, Knopf, p 197-198). The same account ,with a minor change, is also on pages 197-198 of the Soft Skull edition ) and runs as follows:
"1)The Battle of Cowpens in 1781 offered further evidence that it was still possible for the militia to fulfill their vaunted role. But that victory was the consequence of Daniel Morgan's careful planning in placing the militia in front of his Continental units, and his working out a deal with the militia whereby they agreed to fire a volley and then leave the field.
2) Even then, Morgan repeatedly had to cajole and even beg the militia to keep their part of the bargain in the face of Banastre "Butcher" Tarleton's English forces, and
3) most of the militia initially made to flee as soon as the English started to leave the field.
[DonW Note: I assume Bellesiles meant to say "enter the field". In the Soft Skull edition, the phrase has been changed to "most of the militia initially made to flee as soon as they started to leave the field."--which is even more murky and confusing. ]
4) It seemed as though the militia understood any movement as full-scale retreat, and Morgan and Colonel Andrew Pickens had to place themselves between the militia and their horses, waving their swords threateningly in order to keep them from turning victory into rout.
5) The militia kept blundering around the field, convincing the British that the Americans were in flight.
At that very moment when the British confidently charged, Morgan had Lieutenant Colonel John Howards's Continentals perform a perfect change of direction, fire a withering musket volley at ten yards, and then charge the British with fixed bayonets.
6) Tarleton's forces collapsed before the American bayonets, and the militia, which had to fire only that single volley, managed to hold on to their guns this time. "
A) Bellesiles statement 1 is contradicted by the primary sources and it's not clear what basis he has for making it, since Bellesiles' sole primary source (British Commander Tarleton) could hardly have known what Morgan's orders were.
Contrary to Bellesiles' account, the primary sources show that the militia were set up to fire more than a "single volley" , that they were to ordered by Morgan to retreat behind the Continental Line when the British drew near, and that they were reinforce the right flank of the Continental Line after reassembly. The Primary Sources show that they largely fulfilled Morgan's orders. McDowell and Cunningham's units fired upon the British before retreating to Pickens line and units on Pickens line fired 1 to 2 volleys. After retreating, the militia did reinforce the Continental Line's right flank, although some were disrupted by a British cavalry charge during their retreat. Presumably they fired additional volleys after joining the Continentals. Other than some of the militia temporarily running from the British cavalry charge, the militia did not "flee" nor did they leave the battlefield. The only unit which could be considered to be "blundering around the field" was the Howard's Continental Line , which made an unplanned retreat about 100 yards to the rear -- an unplanned retreat triggered by a Continental unit under the command of Continental Captain Andrew Wallace.
What is rather comical is that Bellesiles' other source--Don Higginbotham's "Daniel Morgan, Revolutionary Rifleman" --agrees with the primary sources and also provides an account of militia actions contrary to Bellesiles, as I describe in detail below.
A.1) Bellesiles first statement is certainly contrary to John Marshall's account--which notes:
"The front line was composed entirely of militia, under the command of Colonel Pickens. Major M’Dowell, with a battalion of North Carolina volunteers, and Major Cunningham, with a battalion of Georgia volunteers, were advanced about one hundred and fifty yards in front of this line, with orders to give a single fire as the enemy approached, and then to fall back into the intervals , which were left for them in the center of the first line.
The militia , not being expected to maintain their ground long, were ordered to keep up a retreating fire by regiments, until they should pass the continental troops, on whose right they were directed again to form."
[DonW Note: The "first line" was Pickens line of militia. Recall that John Marshall said his account was based upon accounts he had received from Daniel Morgan, Col John Howard, and Col Washington ]
A.2) In his own account, Daniel Morgan noted that “Majers [sic] McDowell and Cunningham gave them a heavy and galling fire and retreated to the Regiments intended for their support. The whole of Colonel Picken's Command then kept up a Fire by Regiments retreating agreeable to orders.”. This is certainly consistent with John Marshall's description of Morgan's orders.
As Lawrence Babits notes, "Fire by Regiments" meant that Pickens line was firing in stages rippling down the line from one unit to the next so one unit could reload while another fired. Babits asserts that at least some, but not all, of the units on Pickens' line got off two volleys before having to retreat from the British bayonet charge in order to reload.
A.3) Tarleton merely says: "The militia, after a short contest, were dislodged". His account does indicate that the Continental line was much more resistant: "The fire on both sides was well supported, and produced much slaughter …As the contest between the British infantry in the front line and the continentals seemed equally balanced, neither retreating".
This was likely true -- partly due to the superior battle experience /training of Howards' Maryland/Delaware units but also due to the rapid reloading possible with the musket and the protection provided by the bayonets on the muskets. The superior range/accuracy and slower reloading of the rifle --and it's lack of a bayonet -- tended to force riflemen to fire on musketmen at longer ranges and to then retreat beyond musket range and reload. What's interesting is that roughly half of Howard's "Continental Line" was Virginia militias , some armed with rifles. While Harry Lee had suggested that many in Triplett and Tates militia had Continental experience, Lawrence Babits says that their pension records indicate that this is not so -- that only roughly 8 percent of Triplett's men mention having had Continental experience.
(Note: it is not entirely clear when, where, and to what extent Pickens militia began supporting the Continental Line. Babits indicates (p.107) that McDowell's riflemen had retreated to Morgan's right flank and that they were critical in delaying an attempted British cavalry charge/envelopment there until Washington's cavalry could return from beating back the cavalry charge over on Morgan's opposite (left flank). Lt McKenzie refers to this when he says " Captain Ogilvie, with his troop, which did not exceed forty men, was ordered to charge the right flank of the enemy. He cut his way through their line, but exposed to a heavy fire, and charged at the same time by the whole of Washington's dragoons, was compelled to retreat in confusion. " Tarleton also mentions use of cavalry against Morgan's right flank.)
A.4) Re militia initial contact with the British line, British Lt McKenzie says :" the military valour of British troops, when not entirely divested of the powers necessary to its exertion, was not to be [p98] resisted by an American militia. They gave way on all quarters, and were pursued to their continentals: the second line, now attacked, made a stout resistance."
A.5) Harry Lee said: " Two light parties of militia, under Major McDowel, of North Carolina, and Major Cunningham, of George, were advanced in front, with orders to feel the enemy as he approached; and, preserving a desultory well-aimed fire as they fell back to the front line, to range with it and renew the conflict. The main body of the militia composed this line, with General Pickens at its head….
“The American light parties quickly yielded, fell back, and arrayed with Pickens. The enemy shouted , rushed forward upon the front line, which retained its station, and poured in a close fire; but continuing to advance with the bayonet on our militia, they retired, and gained with haste the second line. Here, with part of the corps, Pickens took post on Howard’s right, and the rest fled to their horses; probably with orders to remove them to a further distance. "
A.6) Bellesiles cited source, Don Higginbotham's "Daniel Morgan, Revolutionary Rifleman" , says (p. 133)
"Morgan realized that these men [the militia] were capable guerrilla fighters; they were excellent shots with
the musket and rifle. With the exception of the Virginians, however, they could not be counted on if forced to perform in open battle against the military formations of Tarleton's regulars; so Morgan devised a plan that would make the most of their ability with firearms without compelling them to stand for long in combat…
Morgan's disposition of his troops was far from orthodox in that he posted his most unreliable units far in advance of the main line of defense. But Morgan thought he knew his militia, and he told his officers how he proposed to use this information in the event Tarleton attacked. When the British drew near, the skirmishers in the front line were to open a scattered fire and then fall back into Picken's line. After being joined by the skirmishers, Picken's men were to hold their fire until the enemy advanced within fifty yards of them. Then they were to take careful aim and shoot twice, attempting to pick off Tarleton's officers. Having completed this assignment, they were to retire in good order around the left side of Howard's main line to a position where they were to be re-formed and held in reserve."
I will include Higginbotham's account of what the militia did below.
B) Bellesiles’ statement 2 is contrary to the Primary Sources.
B.1) As posted above, Harry Lee quotes Col John Eager Howard, commander of the Continental Line, as saying:
" that Morgan did not decide on action until he was joined in the night by Pickens and his followers -- and adds: ‘I well remember that parties were coming in the most of the night, and calling on Morgan for ammunition, and to know the state of affairs. They were all in good spirits, related circumstances of Tarleton's cruelty, and expressed the strongest desire to check his progress’ "
There is not one source reporting that Morgan went around the countryside, howling appeals for help into the night in order to lure in the militias hiding in the darkness. It is unlikely that Morgan ever begged for anything -- while serving as a wagoner in the French and Indian War, he received 399 lashes on his back for punching out a British officer who addressed him in an insulting fashion.
A day or two before Cowpens, Morgan did ask some militia—whose term of enlistment had expired -- to stay and help him. The only other thing I can think of that Bellesiles might have been referring to is Morgan's visits to the men during the night in order to clearly explain his plan and bolster their confidence.
But if the militia had not intended to fight, they wouldn’t have ridden long distances well past sundown in order to assemble at Morgan's camp.
C) Bellesiles statement 3 makes no sense, even in the revised Soft Skull version: ""most of the militia initially made to flee as soon as they started to leave the field."
Assuming that "they" now refer to the militia rather than the English, it is still confusing.
How does one leave a battlefield during a battle without "fleeing".
C.1) As I noted above, the sources indicate that both the riflemen skirmishers and Pickens’ line fired with effect on the British line before retreating to the Continental line. In his report , Morgan noted that the militia riflemen under “Majers [sic] McDowell and Cunningham gave them a heavy and galling fire and retreated to the Regiments intended for their support. The whole of Colonel Picken's Command then kept up a Fire by Regiments retreating agreeable to orders.”. John Marshall’s account noted
“After a single well directed fire, M’Dowell and Cunningham fell back on Colonel Pickens, who, after a short but warm conflict, retreated into the rear of the second line”.
C.2) Possibly Bellesiles is referring to the incident in which some of the militia did flee to horses tied in the rear near Washington’s cavalry during the retreat to the rear of the Continental Line. This occurred, however, because the last of the militia retreating around Morgan's left flank were caught in the open–with unloaded rifles – , were being run down by British cavalry with sabers , and Washington was slow to protect the militia.
Also , as John Marshal and Harry Lee both noted, part of Pickens' militia assembled behind Howard’s right flank and renewed fighting.
C.3) Bellesiles own source, Don Higginbotham, says ( p. 136-139):
(1) "Tarleton sent a detachment of dragoons to disperse Morgan's skirmishers. When the horsemen approached the Americans, they received a volley that emptied fifteen saddles, and the survivors galloped to their rear. At this point, Tarleton began forming his battle line, without having clearly ascertained Morgan's
dispositions…."
>
(2) "The American skirmishers fired a few scattered shots before drifting back into Pickens' line. At Pickens' command, the militia loosed a deadly blast that momentarily staggered Tarleton's force. When the enemy came on again, their bayonets raised for a charge, the militia filed off toward toward the left end of Howard's line, as Morgan had instructed them. The retreat, orderly at first, became disorganized when Tarleton sent the dragoons on his right flank to disperse the militia. At the moment, the troops composing Pickens' far right had only reached the center of the field. Private James Collins feared his "hide" would soon be "in the loft", but Morgan, seeing the enemy horsemen dash forward, ordered Washington's cavalry to drive them away. As Tarleton's men rode among the Americans, Washington's horsemen struck with such force that the British soon fled. Though Washington pursued them, Collins reported they were as hard to catch as a "drove of wild Choctaw steers." >
"Meanwhile, Morgan had galloped to the end of Howard's line to rally the militia. While brandishing his sword and shouting encouragement to the last units to leave the field, he saw that many of the irregulars were heading for their horses near the second elevation. Riding after them, he shouted, "Form, form, my brave fellows…Old Morgan was never beaten." Assisted by Pickens, Morgan managed to halt most of the militia, and the two officers began to assemble them just behind Howard's men."
"Tarleton, taking the withdrawal of the militia for flight , regrouped his Legion and sent it up the slope. Howard's veterans gave the enemy a "well directed and incessant fire" wrote Morgan…"
C.4) What's really absurd is Bellesiles' suggestion that Morgan could stop a panic-strickened mob merely by waving his sword. This absurdity casts doubt on Bellesiles' depiction of the militia.
Plus Bellesiles' account is INTERNALLY INCONSISTENT --if the militia's job was really just to fire a single volley and to then leave the battlefield, who cared if they ran to their horses? Why would Morgan and Pickens bother stopping them or moving them to the rear of Howard's right flank?
C.5) Finally, Bellesiles own source --British Col Tarleton -- indicates that the cavalry attacking the militia on Morgan's left flank were driven off by heavy fire as well as Washington's cavalry -- indicating the some of the militia had reloaded their rifles and were rallying. As Tarleton noted (see above post):
"The cavalry on the right were directed to charge the enemy's left: They executed the order with great gallantry, but were drove back by the fire of the reserve, and by a charge of Colonel Washington's cavalry."
D) The misleading nature of Bellesiles statement 4 --and it's refutation by the sources -- has been discussed above.
E) What is misleading about Bellesiles' statement 5 is that it was the Continental Line --not the militia --which was "blundering around the field". All the sources testify to that Line's unplanned retreat. What
Bellesiles hilariously calls a "perfect change of direction" is a reference to the Line halting its running.
As I noted on H-OIEAHC, Bellesiles may have been misled by an error in Higginbotham's 1961 book. On
Page 139, Higginbotham says that Howard ordered the Virginia and Georgia militia companies on his right flank to wheel about to defend against a flank attack, that confusion resulted, and that those militia units began retreating to rear,pulling the rest of the Line with them.
However, this would be a tacit acknowledgment by Bellesiles that he knew that a significant part of the "Continental Line" was militia--as described in his Higginbotham source. It seems ..er.. unscholarly to call Triplett's units "militia" when they screw up but to call them "Howard's Continentals" when they are forcing the British infantry to flee from a musket volley and bayonet charge.
Plus, Lawrence Babits "A Devil of a Whipping" shows that Higginbotham and Bellesiles are mistaken. The unit on Howard's far right which caused the unplanned retreat was a Virginia Continental unit --located to the left of Triplett's militia --under Continental Captain Andrew Wallace.
F) Bellesiles Statement 6 is also contradicted by the sources. Both John Marshall and Harry Lee indicated that Pickens militia renewed the attack on Howard's right rear. But let Bellesiles' own source, Higginbotham, tell the story. From "Daniel Morgan, Revolutionary Rifleman", pages 140-141:
"Taken completely by surprise, the line of red and green staggered, at which point Howard yelled for a bayonet charge. Then , as Washington's cavalry crashed down upon Tarleton's right, Morgan and Pickens threw the re-formed militia at his left.
The result was a double envelopment, perfectly timed. The British were thrown into a "panic" admitted Tarleton…"
"..On the American right the 71st Regiment , composed of Scottish Highlanders, continued to fight. Finally, with Picken's militia hammering at one flank and Howard's troops at the other, its commander, Major Archibald McArthur, yield his sword."
The 71st Regiment was Lt McKenzie's unit. Recall how he described lashed at Tarleton in the 1782 London newspaper letter--posted above:
"You got yourself and your party completely ambuscaded, completely surrounded, upon all sides, by Mr. Morgan's rifle men. What was the consequence? The two detachments of British were made prisoners after a great slaughter was made among them, your legion dragoons were so broke by galling fire of rifle shot that your charging was in vain, till prudence, on your side, with about twenty men who were well mounted, made your retreat good, by leaving the remains of the poor blended legion in the hands of Mr. Morgan who I must say, though an enemy, showed great masterly abilities in this manoeuver. "
----------
"Riflemen" were Pickens' and Triplett's militia, not Continentals.
Josh Greenland - 1/21/2004
"Don, This posting is a conspiratorial crock ..."
How so?
Josh Greenland - 1/21/2004
Richard,
Thank you belatedly for your response. It did make some things clearer. I've gone over it once but hope to have the time to go over it again more carefully and reply if that's the thing to do.
Don Williams - 1/19/2004
The following is from “Light Horse” Harry Lee's "Memoirs of the War in the Southern Department of the United States". I include it because , while Harry Lee was not at Cowpens, his cavalry unit was joined with Andrew Picken's mounted militia in the weeks following Cowpens by General Nathanael Greene. Andrew Pickens , a stern Scotch Irish Presbyterian, preferred to spend his time exterminating his Cherokees, Tories, and British soldiers -- and running his farm -- rather than to struggle for the limelight on the national stage. He left no account of the battle, but presumably Harry Lee learned much of Cowpens from Morgan, Washington, Pickens, and the soldiers who were at the Battle.
Here is Lee’s account, from his book “Memoirs of the War in the Southern Department of the United States” (finished 1810). Note Harry Lee’s comment toward the bottom that “Morgan derived very great aid from Pickens and his militia” and the earlier footnote in which Lee cited Continental Colonel Howard as saying that Morgan did not decide to fight Tarleton until the arrival of Pickens’ militia the night before the battle. Note also Lee’s statement that the riflemen in the militia were expert marksmen.
-----------------
"Morgan, having been accustomed to fight and to conquer, did not relish the eager and interrupting pursuit of his adversary; and sat down at the Cowpens to give refreshment to his troops, with a resolution no longer to avoid action, should his enemies persist in pressing it. Being appraised at the dawn of day of Tarleton's advance, he instantly prepared for battle. This decision grew out of irritation of temper, which appears to overruled the suggestions of his sound and discriminating judgment.*”
[* Harry Lee Footnote: ” On this passage Colonel Howard remarks --that Morgan did not decide on action until he was joined in the night by Pickens and his followers -- and adds: ‘I well remember that parties were coming in the most of the night, and calling on Morgan for ammunition, and to know the state of affairs. They were all in good spirits, related circumstances of Tarleton's cruelty, and expressed the strongest desire to check his progress’ The probability is that these circumstances confirmed the decision Morgan had already formed.-ed” ]
(continued) “ The ground about the Cowpens is covered with open wood, admitting the operation of the cavalry with facility, in which the enemy trebled Morgan. His flanks had not resting place, but were exposed to be readily turned; and Broad River ran parallel to his rear, forbidding the hope of a safe retreat in the event of disaster. Had Morgan crossed this river, and approached the mountain, he would have gained a position disadvantageous to cavalry, but convenient for riflemen, and would have secured a less dangerous retreat. But these cogent reasons, rendered more forcible by his inferiority in numbers, could not prevail. Confiding in his long-tried fortune, conscious of his personal superiority in soldiership, and relying on the skill and courage of his troops, he adhered to his resolution. Erroneous as was the decision to fight in this position, when a better might have been easily gained , the disposition for battle was masterly.
Two light parties of militia, under Major McDowel, of North Carolina, and Major Cunningham, of George, were advanced in front, with orders to feel the enemy as he approached; and, preserving a desultory well-aimed fire as they fell back to the front line, to range with it and renew the conflict. The main body of the militia composed this line, with General Pickens at its head. At a suitable distance in the rear of the first line a second was stationed, composed of the Continental infantry and two companies of Virginia militia, under Captains Triplett and Taite, commanded by Lieutenant-Colonel Howard. *
[*Harry Lee Footnote: “These two companies of militia were generally Continental soldiers, who, having served the time of their enlistment, had returned home regularly discharged. A custom for some time past prevailed, which gave to us the aid of such soldiers. Voluntary proffer of service being no longer fashionable , the militia were drafted conformably to a system established by law; and whenever the lot fell upon the timid or wealthy, he procured, by a douceur, a substitute, who, for the most part, was one of those heretofore discharged.” ]
(continued) “Washington’s cavalry, re-enforced by a company of mounted militia armed with sabers, was held in reserve, convenient to support the infantry, and protect the horses of the rifle militia, which were tied, agreeably to usage, in the rear.
On the verge of battle, Morgan availed himself of the short and awful interim to exhort his troops, First addressing himself , with his characteristic pith, to the line of militia, he extolled the zeal and bravery so often displayed by them, when unsupported by the bayonet or sword; and declared his confidence that they could not fail in maintaining their reputation, when supported by chosen bodies of horse and foot, and conducted by himself. Nor did he forget to glance at his unvarying fortune, and superior experience; or to mention how often, with his corps of riflemen, he had brought British troops, equal to those before him, to submission. He described the deep regret he had already experienced in being obliged , from prudential considerations, to retire before an enemy always in his power; exhorted the line to be firm and steady; to fire with good aim; and if they would pour in but two volleys at killing distance, he would take upon himself to secure victory. To the Continentals he was very brief. He reminded them of the confidence he had always reposed in their skill and courage; assured them that victory was certain if they acted well their part; and desired them not to be discouraged by the sudden retreat of the militia , THAT being part of his plan and orders. Then taking post with this line, he waited in stern silence for the enemy.
The British lieutenant-colonel, urging forward, was at length gratified with the certainty of battle; and being prone to presume on victory, he hurried the formation of his troops. The light and Legion infantry, with the seventh regiment, composed the line of battle; in the centre of which was posted the artillery, consisting of two grasshoppers; and a troop of dragoons was placed on each flank. The battalion of the seventy first regiment, under Major McArthur, with the remainder of the cavalry, formed the reserve. Tarleton placed himself with the line, having under him Major Newmarsh, who commanded the seventh regiment. The disposition was not completed, when he directed the line to advance, and the reserve to wait further orders.”*
[* Harry Lee Footnote: “Tarleton’s cavalry are stated at three hundred and fifty, while that under Morgan did not exceed eighty.
“Morgan’s militia used rifles , and were expert marksmen; this corp composed nearly one half of his infantry. “
Tarleton’s detachment is put down as one thousand. Morgan, in a letter to General Greene, after his victory, gives his total as eight hundred. “ ]
(continued) “The American light parties quickly yielded, fell back, and arrayed with Pickens. The enemy shouted , rushed forward upon the front line, which retained its station, and poured in a close fire; but continuing to advance with the bayonet on our militia, they retired, and gained with haste the second line.
Here, with part of the corps, Pickens took post on Howard’s right, and the rest fled to their horses; probably with orders to remove them to a further distance. Tarleton pushed forward, and was received by his adversary with unshaken firmness. The contest became obstinate; and each party, animated by the example of its leader, nobly contended for victory. Our line maintained itself so firmly, as to oblige the enemy to order up his reserve. The advance of McArthur re-animated the British line, which again moved forward; and , outstretching our front, endangered Howard’s right. This officer instantly took measures to defend his flank, by directing his right company to change its front; but mistaking this order, the company fell back; upon which the line began to retire, and General Morgan directed it to retreat to the cavalry. This manoeuvre being performed with precision, our flank became relieved, and the new position was assumed with promptitude. Considering this retrograde movement the precursor of flight, the British rushed on with impetuosity and disorder; but , as it drew near, Howard faced about , and gave it a close and murderous fire. Stunned by this unexpected shock, the most advanced of the enemy recoiled in confusion. Howard seized the happy moment , and followed his advantage with the bayonet.” *
[Harry Lee Footnote: “In this charge, the brave Kirkwood , of the Delawares, was conspicuous—See “Garden’s Anecdote”, p. 397 “ ]
(continued) “This decisive step gave us the day. The reserve having been brought near the line, shared in the destruction of our fire, and presented no rallying point to the fugitives. A part of the enemy’s cavalry, having gained our rear, fell on that portion of the militia who had retired to their horses. Washington struck at them with his dragoons , and drove them before him. Thus, by simultaneous efforts, the infantry and cavalry of the enemy were routed. Morgan pressed home his success, and the pursuit became vigorous and general. The British cavalry having taken no part in the action, except the two troops attached to the line, were in force to cover the retreat. This , however, was not done. The zeal of Lieutenant-Colonel Washington in pursuit having carried him far before his squadron, Tarleton turned upon him with the troop of the seventeenth regiment of dragoons, seconded by many of his officers. The American lieutenant-colonel was first rescued from this critical contest by one of his sergeants, and afterward by a fortunate shot from his bugler’s pistol. ++
[++ Footnote—At this point , there is a quote from John Marshall’s description of the incident from Marshall’s “Life of Washington”. However, this citation must have been inserted by Robert E Lee -- Harry Lee’s son and famous Confederate General –when Robert E Lee revised his father’s Memoirs. John Marshall’s “Life of Washington did not come out until almost 20 years after Harry Lee finished his first version of Memoirs. ]
(continued) “This check concluded resistance on the part of the British officer, who drew off with the remains of his cavalry, collected his stragglers, and hastened to Lord Cornwallis. The baggage guard, learning the issue of battle, moved instantly toward the British army. A part of the horse, who had shamefully avoided action, and refused to charge when Tarleton wheeled on the impetuous Washington, reached the camp of Cornwallis at Fisher’s Creek, about twenty five miles from the Cowpens, in the evening. The remainder arrived with Lieutenant-Colonel Tarleton on the morning following. In this decisive battle we lost about seventy men, of whom twelve only were killed. The British infantry, with the exception of the baggage guard, were nearly all killed or taken. One hundred, including ten officers, were killed; twenty –three officers and five hundred privates were taken. The artillery, eight hundred muskets, two standards, thirty-five baggage wagons, and one hundred dragoon horses, fell into our possession. *
[* Harry Lee citation: “Cornwallis’s letter to Sir H. Clinton”]
(continued) “The victory of the Cowpens was to the South what that of Bennington had been to the North. General Morgan, whose former services had placed him high in public estimation, was now deservedly ranked among the most illustrious defenders of his country. Starke fought an inferior , Morgan a superior , foe. The former contended with a German corps +, the latter, with the elite of the Southern army, composed of British troops.”
[+ Harry Lee Footnote: “This remark is not made to disparage the German troops serving with the British army in America. They were excellent soldiers; but, for light services, they were inferior to the British. Ignorant of our language, unaccustomed to woods, with their very heavy dress, they were less capable of active and quick operations.
The splendid issue of the subsequent campaign, and the triumph of Gates has been noticed, as well as the instrumentality of Morgan in producing the auspicious event. Great and effectual as were his exertions, General Gates did not even mention him in his official dispatches. “ ]
(continued) “In military reputation the conqueror at the Cowpens must stand before the hero of Bennington. Starke was nobly seconded by Colonel Warner and his continental regiment; Morgan derived very great aid from Pickens and his militia, and was effectually supported by Howard and Washington. The weight of the battle fell on Howard; who sustained himself admirably in trying circumstances, and seized with decision the critical moment to complete with the bayonet the advantage gained by his fire.
Congress manifested their sense of this important victory by a resolve, approving the conduct of the principal officers, and commemorative of their distinguished exertions. To General Morgan they presented a gold medal, to Brigadier Pickens a sword, and to Lieutenant-Colonels Howard and Washington a silver medal , and to Captain Triplett a sword.”
Richard Henry Morgan - 1/18/2004
Nice bait and switch, Benny. You made a quip about Cramer as "an amateur historian", and I pointed out that is false. Now you want to compare his credentials to Bernstein's. OK. Granted. Now explain why Bernstein, with his greater credentials has now left Bellesiles swinging in the wind.
You made a crack about peer review, and Williams avoiding it, and I pointed out that Bellesiles published in a non-peer-reviewed journal. No response? If it's a hit against Williams, why is it not against Bellesiles?
The truth is not determined by comparing credentials -- Einstein was a patent clerk. The appeal to credentials is just a form of argumentum ad verecundiam. Refer to the sources I give for #Wills and US v. Miller. Wills is just plain wrong, yet he has a PhD in Classics from Yale, and I don't. How do you explain that by way of credentials? And criticizing my post because it includes not an opinion by the SAF, but merely a scan of a filed government reply brief in the Emerson case, is just an example of the genetic fallacy.
I don't trust Cramer's expertise, because the issue isn't decided on the basis of comparative "expertise". I simply checked the sources he cited in refutation of Bellesiles on the issue of central storage, and Cramer seems correct to me. What I admire about Cramer, and others, and what I try to achieve myself to the extent possible, is that they cite and link to the sources, and don't ask me to trust them.
Ralph E. Luker - 1/18/2004
Don, This posting is a conspiratorial crock ...
Don Williams - 1/18/2004
Mr Sandburg was referring to the custom in the South, when one lacks evidence in a debate, of making a vehement unsupported assertion followed up by a strong spit of tobacco juice to emphasize the universal truth one has just spoken.
The history profession seems to be doing that in its attempt to undermine the Second Amendment.
I acknowledge that discussing some big issues in depth --e.g., the validity of Charles Beard's idea that economic and financial interests controlled the detailed design of the COnstitution -- can take years of scholarship and hence is often, but not necessarily always, left to the full time scholars.
But specific issues --like what actually happened at a specific battle -- are narrow enough that anyone can acquire and review the available evidence.
Benny seems not to recognize the strong forces that professional historians work under at the moment. When you do an activity for a living--to satisfy a patron of any kind -- you lose some control and objectivity as your intellect is twisted by self interest. As a field becomes more competitive and ideological, such forces greatly warp scholarship and pulls it away from truth. I frankly wonder if the Emory Investigation would have reached the same conclusion/result if Al Gore , vice George Bush, had been elected President--and hence had acquired control of NEH funds.
To what extent was the history developed at the Chicago Kent Symposium twisted by the Joyce Foundations $80,000 funding -- particularly when the Joyce has much more where that came from.
True experts KNOW they have reviewed the evidence and that they have drawn reasonable conclusions from the evidence that they can defend --including producing the evidence itself. WHere has that happened in the Bellesiles affair?
Benny Smith - 1/18/2004
I am obliged to Mr. Richard Morgan for his recent rejoinder as it delves closer to the substance of my original subject topic. Regarding 'amateur' scholars, it is apparent in this age of the internet that anyone with a computer and too much time on their hands can fancy themselves an expert. And in this heavily politicized country we live in, this passes muster with many. Oftentimes, the necessary prerequisite to being recognized as an expert is not degrees, professional credentials, peer respect and the like, but possessing the right political ideology. Hence, you see right wing politico Newt Gingrich offering ‘expert history commentary’ on Fox news, and Mr. Morgan's Danish statistician Lomborg enthralling even more right wing followers with his ‘scientific analysis’ that poo-poos the threat of global warming. Among some right wing zealots, Rush Limbaugh is an expert on everything. Then it becomes a tug of war between political forces to enthrone some experts, while discrediting others--an ugly process that led to the intellectual lynching of Professor Bellesiles.
To illustrate, let’s compare Richard Bernstein with Clayton Cramer, since Mr. Morgan mentioned both. Mr. Bernstein has produced or co-produced at least a dozen books having to do with law and history, the last one just recently reviewed by the New York Times. Sample reviews of one of his works can be found here . . .
http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/berame.html
When one of Clayton Cramer's books can produce that type of across-the-board plaudits, then maybe he will have the requisite respect and credentials to get a book published through Oxford University Press, which recently refused one of his works. Now, certainly Mr. Morgan can choose to trust Mr. Cramer's expertise, whether as a critic of Arming America, or on the gay community’s alleged support of child molestation, or on the evil and murderous ambitions of our nations's leaders. Personally, I don't think Mr. Cramer has the credentials suitable to unstrap Professor Bellesiles’ gun holster, let alone academic credentials of any merit.
As far as Mr. Morgan trying to distance himself from the NRA and the gun lobby, I will note in passing that Mr. Morgan referenced for our edification the website of the Second Amendment Foundation. One need only to visit its homepage to determine that they are even more gun rights radical than the NRA. That makes me wary of Mr. Morgan's contributions here, just as I am of any other NRA propagandist.
Don Williams - 1/18/2004
test
Don Williams - 1/18/2004
In a letter to Feb 13 letter to General Butler, Greene acknowledges that even if the militia showed up, he had no food to feed them, due to the state of the US supply system.
---------------
Sir
Your letter of the 11th is this moment come to hand. I wrote you yesterday to collect your Militia and have them in readiness in the neighbourhood of Hillsborough. The enemy press so hard upon us and our force is so inferior to the enemies we shall be obliged to cross over into Virginia.
It is evident this Army is Lord Cornwallis's first and great object, The destruction of which would compleat the reduction of the State. Your Militia cannot either recieve arms or Ammunition with me as I am in want of both. And if they could their numbers would be too inconsiderable to authorise a stand, nor would our present position warrant it without great superority of numbers, which cannot be expected from one or two Counties.
The only way in which the State can form any considerable force will be to collect from each County a certain number and rendezvous at some given point, Say Halifax. In this way arms may be got for the Militia of each County in the County to which they belong. But in no other as it is impossible to furnish Arms for all the Militia of a County without calling them out of other Counties.
The moment I can secure our stores, and Lord Cornwallis ceases his pursuit I shall fall into his rear. If he cannot over take us he will file off towards Halifax and pass through Hillsborough. The Militia collecting between him and Genl Arnold may prevent a junction until I can collect a force sufficient to attack his rear. All the Militia of your State have deserted me except about 80 Men. In this situation and having many Stores exposed I found it necessary to pursue the present route. I wish my numbers had been considerable enough to have authorised a stand. If we can keep out of Lord Cornwallis's reach, he will gain no other advantage by his Manoeuver than having passed through the Country, and it may serve to convince the Legislature of what they ought to have known long since, that but a well appointed Army can save them from subjugation.
I have left unattempted to save your State, and run every risque and hazard that prudence would dictate to see whether the State could afford the succour necessary to authorise a stand. But if we could have got men, it would have been almost impossible to have fed them, in the present deranged State of the Commisarres Department. I am Sir
your humbl S
N Greene
----------
The bright side to all this, of course, is that Cornwallis army was trimmed down, King George had spent huge amounts of money in the Southern campaign --yet achieved nothing, and the Southern militia had showed that they could not be subdued, that they could block formation of a puppet government, and that no commercial profit could be gained while they existed. When the Bankers in Holland did their profit-loss calculations, they cut off King George's line of credit and the game was over.
Don Williams - 1/18/2004
Sir
I have been honored with your Letter of the 24 Jany last.
You know I am not much elated at good News or depressed at bad. I acknowledge my Breast was warmed with the most lively Emotion at knowing your great Success.1 An Instance so brilliant in all its parts has not occurred to my Knowledge during the War. Your real Friends feel for you much. While they know you have Enemies, they are certain you dont deserve so ill a Fate. Your Enemies are not personal, but political. The Number is small. I find however, they very readily [Page 278] condemn in you, what they would extol in your Predecessor as the Result of uncommon Wisdom and Fortitude. I dont mean your military Conduct, but political Sentiments respecting the Nature of Armies in this Country.2 My most serious Assiduity is now exerted to convince every Body, that your late Success was the Result of Skill, and not of Force, that we must soon hear of your retiring, & that you must be upon the defensive 'till we can give you Magasines and regular Troops. But, my good Friend, our civil Condition is very similar to your military one, only you have one Advantage, wch is Credit, derived from Victory. We are obliged to begin every Thing anew. In an Intervall between the laying aside of old, & introducing new Systems there must be a political Pause; And this Pause will injure your Department more than any other. Congress have no Money.3 I am one of a Committee upon the Affairs of the Southern Department.4 I hope you will Derive some Advantage from our Measures. We have pretty good Authority that on the Night of the Twenty second last, a Brittish seventy four was stranded on Montauge Point [Montauk Point, Long Island], and another dismasted.5 Should that be true, the French Squadron will be superior to the British; In which Case, Arnold may be dislodged from Virginia, and Provisions and Men may be sent you by Water, as well as Arms and Amunition.6 For I am determined to get you the Pennsylvania Line, if possible; For I dont think the great Knife has been ground lately.7 You have heard of the Mutiny of that Line. The Consequence has been that most of them have been discharged, & the remainder furloughed. However, about a Thousand of them will be assembled at their Regimental Rendesvous in about two Weeks.8 I inclose you a political Account of that Insurrection; As it was written by your Friend, it will give you some Amusement.9
Congress have agreed to appoint a Superindendant of Finance, a Secretary of War, A Secry of Marine, & Secry of Foreign Affairs. This arrangement will knock up many useless Boards, & direct our executive Business to certain Points. It will create a Responsibility in the respective great Departments & prevent Infinity of Confusion.10
Congress have called upon the States to vest their willfull Powers to levy and collect Duties upon Importations and Prise Goods. Should this Measure succeed, you will perceive our System aided by increasing Vigor, and public Credit rear its Head amidst surrounding Disgrace.11 We are now upon the great Subject of Revenue. And as our Plans increase, I will let you know it.12 I am extremely happy in this City, being honored with every kind of polite and generous Attention.
A Few days since I had the Honor of a Letter from your good Lady in which I am so happy as to find she, and the little ones, are well. I have wrote Her your Success, and have endeavored to fortify her Mind against any Reverse of Fortune that succeed thro' your great Inequality [Page 279] in Force and Magasines to Lord Cornwallace. I have requested to address her Letters to me, wch I can send by pretty certain Conveyances.13
Maryland, I am very certain, have acceded to the Confederation; & the Ancient Dominion have graciously ceded to Congress their Lands North West of the Ohio; & I suppose will soon include the Island of Japan, and that Tract of Country extending from the [portion damaged] Calmuck Tartar down to the Black Sea.14
God bless you. Let me hear from you often. I wont be in Debt.
Adiu my good Friend
J M Varnum
************
Note: at the end, Varnum is ridiculing Virginia's claims to the American West
The above items are from the online collection of Nathanael Greene's letters:
The Papers of General Nathanael Greene, ed. Dennis Conrad et al. (Columbia, S.C.: Model Editions Partnership, 1999). Full texts of documents calendared in The Papers of General Nathanael Greene (Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina Press, 1994), Vol. 7, pp. 152-289. http://adh.sc.edu [Accessed (supply date here)]
Don Williams - 1/18/2004
In a Feb 9 1781 letter to George Washington, Greene informs him that the Carolina militia are refusing to turn out and that Greene is crossing the Dan River into Virginia with a force of about 700 men running from Cornwallis' army of 2500-3000 troops. Some extracts from his letter:
-----------
"Genl Davidson who had great influence among the Mecklenberg & Roan [Rowan County] Militia had made use of all the arguments in his power to get the Militia into the field, but without effect. They had been so much in service and their families so distressed that they were loth to leave home even on the most pressing occasion."
--------------
"As soon as I arrived at the Lt Infantry camp I wrote letters to all the Militia Officers over the mountains and in the upper Country to embody their men and join the Army as early as possible.6 But very few have joined us, and those principally without arms or amunition. We have no provisions but what we recieve from our daily collections.7 Under these circumstances I called a council who unanimously advised to avoid an action and to retire beyond the Roanoke [i.e., the Dan] immediately. A copy of the proceedings I have the honor to enclose.8"
-----------
I have ordered Genl Marion to cross the Santee River and Genl Sumter to collect the Militia in the upper part of S. Carolina. Genl Pickens has orders to take command of the men in arms in the rear of the enemy.14 [Page 269]
Don Williams - 1/18/2004
In a February 9 1781, Nathanael Greene informs Governor Abner Nash that Greene's forces must flee North Carolina,complains about militia stealing his guns
---------------------
Sir
I wrote your Excellency at the Island Ford on the 3d of this instant, and informed you of the situation of the enemy and our Army. The distressed state which the latter was in as well as the badness of the roads, deep creeks, and a thousand other difficulties, prevented our forming a junction at the Yadkin as I first intended. Finding Lord Cornwallis pressed hard upon our rear, I orderd our Army to file off to Guilford Court House, where part of it arrivd last evening, the rest has not come up yet.1
The Enemy crossed the Yadkin at the Shallow Ford the day before yesterday in the evening, and were encamped the night before last three miles on this side the ford; and I expect they will be at this place by to morrow noon at farthest.2
Our force is so unequal to the enemy, as well in numbers as condition that it is the unanimous opinion of a Council of war held this day, that it would be inevitable ruin to the Army and no less ruinous to the American cause to hazard a General action; and therefore have advisd to our crossing the Dan River immediately; which will be carried into execution as soon as possible; and all the Stores have been orderd over the Roanoke accordingly.3
Nothing can be more painful than this measure; but a defeat is certain if we come to action; and your Excellency can easily conceive the fatal consequences of having our little Army dispersed small as it is; nor do I know whether it will be in our power to avoid an action, the enemy moves with such rapidity. We have retarded their motions all we could but our force has been so unequal to theirs that they have moved with amazing rapidity.
There are few Militia collected nor can I see the least prospect of collecting any considerable force; and if we could, we have no provision [Page 265] or forage. Col [John] Lutterell's party that was three hundred strong a few days since, are now reduced to Thirty Six as the Colonel reported this morning; and those that have gone have carried off with them all their arms. There is besides these about two hundred militia on the ground; and upwards of two hundred on the march under General Lillington and may join this evening.4 These are all the Militia we have with us that are armed. There are some Militia in the rear of the enimy, but their numbers are very inconsiderable, nor can I tell whether there is a prospect of their increasing.
Your Excellency must take such steps for the preservation of public Stores and other matters that concerns the interest of the State, as you may think the occasion requires. Should I leave the State, I shall return the moment I find the army in a condition to take the field.
I cannot stop this letter without one observation, which is that I think it an endless task to attempt to arm and equip all your Militia. Such a waste of arms and ammunition as I have seen in different parts of this State, is enough to exhaust all the Arsenals of Europe. Nor ought arms in my opinion to be put into the hands of doubt[ful] characters: for you may depend upon it such will never be useful in the hour of diffi[cul]ty. I am with great respect
your Excellencys most Obdt humble
N Greene
Don Williams - 1/18/2004
In a Feb 3 1781 letter to Baron Steuben, General Nathanael Greene complains:
------------
"These Southern States are in such a defenceless condition, that they must fall under the dominion of the enemy, unless reinforcements are immediately sent from the Northward. You know I have always considered the incursions in Virginia as of no consequence if we could prevent their penetrating this way. Pray send on all the men you can equip: and if Colo Carrington has not left Virginia desire him to join the Army as soon as he can; and Major Forsyth also, if he has the appointment of Commissary General for the Southern Department.10 In moving the Stores from Salisbury I found upwards of 1700 stand of Continental Arms in one Store, kept for the use of the Militia, in the most miserable order you [can] imagine. Such distribution of publick stores is enough to ruin a nation. These are some of the happy effects of defending the country with Militia; from which good lord deliver us."
-----------
Yet at the end of the above letter, Greene says:
"If the Enemy distress us in this State, I am not without hopes of giving them trouble in their rear; and Shall take measures to this purpose, with Generals Sumter, Marion and Pickens.12 O that we had in the field as Henry the Fifth said, some few of the many thousands that are Idle at Home.13 I am dear Baron
Your Most Obedt humble Sr
Nath Greene "
------------------
Note that "Generals Sumter, Marion and Pickens" were commanders of the guerrilla southern militias --the forces doing the fighting.
By that point in the war, the men of the US understood that only the village idiot would be stupid enough to enlist in the Continental Army -- to rot in some shithole of a camp, to freeze from lack of clothing and to starve to death while being fucked over by the corrupt morons in the Congress and state governments.
Don Williams - 1/18/2004
I wonder why Bellesiles bashed the militia (falsely in my view), but overlooked the major mutinies occurring in the Continental Army. General Robert Howe, in a February 2 1781 letter to General Greene, describes them:
--------------------
We also have had our Embarassments, the sources of them I need not enumerate to you. [Things?] have principally sprang from those causes you, and I, have so frequently Descanted upon, & most of them have been by us foretold, & expected. You can not but have heard of the mutiny of the whole Pensylvania line, & the murder of some of their officiers & Brother soldiers who offered to support the officers. Our Good General was desirous of Coercing them, a party was form'd for this purpose, and the command was to have been mine, But Civil Authority took the management of this matter to themselves. A Treaty was open'd with them, Even while they had arms in their hands, and the affair has been Quieted as I am informed at the loss of at least one half of the Division by Discharges; & that the murders committed were not attoned for nor are they to be atton'd for. The mode fallen upon where original inlistments could not be found (How few of which Exist at this time) was to take the soldiers oath in his own cause, the consequence of which you know & will I persuade myself agree with me in opinion, that perjury had authority to become frequent.
Whilst this was Transacting the Jesey line caught the Infection, & went off in a Body. The General Instantly order'd, me off with a Detachment, the Result of which the enclos'd copy of my letter to him will inform you. I have often in conversation mentioned to you the good opinion I had of, & the confidence I plac'd in the New England Troops but highly as I thought of them, they have Exalted themselves exceedingly with me by their conduct in the Expedition against the Insurgents. The service was peculiar. It was not against a common Enemy, but against a Brother soldier who held out as the object of his aim only a redress of Grievances, while they were actually suffering under similar grievances; to Rise superior to the feelings which those reflections could not but Excite, plainly Demonstrates that a sense of duty & love of their Country, precedes with them every other considera tion, and it should pull from community its applause, rewards & blessings. I think to write to Mr Hancock upon this subject tomorrow or next day, & this, or something like this, will I say to him.
When the General upon the Pennsylvania revolt call'd all the General Officers together, & all the Field Officers of the [ ] New England Line, and asked their opinion whether the men would march cheerfully on, & Act faithfully in such a service, will it not Excite your Indignation to be told that any person should Express doubts upon the Occasion, and yet there were two, or three, & those high up who not only doubted, but urged that the men had greatly suffer'd, that they had grievances, that this was to be feared, & 'tother apprehended, in short Buggaboo's & Hobgoblins, started up in their fancys, which however well meant, I did not approve, tho' I regard the men who uttered them.
I pledged, myself, to the General that the men, would go, and that they would acquit themselves, just as they did & in this opinion I was supported by Every officer, those above mentioned Excepted.
The States have not (I mean some of them) seconded Congress in their Efforts to obtain an army for the war, and the policy of Three years men appears to be the prevailing System. I only wish that they have no reason to regret it. Remember me very particularly to your Family. Write to me often, very often, I beg of you. Be as happy as I wish you, and you will be very happy indeed. I am, my Dear sir, with affection & friendship
Yours sincerely &c.;
Robt Howe
PS Dont complain of my bad writing for I have done my best, but learn to read it.
Don Williams - 1/18/2004
Baron Steuben's Jan 28, 1781 letter to Nathanael --re von Steuben's attempts to deal with the British invasion of Tidewater Virginia led by Benedict Arnold --is interesting. See http://adh.sc.edu/dynaweb/MEP/ng/@Generic__BookView
(click on "Published Material" then click again to expand it --or click on Index.)
It includes the following:
"In making this Disposition I had in View as a very material object the Keeping up as small a number of Militia as possible and therefore reduced the 4000 called out to the above number. The Militia of the Counties adjacent to the River I have orderd to be relievd by others from the back Country and as a great part of these will bring Rifles with them I have orderd the spare Arms to be collected & Kept on Waggons ready to Arm the Militia of the Vicinity should we be in want of them.
I have directed Genl Weedon to remain at Fredricksburg, to discharge all the Militia adjacent to that place but to keep ready 1000 Stand of arms that they may be Armed in case the Enemy should move that way & in that case also Genls Muhlenberg & Nelson are to move the same way."
---------------
Steuben's also notes that "The Continental Troops being too naked to Keep the Field had been sent back to Chesterfield Co Ho "
Steuben's letter indicates that he and other commanders had decided that it was infeasible to try to force Arnold out of Petersburg --hence, that they would simply block the routes out of Petersburg and see what Arnold's next move would be.
Note Steuben's view that the militia coming from the back country would be amply armed with private rifles. Note also that he collected muskets from the Tidewater region to hand out to rotating groups of militia. Jefferson, in his 1781 Notes on Virginia, noted that the Tidewater region had been totally denuded of private firearms to supply Virginia's Continentals (most of whom had been captured in the fall of Charleston -- a major disaster resulting from Continental General Lincoln's stupid decision to defend a penisula subject to the full force of the British Navy.) Jefferson had also noted that men west of the Blue Ridge were armed with rifles. Fortunately those private firearms were available to defend Virginia after General Lincoln lost over 4000 muskets and several hundred cannon to the British.
Don Williams - 1/18/2004
The Nathanael Green papers I cited above have a number of interesting items pertaining to the supplies. It seems that the Continentals were often unable to fight because they were almost naked from lack of clothing and often scrounging for food -- Greene noted that if not for the aid of the Carolina militia, his Continental forces would be scattered over the land due simply to the need to forage. His letters to Maryland,etc. complain bitterly that the Mid Atlantic states are not giving the Southern states help --both troops and supplies. He notes that the problem is political -- that the United States is actually much richer in 1781 than years earlier but that the Continental Army and supplies to militia are lacking due to a failure to collect the necessary taxes (note that COngress had avoided this by printing money --to the point that US money had become worthless. ) Other letters simply note the failure of supply due to the usual problems in the Continental commissary --stupidity, chokepoints and delays due to the need to obtain the necessary political permission,etc. The letters confirm that broader view of failure in the supply system given in this US Army study, which also discusses the toll imposed by corruption and politically-protected profiteering:
http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/RevWar/risch/risch-fm.htm
If you think matters have changed today, I regret to inform you that you are mistaken. Circa 1994, the Director and Deputy Director of a major US intelligence agency were relieved of command after it was revealed that they had managed to build a $500 million headquarters building in Fairfax County (outside Washington) without the knowledge of the Congressional oversight committees and had accumulated almost $4 billion in a slush fund unknown to COngress. This at a time when the US ARmy cutbacks had trimmed almost 40% of its soldiers from the rolls and when enlisted mens' families were being forced to apply for food stamps.
Don Williams - 1/18/2004
I thought Benny might being interested in the following report to General Nathanael Green from a militia unit re it supply of firearms. This is from the cited online collection of Nathanael Green papers at http://adh.sc.edu/dynaweb/MEP/ng/
****************
From Colonel Thomas Farmer
Camp near Salisburey [N.C.] Jany 22nd. 1781
Sir
Our number of Troops from Hillsborough District being noways Compleat, Have Ordered a Capt & Leut to Collect the Guard you appd out of the Delinquents.1
The Troops under my Command Concist of about 310 Including Officers Soldiers & Wagoners. We have Seven Wagons, Two Thousand [Page 170] four Hundred Cartridges[,] Two Hundred & forty Muskets, One Hundred & Thirty Eight Bayonets, One Hundred & fifteen C[artridge] Boxes[,] forty nine Knap Sacks, Thirty five Pots, Twelve axes and Thirty-six flints. We Expected to be furnished with flints at this post, & all other Articles Sutable for Camp, but Cannot. Have Sent to Gen l Davidson for flints & his Answer is also Doubtfull, Concerning them.2
Have recd Ord[e]rs from Gen l Davidson to Joyn him as Quick as possible. Shall March at 12 OClock to day to Joyn him. Am Sir, with Respect
yr Hb l Servt
Thos Farmer
Autograph letter signed (MiU-C).
1. NG's orders concerning the guard are in his letter to Farmer of 16 January (PGNG, 7: 129-130).
2. This list of equipment was presumably what a "typical" militia unit in the South might bring into the field. As seen by Gen. William L. Davidson's letter of 24 January (PGNG, 7: 188-189), Davidson lacked flints for his own command.
Recommended Citation: The Papers of General Nathanael Greene, ed. Dennis Conrad et al. (Columbia, S.C.: Model Editions Partnership, 1999). Full texts of documents calendared in The Papers of General Nathanael Greene (Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina Press, 1994), Vol. 7, pp. 152-289. http://adh.sc.edu [Accessed (supply date here)]
*****************
Note that this militia unit of about 310 people seems abundantly supplied with 240 muskets. They are lacking in flints -- although flints already in the muskets should be adequate for a single engagement of 24 shots (standard battle load for Continental soldier ). Note that they are also somewhat short of cartridges -- 24 cartridges for 240 muskets yield 5760 cartridges-- versus the 2400 that they report having.
General Davidson was the commander of the Rowan County North Carolina militia --one of Greene's major subordinates.
Note that this report occurs a few days after Cowpens and at a time when the South had been devastated by war for several years. Yet this militia unit is well armed and reports no shortcomings in its muskets.
John G. Fought - 1/17/2004
It would 'balance' the collections of articles on the other side (you know, the way truth balances falsehood). It would be easier to put together a compact, affordable reading list for courses on the topic. And more such courses would then be taught. The only drawback is that getting a bunch of authors to finish on time makes cat herding seem like child's play (which it is, come to think of it).
Richard Henry Morgan - 1/17/2004
Who's the co-editor? What's the title?
Critical works are hard to get published, particularly if not by a big name. I think Cramer would do better if he edited or co-edited a collection of critical essays on the subject, featuring articles by Sternstein, Lindgren, etc. (and include one of his own) I notice that the whole controversy is being taught by a professor at UNC in her history methods class. A good example of what I have in mind is Black Athena Revisited, published by UNC Press. At just over 500 pages, it was a bargain at $16. There was some overlapping, but it was worth the candle to watch Bernal get slapped around by real professionals.
Don Williams - 1/17/2004
Benny's "William T Sherman" is not the Civil War General , but a modern day "William Thomas Sherman" --see http://battleofcamden.org/sherman.htm .
"William T Sherman"'s account does not describe Cowpens, noting that
"The action has been already so ably described elsewhere to need much recounting here." He also does not explain the basis for his high value of Tarleton's account. Plus, even if we assume there is some basis, Mr Sherman speaks of Tarleton's account a a whole --not of the Cowpens description-- Tarleton most embarrassing defeat. I'm afraid I give more credence to Lt McKenzie's criticism -- since McKenzie was at Cowpens.
Colts Coach Tony Dungy is hardly a relevant source for Cowpens. Benny's analogy is misplaced --John Marshall adn Harry Lee's accounts came out after the Revolutionary War was over -- at that time, Morgan, Howard, and Washington had no reason to defend the militia --indeed, they had every reason to complain bitterly if the militia had left them in the lurch.
Don Williams - 1/17/2004
Benny's "William T Sherman" is not the Civil War General , but a modern day "William Thomas Sherman" --see http://battleofcamden.org/sherman.htm .
"William T Sherman"'s account does not describe Cowpens, noting that
"The action has been already so ably described elsewhere to need much recounting here." He also does not explain the basis for his high value of Tarleton's account. Plus, even if we assume there is some basis, Mr Sherman speaks of Tarleton's account a a whole --not of the Cowpens description-- Tarleton most embarrassing defeat. I'm afraid I give more credence to Lt McKenzie's criticism -- since McKenzie was at Cowpens.
Colts Coach Tony Dungy is hardly a relevant source for Cowpens. Benny's analogy is misplaced --John Marshall adn Harry Lee's accounts came out after the Revolutionary War was over -- at that time, Morgan, Howard, and Washington had no reason to defend the militia --indeed, they had every reason to complain bitterly if the militia had left them in the lurch.
Ralph E. Luker - 1/17/2004
Richard, Your post walks all over the sensitivities of those you defend and celebrates, by implication, the work of those you criticize. It is one of the great irritations in Clayton Cramer's life that, while Oxford University Press announces the publication of a new book co-edited by Belles, Cramer can't get his manuscript on the gun controversy published.
Richard Henry Morgan - 1/17/2004
The quote from Sherman is interesting. Tarleton's literary effort is characterized as "the single most valuable book on the War in the South 1780-1781 by a contemporary." Yes, the single most valuable BOOK, by a CONTEMPORARY, on the War in the South. Not a lot of competition there. Note, this isn't an endorsement of Tarleton's account of Cowpens.
It is a commonplace that in an ambitious work like Bellesiles', that synthesizes a lot of material, that many subtopics will be addressed only through secondary sources. And Don Higginbotham is a respected historian. But the work of Higginbotham that Bellesiles cites on the Battle of Cowpens is a biography of Daniel Morgan, and dates from 1961. Fully two years before the publication of Bellesiles' book, a book was published, and reviewed in JAH, centering on the Battle of Cowpens, yet it seems not have been read (or at least cited by Bellesiles -- an interesting point because the new research includes the claim that Morgan had more men than reported, which would diminish the lustre of his victory, and the glory that would accrue to the militia). This dimishes my sympathy for Bellesiles' predicament. In fact, Bellesiles seems not to have availed himself of any other secondary source, nor any other primary source. I find this interesting because, on p. 583 of Arming America (1st edition), Bellesiles writes: "And, as always, my warmest thanks to Christine Heyrman, my graduate advisor, who taught me to check the sources myself. Good point."
Unfortunately, there is often a political dimension to citing sources. One often sees a big name cited in preference to a more comprehensive source. And you also see people fail to criticize work whose conclusions they agree with. Recently I reread a work on global warming by Stephen Schneider. More than 20 years ago Schneider wrote a paper purporting to demonstrate that CO2 did not contribute to global warming. He then wrote a book forecasting the imminent arrival of the next ice age. He then became a convert to global warming, and though in his book he says you must separate science from politics, in the same book he reports how he kept his mouth shut when sitting next to James Hansen, as Hansen provided a flawed study to Congress in support of the global warming hypothesis. Schneider said he kept his silence because Hansen was on the side of the angels -- which sounds like politics to me. On that score, Higginbotham and Bellesiles had already taken public positions, known to each other, against an individualist interpretation of the Second Amendment.
Your animadversions against Cramer as an "amateur historian" are misplaced, as are your comments about NRA propagandists. For instance, I've said on this site that the NRA interpretation as to "bear arms" is just plain wrong. I also think that there is a defensible version of the collectivist interpretation. I don't own a gun -- and never have. I'm not a member of the NRA, or any other such group, nor have I received any funding from such. Yet I've been lumped in, by you previously on this site, with the NRA as a gun lobbyist. Cramer is a published historian, and an adjunct university faculty member (like RB Bernstein, your recent favorite source of wisdom, who of late seems to have lost his taste for Bellesiles). Cramer, I might add, has not yet been forced to resign, nor had a publishing house cease publication because of questions of quality, nor had any prize revoked. If one were to compare Cramer to Bellesiles, perhaps that is an endorsement of "amateurism".
As an example of the political dimension of citing sources, I offer this last little tidbit. it is from a government reply brief in the Emerson case: http://www.saf.org/EMERSONgovtrepl.html
You will note that in the Table of Authorities, which cites (among others) Garry Wills' A Necessary Evil, Wills' work is the only work that doesn't have an accompanying page number. You will note, further down the text, the text which is end-noted by endote number 9. I quote it here:
"And, most important, he [Emerson] fails to come to grips withUnited States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), the case now recognized by every circuit as providing the definitive interpretation of the Second Amendment. (9)"
[bracketed insert mine]
When you proceed to endnote 9 you find the following text:
"9. The case law and history ignored by Emerson are more than adequately set forth in the Government's opening brief and the amicus briefs of the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence et al. and the Ad Hoc Group of Law Professors and Historians, as well as by countless legal and historical researchers. See, e.g., Michael A. Bellesiles, Suicide Pact: New Readings of the Second Amendment, 16 Const. Commentary 247 (1999); Carl T. Bogus, The Hidden History of the Second Amendment, 31 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 309 (1998); Saul Cornell, Commonplace or Anachronism, 16 Const. Commentary 221 (1999); Dennis Henigan, Arms, Anarchy and the Second Amendment, 26 Val. U.L. Rev. 107 (1991); Don Higginbotham, The Second Amendment in Historical Context, 16 Const. Commentary 263 (1999); Garry Wills, A Necessary Evil: A History of American Distrust of Government (1999)."
This is the sort of corporate endnote that commits the author of the brief to no particular version within the sources cited. Note that once again there are no page numbers provided for Wills. Amicus briefs contained references to Wills' NYRB book review, but a book makes a much more impressive reference, so they cited a book they obviously never read. Wills is cited in support of two propositions (or, at least one of the two, such being the vagaries of the corporate endnote). On the subject of case law, Wills is wrong, and has Miller completely backwards. On p. 252 of ANE, Wills states: "The Court declared that a sawed-off shotgun is not a militia weapon." Of course, Wills cites no source for this claim. Here's the opinion in US v. Miller:
http://www2.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/foliocgi.exe/historic/query=%5BGroup+307+U.S.+174:%5D(%5BLevel+Case+Citation:%5D%7C%5BGroup+citemenu:%5D)/doc/%7B@1%7D/hit_headings/words=4/hits_only?
It clearly states that the Court is refusing to supply by judicial notice what wasn't established by a trier of fact -- the appeal arrived on demurrer. In other words, the Court is NOT saying that a sawed-off shotgun is not a miltia weapon. So much for "professionsal historians". On the question of history alone, Wills gets Madison's proposal wrong -- a mistake reprinted without comment in Saul Cornell's reader on the Second Amendment. So much for the professional historians. Your comments on peer review are similarly off-base, as your Mr. Bellesiles (and others of collectivist bent) published in Constitutional Commentary -- a journal without peer review. The professional historians who gathered at the Handgun Control Symposium had a great many laughs at the expense of "law-office history". But as this example suggests (and the previous example of Wills and Trenchard) the perils of history-office law and even history-office history show equal dangers.
You would do better, Benny, to stick to questions of subtance, rather than make adverse comparisons between professional and "amateur" historians. BTW, I forgot to mention that the Danish Ministry of Science cleared Lomborg recently, and slapped down the Lyzenkoism of the DCSD.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3340305.stm
Benny Smith - 1/17/2004
A week later, Mr. Williams is still writing scripture here, trying to create the gospel of Cowpens according to Don. In response to something Mr. Luker said, I don’t believe Mr. Williams really is interested in publishing anything serious or scholarly. He wants to skip that process with its peer review and such, and merely etch his version of history in stone. Our Pentagon would love to have more citizens like Mr. Williams and the unflagging willingness to accept the military’s version of events with the naiveté of a kindergartner. No need for embedded reporters, no need to answer to any pesky Pentagon correspondents, no need to respond to critics, no need for independent investigation. Just put out the "official" military account of events and claim anything else is from a secondary source and therefore must be discredited.
While skimming a couple of Mr. Williams’ contributions here, it dawned upon me that a football analogy might shed some light so those like Mr. Williams might understand why Daniel Morgan and others on his staff said what they said following Cowpens. Last Sunday, I watched the Indianapolis Colts upset the Kansas City Chiefs 38-31. It was an offensive show all the way, with neither team having to punt the whole game. In the lockeroom afterwards, Colts coach Tony Dungy spoke only positively to his team, crediting the whole team’s effort. Of course, observers like myself were surprised. After all, the Colts’ defense was pretty much in retreat during the game, much like the militia at Cowpens. But ask yourself, why would Dungy, with his team flush with a big victory, throw a wet blanket over the team’s enthusiasm, particularly when they faced more games ahead. Likewise, Morgan was not going to temper the enthusiasm of a great victory by being critical of militia whose actions may have jeopardized that victory. He faced more battles ahead. And a soldier who thinks he is a hero is more likely to stand and fight next time, rather than flee. Morgan, who understood and communicated with the common soldier as well as any officer, knew this.
So far as Bellesiles’ relying on Tarleton’s own historical memoirs, I found a passage regarding Tarleton’s account from history buff, author, and scholar William T. Sherman. Sherman wrote, "His (Tarleton’s) Campaigns, for all the criticisms it has received, much of them justified, is easily the single most valuable book on the War in the South 1780-1781 by a contemporary." So Mr. Richard Morgan’s intuition that Bellesiles probably chose the best sources available for his Arming America was probably not far from the truth.
Sherman’s own account of this southern campaign is available in PDF form off the internet and, although 350 pages long, is engaging as well as literate. In one passage, Sherman describes the problem of a lack of arms for the Colonials. "In the way of arms, there were 5,000 muskets. But many of these were useless because of being damaged, and the lack of gunsmiths to repair them. Some Virginia troops were sent home due to the lack of clothes and arms." Not enough guns and many of them broken? That supports Bellesiles’ theses. But didn’t NRA propagandist and amateur historian Clayton Cramer say there were plenty of guns and gunsmiths back in those days? He even claimed to me here that there was little reason for guns to break once they were past the "proof" stage.
Once again, we’re drawn back to my original subject topic: Be wary of NRA propagandists masquerading as historians.
Don Williams - 1/16/2004
I should note that Harry Lee's criticism of Morgan's positioning show that cavalry leaders should not presume to interpret that tactics of infantry leaders. In fact, Morgan's manipulation of Tarleton was masterly.
Morgan's retreat (a) drew Tarleton away from Cornwallis main army (b) put the Broad River on his right flank as a block to Cornwallis approaching from the east (c) forced Tarleton's men to ford several streams (freezing water in January) and to march for 24 hours with only 3 hours sleep (d) thereby bringing Tarleton to battle with exhausted troops while Morgan's men were well fed and well-rested--a decisive advantage as it gave Morgan's men (on both the militia and Continental Line) the ability to fire, retreat and reload, then fire again--since the exhausted British troops were too tired to run after the Americans and bayonet them during the retreat and reload. (e) Cowpens was a well known landmark and crossroads, allowing multiple militia units to rapidly ride along main roads and suddenly coalesce in Morgan's support (f) As noted in Babits "A Devil of A Whipping" (p. 52), Morgan's retreat also to took him toward his supply caches while forcing Tarleton to bring along supplies in slow wagons (g) Babits also notes (p.53) that Morgan chose Cowpens as battleground after a careful reconnaissance and (h) In chapter 4 describes in detail the tactical trap Morgan set for Tarleton based on his knowledge of Tarleton's mindset
(e.g., forming the Continental Line in front of a slight hill which was sufficiently high to shield Washington's cavalry hidden behind it from British fire and which also provided a protected area for the militia to reassemble and reload concealed from view and to then reappear. On page 73, he describes the "reverse slope" defense Morgan set up for the militia by placing them in a slight swale on the other side of a rise -- so that they were revealed to Tarleton's troops only as Tarleton's line charged over the ridge at dawn --silhouetted against the brightening sky at their back.
Bellesiles, of course, had even less understanding of Cowpen tactics than Harry Lee.
Don Williams - 1/16/2004
Those of us who are evidently "NRA propagandists masquerading as historians" engage in several dangerous practices contrary to the methods of modern day historians.
One is that we prefer to assemble and examine the evidence--the Primary Sources -- before forming a thesis. I realize that some might consider this putting the cart before the horse.
Second, we find the accounts left by men long dead --re events of 200 years ago in which they were involved -- to be far more compelling and interesting than the unstantiated, poorly sourced "interpretation" of today.
Don't you?
Ralph E. Luker - 1/16/2004
My POINT (yelling back at John in caps) is that these lengthy posts go nowhere but into the e-hole. Where is the counter-narrative that all of this seems to point to -- or is all this just about e-hole yelling?
Don Williams - 1/16/2004
The following is from “Light Horse” Harry Lee's "Memoirs of the War in the Southern Department of the United States". I include it because , while Harry Lee was not at Cowpens, his cavalry unit was joined with Andrew Picken's mounted militia in the weeks following Cowpens by General Nathanael Greene. Andrew Pickens , a stern Scotch Irish Presbyterian, preferred to spend his time exterminating Cherokees, Tories, and British soldiers -- and running his farm -- rather than to struggle for the limelight on the national stage. He left no account of the battle, but presumably Harry Lee learned much of Cowpens from Morgan, Washington, Pickens, Nathanael Green, and the soldiers who were at the Battle.
Here is Lee’s account, from his book “Memoirs of the War in the Southern Department of the United States” (finished 1810). Note Harry Lee’s comment toward the bottom that “Morgan derived very great aid from Pickens and his militia” and the earlier footnote in which Lee cited Continental Colonel Howard as saying that Morgan did not decide to fight Tarleton until the arrival of Pickens’ militia the night before the battle. Note also Lee’s statement that the riflemen in the militia were expert marksmen.
-----------------
"Morgan, having been accustomed to fight and to conquer, did not relish the eager and interrupting pursuit of his adversary; and sat down at the Cowpens to give refreshment to his troops, with a resolution no longer to avoid action, should his enemies persist in pressing it. Being appraised at the dawn of day of Tarleton's advance, he instantly prepared for battle. This decision grew out of irritation of temper, which appears to overruled the suggestions of his sound and discriminating judgment.*”
[* Harry Lee Footnote: ” On this passage Colonel Howard remarks --that Morgan did not decide on action until he was joined in the night by Pickens and his followers -- and adds: ‘I well remember that parties were coming in the most of the night, and calling on Morgan for ammunition, and to know the state of affairs. They were all in good spirits, related circumstances of Tarleton's cruelty, and expressed the strongest desire to check his progress’ The probability is that these circumstances confirmed the decision Morgan had already formed.-ed” ]
(continued) “ The ground about the Cowpens is covered with open wood, admitting the operation of the cavalry with facility, in which the enemy trebled Morgan. His flanks had not resting place, but were exposed to be readily turned; and Broad River ran parallel to his rear, forbidding the hope of a safe retreat in the event of disaster. Had Morgan crossed this river, and approached the mountain, he would have gained a position disadvantageous to cavalry, but convenient for riflemen, and would have secured a less dangerous retreat. But these cogent reasons, rendered more forcible by his inferiority in numbers, could not prevail. Confiding in his long-tried fortune, conscious of his personal superiority in soldiership, and relying on the skill and courage of his troops, he adhered to his resolution. Erroneous as was the decision to fight in this position, when a better might have been easily gained , the disposition for battle was masterly.
Two light parties of militia, under Major McDowel, of North Carolina, and Major Cunningham, of George, were advanced in front, with orders to feel the enemy as he approached; and, preserving a desultory well-aimed fire as they fell back to the front line, to range with it and renew the conflict. The main body of the militia composed this line, with General Pickens at its head. At a suitable distance in the rear of the first line a second was stationed, composed of the Continental infantry and two companies of Virginia militia, under Captains Triplett and Taite, commanded by Lieutenant-Colonel Howard. *
[*Harry Lee Footnote: “These two companies of militia were generally Continental soldiers, who, having served the time of their enlistment, had returned home regularly discharged. A custom for some time past prevailed, which gave to us the aid of such soldiers. Voluntary proffer of service being no longer fashionable , the militia were drafted conformably to a system established by law; and whenever the lot fell upon the timid or wealthy, he procured, by a douceur, a substitute, who, for the most part, was one of those heretofore discharged.” ]
(continued) “Washington’s cavalry, re-enforced by a company of mounted militia armed with sabers, was held in reserve, convenient to support the infantry, and protect the horses of the rifle militia, which were tied, agreeably to usage, in the rear.
On the verge of battle, Morgan availed himself of the short and awful interim to exhort his troops, First addressing himself , with his characteristic pith, to the line of militia, he extolled the zeal and bravery so often displayed by them, when unsupported by the bayonet or sword; and declared his confidence that they could not fail in maintaining their reputation, when supported by chosen bodies of horse and foot, and conducted by himself. Nor did he forget to glance at his unvarying fortune, and superior experience; or to mention how often, with his corps of riflemen, he had brought British troops, equal to those before him, to submission. He described the deep regret he had already experienced in being obliged , from prudential considerations, to retire before an enemy always in his power; exhorted the line to be firm and steady; to fire with good aim; and if they would pour in but two volleys at killing distance, he would take upon himself to secure victory. To the Continentals he was very brief. He reminded them of the confidence he had always reposed in their skill and courage; assured them that victory was certain if they acted well their part; and desired them not to be discouraged by the sudden retreat of the militia , THAT being part of his plan and orders. Then taking post with this line, he waited in stern silence for the enemy.
The British lieutenant-colonel, urging forward, was at length gratified with the certainty of battle; and being prone to presume on victory, he hurried the formation of his troops. The light and Legion infantry, with the seventh regiment, composed the line of battle; in the centre of which was posted the artillery, consisting of two grasshoppers; and a troop of dragoons was placed on each flank. The battalion of the seventy first regiment, under Major McArthur, with the remainder of the cavalry, formed the reserve. Tarleton placed himself with the line, having under him Major Newmarsh, who commanded the seventh regiment. The disposition was not completed, when he directed the line to advance, and the reserve to wait further orders.”*
[* Harry Lee Footnote: “Tarleton’s cavalry are stated at three hundred and fifty, while that under Morgan did not exceed eighty.
“Morgan’s militia used rifles , and were expert marksmen; this corp composed nearly one half of his infantry. “
Tarleton’s detachment is put down as one thousand. Morgan, in a letter to General Greene, after his victory, gives his total as eight hundred. “ ]
(continued) “The American light parties quickly yielded, fell back, and arrayed with Pickens. The enemy shouted , rushed forward upon the front line, which retained its station, and poured in a close fire; but continuing to advance with the bayonet on our militia, they retired, and gained with haste the second line.
Here, with part of the corps, Pickens took post on Howard’s right, and the rest fled to their horses; probably with orders to remove them to a further distance. Tarleton pushed forward, and was received by his adversary with unshaken firmness. The contest became obstinate; and each party, animated by the example of its leader, nobly contended for victory. Our line maintained itself so firmly, as to oblige the enemy to order up his reserve. The advance of McArthur re-animated the British line, which again moved forward; and , outstretching our front, endangered Howard’s right. This officer instantly took measures to defend his flank, by directing his right company to change its front; but mistaking this order, the company fell back; upon which the line began to retire, and General Morgan directed it to retreat to the cavalry. This manoeuvre being performed with precision, our flank became relieved, and the new position was assumed with promptitude. Considering this retrograde movement the precursor of flight, the British rushed on with impetuosity and disorder; but , as it drew near, Howard faced about , and gave it a close and murderous fire. Stunned by this unexpected shock, the most advanced of the enemy recoiled in confusion. Howard seized the happy moment , and followed his advantage with the bayonet.” *
[Harry Lee Footnote: “In this charge, the brave Kirkwood , of the Delawares, was conspicuous—See “Garden’s Anecdote”, p. 397 “ ]
(continued) “This decisive step gave us the day. The reserve having been brought near the line, shared in the destruction of our fire, and presented no rallying point to the fugitives. A part of the enemy’s cavalry, having gained our rear, fell on that portion of the militia who had retired to their horses. Washington struck at them with his dragoons , and drove them before him. Thus, by simultaneous efforts, the infantry and cavalry of the enemy were routed. Morgan pressed home his success, and the pursuit became vigorous and general. The British cavalry having taken no part in the action, except the two troops attached to the line, were in force to cover the retreat. This , however, was not done. The zeal of Lieutenant-Colonel Washington in pursuit having carried him far before his squadron, Tarleton turned upon him with the troop of the seventeenth regiment of dragoons, seconded by many of his officers. The American lieutenant-colonel was first rescued from this critical contest by one of his sergeants, and afterward by a fortunate shot from his bugler’s pistol. ++
[++ Footnote—At this point , there is a quote from John Marshall’s description of the incident from Marshall’s “Life of Washington”. However, this citation must have been inserted by Robert E Lee -- Harry Lee’s son and famous Confederate General –when Robert E Lee revised his father’s Memoirs. John Marshall’s “Life of Washington did not come out until almost 20 years after Harry Lee finished his first version of Memoirs. ]
(continued) “This check concluded resistance on the part of the British officer, who drew off with the remains of his cavalry, collected his stragglers, and hastened to Lord Cornwallis. The baggage guard, learning the issue of battle, moved instantly toward the British army. A part of the horse, who had shamefully avoided action, and refused to charge when Tarleton wheeled on the impetuous Washington, reached the camp of Cornwallis at Fisher’s Creek, about twenty five miles from the Cowpens, in the evening. The remainder arrived with Lieutenant-Colonel Tarleton on the morning following. In this decisive battle we lost about seventy men, of whom twelve only were killed. The British infantry, with the exception of the baggage guard, were nearly all killed or taken. One hundred, including ten officers, were killed; twenty –three officers and five hundred privates were taken. The artillery, eight hundred muskets, two standards, thirty-five baggage wagons, and one hundred dragoon horses, fell into our possession. *
[* Harry Lee citation: “Cornwallis’s letter to Sir H. Clinton”]
(continued) “The victory of the Cowpens was to the South what that of Bennington had been to the North. General Morgan, whose former services had placed him high in public estimation, was now deservedly ranked among the most illustrious defenders of his country. Starke fought an inferior , Morgan a superior , foe. The former contended with a German corps +, the latter, with the elite of the Southern army, composed of British troops.”
[+ Harry Lee Footnote: “This remark is not made to disparage the German troops serving with the British army in America. They were excellent soldiers; but, for light services, they were inferior to the British. Ignorant of our language, unaccustomed to woods, with their very heavy dress, they were less capable of active and quick operations.
The splendid issue of the subsequent campaign, and the triumph of Gates has been noticed, as well as the instrumentality of Morgan in producing the auspicious event. Great and effectual as were his exertions, General Gates did not even mention him in his official dispatches. “ ]
(continued) “In military reputation the conqueror at the Cowpens must stand before the hero of Bennington. Starke was nobly seconded by Colonel Warner and his continental regiment; Morgan derived very great aid from Pickens and his militia, and was effectually supported by Howard and Washington. The weight of the battle fell on Howard; who sustained himself admirably in trying circumstances, and seized with decision the critical moment to complete with the bayonet the advantage gained by his fire.
Congress manifested their sense of this important victory by a resolve, approving the conduct of the principal officers, and commemorative of their distinguished exertions. To General Morgan they presented a gold medal, to Brigadier Pickens a sword, and to Lieutenant-Colonels Howard and Washington a silver medal , and to Captain Triplett a sword.”
Don Williams - 1/16/2004
I'll explain shortly -- first, let me put up Harry Lee's description of Cowpens. Benny has expressed concern about my "interpretation" of Primary Sources vice the Sources themselves and I want to allay his concern. I ,too, have become much more skeptical of "interpretations" in the past week.
John G. Fought - 1/15/2004
This fine example shows several aspects of the collectivist enterprise very well. The scholarly search for evidence is expected to be broad and deep enough to bring contradictions and indeterminacies into the open where they can be discussed and perhaps resolved. But as the collectivists and would-be nullifiers publish in their loosely cooperative fashion (that comes from shared convictions about what the outcome should be), trading their little baskets of cherries picked from branches in easy reach, a tradition of biased interpretations piles up from which still more delectable cherries may be picked. Mutual professional support, in the form of reciprocal recommendations for appointments, grants, and other prizes, not to mention public and private reviews, including peer reviews, Ralph, help to perpetuate and seemingly to legitimize their collective work. But these works and their authors are not legitimate, and the appearance of checks and corrections within it is largely false. That is, I think, the point that Don is driving home with his long, well-documented, lavishly substantiated postings. To me, the collectivists seeking to mess with my rights in this fashion are merely so many scholarly incarnations of Dorian Gray. Their pseudonymous groupies are mere action figures. So, Ralph, what's YOUR point here?
Richard Henry Morgan - 1/15/2004
I can't speak for Don, but I think something along this line could be said:
What we have here is not a contradiction between one primary source and another primary source, but a tension between one primary source (Tarleton, a dubious source), and a whole cartload of other primary sources. It doesn't look like Bellesiles read the entire corpus of primary sources, and then arrived at his conclusion. Rather, he chose Higginbotham, a dated source (and someone from Constitutional Commentary, Gang of 47, and Handgun Control Symposium days he knew to be reliably collectivist in his Second Amendment interpretation) and picked a primary source for window dressing. Babits' study was published in Fall, 1998, and centers on Cowpens -- yet Bellesiles does not reference it, nor any other secondary source (official US military history accounts, say), nor any other primary sources. The snarkey comment at the end of Bellesiles' paragraph leads one to suspect that he had his thesis, and then he cherry-picked a small subset of accounts that would go with it.
As I understand it, Bellesiles came to his doctoral program from law school, where one is trained to develop a thesis, and then cite that evidence in support of it -- even misconstrue evidence in the service of a client (a duty by the standards of legal ethics). I can't think of a worse possible training of the mind preparatory to a doctoral program in history.
In a previous string I gave an example of how Reinhardt cherry-picked a truncated quote from John Adams, and used it as the sole quote to support a general thesis -- in fact, the whole quote reveals that the use is illegitimate.
A similar example suggests itself from Garry Wills. In his NYRB article (p.67), available at Potowmack.org, he says:
'Trenchard advised that "a competent number of them [firelocks] be kept in every parish for the young to exercise with on holidays". These would be used on a rotating basis, since Trenchard proposed that only a third of the militia should be exercised at one time.'
[bracketed insert by Wills]
Here's the fuller quote from Trenchard:
"Why may not the Laws for shooting in Crossbows be changed into Firelocks, and a competent Number of them be kept in every Parish for the young Men to exercise with on Holidays, and Rewards offered to the most expert, to stir up their Emulation?"
Here's how it appears in Wills' A Necessary Evil (p.259):
'John Trenchard, the British celebrant of militias, said that their arms must be "kept in every parish" (not every home).'
Quite amazing. In the original, by Trenchard, there is no mention of the militia, nor of their arms. Nor is Trenchard describing then current practice with firearms, but proposing a change in law and practice. Note the lack of apodictic force in Trenchard's comment, which somehow gets translated into "must" by Wills. What are the 'laws for shooting in crossbows'? They are laws dating back to Henry VIII (and beyond?), mandating that every city, town, and place had to maintain a shooting range, and each inhabitant practice on it, or the municipality would be fined. Concurrent with that law, each family had to provide each son, at age seven, a bow, and two shafts, and see to it that he knew how to use them.
In 1660 (some 37 years before Trenchard's work) the parish of Lyme Regis was fined in accordance with the first law.
Now we see what the real import of Trenchard is. He's proposing that a law be passed to compel people to maintain shooting ranges for firearms, where it was still currently applied only to bows (with the usual penalties for failure to comply). The competent number to be kept, would be just those sufficient for young men to shoot on holidays (maybe a dozen for a shooting tournament?). It is not the competent number for the one-third of the militia in training at any one time, as they are to be a competent number for just shooting on holidays.
What Wills has done is taken a proposal by Trenchard for a target shooting program, and twisted it into "evidence" that miltias kept all their arms (not even just firelocks) in a central repository. From there to Bellesiles, who cites 19 documents that he claims to show that the militia's weapons must be kept in central storage, and which (thanks to Cramer) we now know say nothing of the sort.
Cherry-pick a bit of evidence. Truncate a quote if you have to. Graft it onto a proposition (by ellipsis) that it didn't originally support, and voila -- modern scholarship by two prize-winning historians.
I would add that I originally thought that Bellesiles had just taken the most accepted secondary source, and run with it -- something that happens in a large work of synthesis like his. What I didn't know was that Babits' work was available to him, and he ignored it.
Ralph E. Luker - 1/15/2004
You just keep posting and posting. To what end?
Don Williams - 1/15/2004
Note: One other Primary Source(s) for Cowpens which I have not given is the pension applications of Revolutionary War veterans, in which they described the battle in more or less detail from what they saw. Lawrence Babits provides that material in his recent book "A Devil of a Whipping"
There is also a near-Primary source: Harry Lee's account of the battle, which I will provide below
There is also William Gordon's early history (1788) of the war, which describes Cowpens. Gordon's history would be considered a Secondary Source, but he did have access to the papers of various military commanders. I will include an excerpt of this account below as well.
I should also note that John Marshall's account of the battle is a Secondary Source -- although Marshall does state that it is based upon accounts provided to him by Morgan, Howard, and cavalry leader Washington.
Richard Henry Morgan - 1/15/2004
Thanks for the source, Don. I had known that Tarleton had ended up an MP, but I hadn't known that he was already laying the groundwork for a political career before he suffered defeat at Morgan's hands. Seems odd that one would use as a sole primary source, the account of an officer with political ambitions, who had lost the battle, and who (not to put too fine a point on it), failed miserably in command and fled the field of battle, leaving his troops to fend for themselves.
I was rereading (for the unintentional hilarity) the Washington symposium at which Higginbotham, Cornell, and Bellesiles participated -- their encomia to the superiority of the history profession's practice of peer review still makes for great fun, in retrospect. Seems I had missed the reference to Bellesiles' Canadian citizenship. I also understand that it is a matter of public record the schools Bellesiles attended -- the registrar's office at UC Irvine should know where Bellesiles attended law school (before dropping out?). There might be an interesting story there, as the law school years don't appear on his CV associated with his dissertation.
Ralph E. Luker - 1/15/2004
Don, You've got a primary source in tension with or contradiction of another primary source. You've posted 4 or 5 times, each time at great length, about it. Historians deal with primary sources in tension with or contradiction of each other all the time. It isn't really a big deal. Why not write and publish your own account of the Battle of Cowpens?
Don Williams - 1/15/2004
As I made clear, Lt McKenzie --who lived in 1787-- denounced Tarleton's 1787 account of Cowpens. Tarleton's account was the sole Primary Source cited by Bellesiles in Arming America's depiction of Cowpens.
Where do you see a "220 year old primary source" denouncing "a current 2ndary source"?
What I gave you was a "220 year old primary source" denouncing a "220 year old primary source".
Josh Greenland - 1/15/2004
Rakove: "Probing beyond the hackneyed paeans to American sharpshooting that occur both in the primary sources (some of them clearly contrived for European eyes)...."
So Stanford Jack didn't buy Bellesiles' ignoring of contemporary accounts of American expertise with firearms?
Don Williams - 1/15/2004
The US Army's monograph for the Cowpens staff ride has an Appendix E,which includes the following note:
(Ref: http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/Moncure/moncure.asp#appendixe
)
-------------
2. Lieutenant Roderick Mackenzie served in the 71st (Frasier's) Highlanders at the battle of the Cowpens. After his return to England, he attacked his former commander, Tarleton, in the press. This letter appeared in the London Morning Chronicle on 9 August 1782.3 London Morning Chronicle 3
"You got yourself and your party completely ambuscaded, completely surrounded, upon all sides, by Mr. Morgan's rifle men. What was the consequence? The two detachments of British were made prisoners after a great slaughter was made among them, your legion dragoons were so broke by galling fire of rifle shot that your charging was in vain, till prudence, on your side, with about twenty men who were well mounted, made your retreat good, by leaving the remains of the poor blended legion in the hands of Mr. Morgan who I must say, though an enemy, showed great masterly abilities in this manoeuver.
Thus fell, at one blow, all the Provincial Legion, with about three hundred veterans" [italics in Commager edition]!4
******************
What I find curious about this is that "riflemen" were militia --the Continentals were armed with muskets. McKenzie was with the 71st which attacked Morgan's right flank --he may be referring to the sweep around Morgan's right flank made by Pickens' reloaded militia. Note also the reference to Tarleton's horsemen being "so broke by galling fire of rifle shot that your charging was in vain"
Ralph E. Luker - 1/15/2004
Mislabeling. A 220 year old primary source can't denounce a current 2ndary source. Why is Don Williams filling the comment boards with ...?
Ralph E. Luker - 1/15/2004
This "What I actually suggested was that Bellesiles is apparently ignorant of how history works ..." is _not_ what your subject line said. Rules of evidence and truth in packaging apply to you, too, Don.
Don Williams - 1/14/2004
Only Tarleton's account could be considered a primary source and it is notoriously self-serving-- the account of a commander trying to explain how his force was totally destroyed by an inferior enemy. His count of Morgan's forces --1920 -- was over twice the count (less than 900) given by Morgan in his letter to General Green. His account of the number wounded on both sides is also not consistent with Morgan's. Plus, he blamed his superior, Lord Cornwallis, for not linking up and supporting him. (This was in 1787, about 7 years after the Battle and 7 years after Cornwallis had forgiven Tarleton and spared him from court martial ).
I've posted LtCol Banestre Tarleton's account of Cowpens below.
I'm puzzled as to why Bellesiles used Tarleton's account as his sole primary source for the Battle of Cowpens. Tarleton's account was subjected to scathing denounciations by his own subordinate --Lt McKenzie of the 71st-- in London newspapers, as I describe in a post below.
Plus, I don't see that Tarleton's account supports' Bellesiles depiction. True, the militia yielded but that was per Morgan's orders , based upon the slow reloading time of rifles and the lack of bayonets. But Tarleton indicates that the British cavalry charge onto Morgan's right flank was driven off not only by Washington's cavalry, but also by "heavy fire from the reserve". That reserve was Pickens' militia, now behind the Continental Line , who had reloaded their rifles and were shooting the British cavalry out of their saddles. (This was probably why Tarleton's cavalry reserve refused to move forward at his orders.)
Moreover, Tarleton's description of the "Continental Line" indicates that almost half of it consisted of 300 "backswoodmen"-- Triplett's Virginia militia.
Notice that Bellesiles did not cite the other major primary sources -- the account of Cowpens by Morgan, the accounts of the battle by Colonel Howard and Washington captured by John Marshall. He also didn't cite near-primary sources : the account of the battle by Harry Lee. He didn't cite British Lt Roderick McKenzie's account -- and McKenzie was at Cowpens.
Nor did he cite, or appear to have consulted, the modern scholarship of military experts in the US Army at the Command and General Staff College and Center of Military History.
I noted on H-OIEAHC, in Bellesiles' defense, that Higginbotham did mistakenly indicate that a militia unit triggered the retreat of the Continental Line ( as Lawrence Babit's shows, it was a Continental unit). But Bellesiles should have caught this error if he had consulted more sources.
Don Williams - 1/14/2004
Following is McKenzie's account of Cowpens (From Letter X of the Strictures)
------------
" I was upon the detachment in question, and the narrative which I now offer has been submitted to the judgment of several respectable officers, who were also in this action, and it has met with their intire approbation.
Towards the latter end of December, 1780, Earl Cornwallis received intelligence, that General Morgan had advanced to the westward of the Broad River, with about one thousand men. Two-thirds of this force were militia, [p96] about one hundred of them cavalry, the rest continentals. His intention was to threaten Ninety Six, and to distress the western frontiers. To frustrate these designs, Lieutenant Colonel Tarleton was detached with the light and legion-infantry, the fusileers, the first battalion of the 71st regiment, about three hundred and fifty cavalry, two field-pieces, and an adequate proportion of men from the royal artillery; in all near a thousand strong. This corps, after a process of some days, arrived at the vicinity of Ninety Six, a post which was then commanded by Lieutenant Colonel Allen. An offer of a reinforcement from that garrison was made to Lieutenant Colonel Tarleton. The offer was rejected; and the detachment, by fatiguing marches, attained the ground which Morgan had quitted a few hours before: This position was taken about ten o'clock in the evening of the 16th of January. The pursuit re-commenced by two o'clock the next morning, and was rapidly continued [p97] through marshes and broken grounds till day-light, when the enemy were discovered in front. Two of their videttes were taken soon after; these gave information that General Morgan had halted, and prepared for action; he had formed his troops as described by Ramsey, in an open wood, secured neither in front, flank, nor rear. Without the delay of a single moment, and in despite of extreme fatigue, the light-legion infantry and fusileers were ordered to form in line. Before this order was put in execution, and while Major Newmarsh, who commanded the latter corps, was posting his officers, the line, far from complete, was led to the attack by Lieutenant Colonel Tarleton himself. The seventy-first regiment and cavalry, who had not as yet disentangled themselves from the brushwood with which Thickelle Creek abounds, were directed to form, and wait for orders. The military valour of British troops, when not entirely divested of the powers necessary to its exertion, was not to be [p98] resisted by an American militia. They gave way on all quarters, and were pursued to their continentals: the second line, now attacked, made a stout resistance. Captain Ogilvie, with his troop, which did not exceed forty men, was ordered to charge the right flank of the enemy. He cut his way through their line, but exposed to a heavy fire, and charged at the same time by the whole of Washington's dragoons, was compelled to retreat in confusion. The reserve, which as yet had no orders to move from its first position, and consequently remained near a mile distant, was not directed to advance. when the line felt "the advance of the seventy-first, all the infantry again moved on: the continentals and backwoods-men gave ground: the British rushed forwards: an order was dispatched to the cavalry to charge11." This order, however, if such was then thought of, being either not delivered or disobeyed, [p99] they stood aloof, without availing themselves of the fairest opportunity of reaping the laurels which lay before them. The infantry were not in condition to overtake the fugitives; the latter had not marched thirty miles in the course of the last fortnight; the former, during that time, had been in motion day and night. A number, not less than two-thirds of the British infantry officers, had already fallen, and nearly the same proportion of privates; fatigue, however, enfeebled the pursuit, much more than loss of blood. Morgan soon discovered that the legion-cavalry did not advance, and that the infantry, though well disposed, were unable to come up with his corps: he ordered Colonel Washington, with his dragoons, to cover his retreat, and to check the pursuit. He was obeyed; and the protection thus afforded, gave him an opportunity of rallying his scattered forces. They formed, renewed the attack, and charged in their turn. In disorder from the pursuit, unsupported by [p100] the cavalry, deprived of the assistance of the cannon, which in defiance of the utmost exertions of those who had them in charge, were not left behind, the advance of the British fell back, and communicated a panick to others, which soon became general: a total rout ensued. Two hundred and fifty horse which had not been engaged, fled through the woods with the utmost precipitation, bearing down such officers as opposed their flight: the cannon were soon seized by the Americans, the detachment from the train being either killed or wounded in their defence; and the infantry were easily overtaken, as the cause which had retarded the pursuit, had now an equal effect in impeding the retreat; dispirited on many accounts, they surrendered at discretion. Even at this late stage of the defeat, Lieutenant Colonel Tarleton, with no more than fifty horse, hesitated not to charge the whole of Washington's cavalry, though supported by the continentals; it was a small body of officers, [p101] and a detachment of the seventeenth regiment of dragoons, who presented themselves on this desperate occasion; the loss sustained was in proportion to the danger of the enterprise, and the whole body was repulsed."
-------------
Note McKenzie's description of the large number of British officers killed . Note also his description of the extreme fatigue which afflicted the British infantry. Note also his confirmation that the British cavalry attack on the retreating militia (on Morgan's left flank) was driven off by heavy fire as well as by Washington's cavalry.
Don Williams - 1/14/2004
British Lt Roderick McKenzie of the 71st, a subordinate of Lt Col Banastre Tarleton's at Cowpens, denounced Tarleton in a series of bitter letters to London newspapers. His "Strictures On Lieutenant. Col. Tarleton's History Of The Campaigns Of 1780 And 1781, In The Southern Provinces Of North America" are available here: http://home.golden.net/~marg/bansite/_main.html
McKenzie's criticism of Tarleton's account of the Southern campaign occurs throughout his Strictures. An example which occurs in Letter IX immediately prior to the discussion of Cowpens in Letter X:
-----------------
"The real province of a historian is to relate facts; by this principle he should abide; whenever he deviates from it, and indulges a fanciful vein of conjecture concerning probable contingencies, if not totally divested of partiality, he is certain of misleading his readers. That our author was not aware of the force of this remark, is sufficiently evinced. "
(Note: McKenzie was criticizing
Tarleton --Bellesiles' primary source for Cowpens--not Bellesiles himself, who did not arrive until 220 years later.)
The advertisement for McKenzie's Strictures:
"STRUCK with the numerous incoherencies, misrepresentations, and contradictions, contained in the work which is the subject of the ensuing letters[i.e., Tarleton's book on the Southern Campaign. DW] , the author had given way to the first emotion of his mind, and submitted to publick inspection several cursory remarks, through the medium of the Morning Post, under the signature of "An Officer on that Service." But now, that he has taken a fuller survey [p vi] of the subject, he considers himself at liberty to resume such of his former arguments as he may find conducive to the elucidation of facts in this publication."
Don Williams - 1/14/2004
Following is the account of Cowpens published by the British commander, Lt Col Banastre Tarleton, in his 1787 book "A History Of The Campaigns Of 1780 And 1781, In The Southern Provinces Of North America". This book is available online at http://home.golden.net/~marg/bansite/_main.html , with the description of Cowpens being in Chapter 4.
As I will describe, his account is somewhat self-serving and semi-reliable-- and was publicly denounced in London Newspapers by his own subordinate, Lt Roderick McKenzie, who had been at Cowpens. Nevertheless, this is the only primary source cited by Bellesiles for his account of the Battle.
_________________
"Lieutenant-colonel Tarleton having attained a position, which he certainly might deep advantageous, on account of the vulnerable situation of the enemy, and the supposed vicinity of the two British corps on the east and west of Broad river, did not hesitate to undertake those measures which the instructions of his commanding officer imposed, and his own judgement, under the present appearances, equally recommended. He ordered the legion dragoons to drive in the militia parties who covered the front, that General Morgan's disposition might be conveniently and distinctly inspected. He discovered that the American [p216] commander had formed a front line of about one thousand militia, and had composed his second line and reserve of five hundred continental light infantry, one hundred and twenty of Washington's cavalry, and three hundred back woodsmen. This accurate knowledge being obtained, Tarleton desired the British infantry to disencumber themselves of every thing, except their arms and ammunition: The light infantry were then ordered to file to the right till they became equal to the flank of the American front line: The legion infantry were added to their left; and, under the fire of a three-pounder, this part of the British troops was instructed to advance within three hundred yards of the enemy. This situation being acquired, the 7th regiment was commanded to form upon the left of the legion infantry, and the other three-pounder was given to the right division of the 7th: A captain, with fifty dragoons, was placed on each flank of the corps, who formed the British front line, to protect their own, and threaten the flanks of the enemy: The 1st battalion of the 71st was desired to extend a little to the left of the 7th regiment, and to remain one hundred and fifty yards in the rear. This body of infantry, and near two hundred cavalry, composed the reserve. During the execution of these arrangements, the animation of the officers and the alacrity of the soldiers afforded the most promising assurances of success. The disposition being completed, the front line received orders to advance; a fire from some of the recruits of the 7th regiment was suppressed, and the troops moved on in as good a line as troops could move in open files: The militia, after a short contest, were dislodged, and the British approached the continentals. The fire on both sides was well supported, and produced much slaughter: The cavalry on the right were directed to charge the enemy's left: They executed the order with great gallantry, but were drove back by the fire of the reserve, and by a charge of Colonel Washington's cavalry.
[p217] As the contest between the British infantry in the front line and the continentals seemed equally balanced, neither retreating, Lieutenant-colonel Tarleton thought the advance of the 71st into line, and a movement of the cavalry in reserve to threaten the enemy's right flank, would put a victorious period to the action. No time was lost in performing this manoeuvre. The 71st were desired to pass the 7th before they gave their fire, and were directed not to entangle their right flank with the left of the other battalion. The cavalry were ordered to incline to the left, and to form a line, which would embrace the whole of the enemy's right flank. Upon the advance of the 71st, all the infantry again moved on: The continentals and back woodsmen gave ground. The British rushed forwards: An order was dispatched to the cavalry to charge: An unexpected fire at this instant from the Americans, who came about as they were retreating, stopped the British, and threw them into confusion. Exertions to make them advance were useless. The part of the cavalry which had not been engaged fell likewise into disorder, and an unaccountable panic extended itself along the whole line. The Americans, who before thought they had lost the action, taking advantage of the present situation, advanced upon the British troops, and augmented their astonishment. A general flight ensued. Tarleton sent directions to his cavalry to form about four hundred yards to the right of the enemy, in order to check them, whilst he endeavoured to rally the infantry to protect the guns. The cavalry did not comply with the order, and the effort to collect the infantry was ineffectual: Neither promises nor threats could gain their attention; they surrendered or dispersed, and abandoned the guns to the artillery men, who defended them for some time with exemplary resolution. In this last stage of defeat Lieutenant-colonel Tarleton made another struggle to bring his cavalry to the charge. The weight of such an attack might yet retrieve the day, the enemy being much broken by their late [p218] rapid advance; but all attempts to restore order, recollection, or courage, proved fruitless. Above two hundred dragoons forsook their leader, and left the field of battle. Fourteen officers and forty horsemen were, however, not unmindful of their own reputation, or the situation of their commanding officer. Colonel Washington's cavalry were charged, and driven back into the continental infantry by this handful of brave men. Another party of the Americans, who had seized upon the baggage of the British troops on the road from the late encampment, were dispersed, and this detachment retired towards Broad river unmolested. On the route Tarleton heard with infinite grief and astonishment, that the main army had not advanced beyond Turkey (a.) creek: He therefore directed his course to the south east, in order to reach Hamilton's ford, near the mouth of Bullock creek, whence he might communicate with Earl Cornwallis.
The number of the killed and wounded, in the action at the Cowpens, amounted to near three hundred on both sides, officers and men inclusive: This loss was almost equally shared; but the Americans took two pieces of cannon, the colours of the 7th regiment, and near four hundred prisoners.
A diffuse comment upon this affair would be equally useless and tiresome: Two observations will be sufficient: One will contain the general circumstances which affected the plan of the campaign, and the other the particular incidents of the action. It appears that Earl Cornwallis intended to invade North Carolina: Before his march commenced, an irruption was made by the enemy into the western part of South Carolina: In order to expel hostility from that quarter, he directed [p219] Lieutenant-colonel Tarleton to proceed with a corps, and "push the enemy to the utmost;" at the same time desiring to know if any movement of the main army would be useful. Tarleton, finding the Americans not so far advanced as was reported, halted his troops, that he might convey his opinion, by letter, to his commanding officer. He proposed that the army under Earl Cornwallis, and the corps of light troops, should commence their march at the same time for King's mountain, and that he would endeavour to destroy the enemy, or push them over Broad river to that place. Earl Cornwallis replied, that Tarleton perfectly understood his intentions. After three days move from Wynnesborough, his lordship sent intelligence that General (I.) Leslie was retarded by the waters, and that he imagined the light troops must be equally impeded. Tarleton shortened his marches till he heard that the reinforcement was out of the swamps, though he had more difficulties of that nature to struggle against than could possibly be found between the Catawba and Broad rivers: This delay being occasioned by General Leslie's corps, rather astonishment him, because the troops under that officer's command were not mentioned in the first proposal; and if they were deemed necessary for the combination, one forced march would have brought them from the banks of the Catawba to the middle road, which Earl Cornwallis was then moving on, between the two great rivers, and where no creeks or waters could obstruct their advance towards Tryon county. On the 14th Earl Cornwallis informed Tarleton that Leslie had surmounted his difficulties, [(a.)2] and that he imagined the enemy would not pass the Broad river, though it had fallen very much. Tarleton then answered, that he would try to cross the Pacolet to force them, and desired Earl Cornwallis to acquire as high a station as possible, in order to stop their retreat. [p220] No letter, order, or intelligence, from head quarters, reached Tarleton after this reply, previous to the defeat on the 17th, and after that event he found Earl Cornwallis on Turkey creek, near twenty-five miles below the place where the action had happened. The distance between Wynnesborough and King's mountain, or Wynnesborough and Little Broad river, which would have answered the same purpose, does not exceed sixty-five miles: Earl Cornwallis commenced his march on the 7th or 8th of January. It would be mortifying to describe the advantages that might have resulted from his lordship's arrival at the concerted point, or to expatiate upon the calamities which were produced by this event. If an army is acting where no co-operation can take place, it is necessary for the commander in chief to keep as near as possible to his detachments, if such a proceeding does not interfere with a manoeuvre which in itself would decide the event of the campaign. A steady adherence to that line of conduct would prevent the misfortunes which detachments are liable to, or soften their effects. Earl Cornwallis might have conceived, that, by attending to the situation of the enemy, and of the country, and by covering his light troops, he would, in all probability, have alternately brought Generals Morgan and Greene into his power by co-operative movements: He might also have concluded, that all his parties that were beaten in the country, if they had no corps to give them instant support or refuge, must be completely destroyed. Many instances of this nature occurred during the war. The fall of Ferguson was a recent and melancholy example: That catastrophe put a period to the first expedition into North Carolina; and the affair of the Cowpens overshadowed the commencement of the second.
The particular incidents relative to the action arise from an examination of the orders, the march, the comparative situation of Morgan [p221] and Tarleton, the disposition, and the defeat. The orders were positive. The march was difficult, on account of the number of creeks and rivers; and circuitous, in consequence of such impediments: The Pacolet was passed by stratagem: The Americans to avoid an action, left their camp, and marched all night: The ground which General Morgan had chosen for the engagement, in order to cover his retreat to Broad river, was disadvantageous for the Americans, and convenient for the British: An open wood was certainly as proper a place for action as Lieutenant-colonel Tarleton could desire; America does not produce many more suitable to the nature of the troops under his command. The situation of the enemy was desperate in case of misfortune; an open country, and a river in their rear, must have thrown them entirely into the power of a superior cavalry; whilst the light troops, in case of repulse, had the expectation of a neighbouring force to protect them from destruction. The disposition was planned with coolness, and executed without embarrassment. The defeat of the British must be ascribed either to the bravery or good conduct of the Americans; to the loose manner of forming which had always been practised by the King's troops in America; or to some unforeseen event, which may throw terror into the most disciplined soldiers, or counteract the best-concerted designs. The extreme extension of the files always exposed the British regiments and corps, and would, before this unfortunate affair, have been attended with detrimental effect, had not the multiplicity of lines with which they generally fought rescued them from such imminent danger. If infantry who are formed very open, and only two deep, meet with opposition, they can have no stability: But when they experience an unexpected shock, confusion will ensue, and flight, without immediate support, must be the inevitable consequence. Other circumstances, perhaps, contributed to so decisive a route, which, if the military system [p222] admitted the same judicious regulation as the naval, a court martial would, perhaps, have disclosed. Public trials of commanding officers after unfortunate affairs, are as necessary to one service as the other, and might, in some instances, be highly beneficial to the military profession. Influenced by this idea, Lieutenant-colonel Tarleton, some days after the action, required Earl Cornwallis's approbation of his proceedings, or his leave to retire till inquiry could be instituted, to investigate his conduct. The noble earl's decided support of Lieutenant-colonel Tarleton's management of the King's troops, previous to and during the action, is fully expressed in a letter (L.) from his lordship."
Don Williams - 1/14/2004
What I actually suggested was that Bellesiles is apparently ignorant of how history works --that evidence for one's thesis should be based on -- and consistent with --a complete survey of primary sources; not upon a small cherry-picked selection of secondary sources, especially secondary sources taken out of context.
I think this is a fair comment. If you look at Bellesiles description of Cowpens on Arming America, Knopf version 1, pages 197-198 plus 511; you see that his cited sources (footnote 85) are solely (a) Don Higginbotham's 1961 book
"Daniel Morgan, Revolutionary Rifleman",p. 125-42 and
(b) the 1787 account by Banastre Tarleton (British commander at Cowpens) --"A History of the Campaigns of 1780 and 1781 in the Southern Provinces of North America",
p. 210-26.
Only Tarleton's account could be considered a primary source and it is notoriously self-serving-- the account of a commander trying to explain how his force was totally destroyed by an inferior enemy. His count of Morgan's forces --1920 -- was over twice the count (
Ralph E. Luker - 1/14/2004
John, It really isn't possible to engage Don Williams in scholarly discourse because he writes irresponsible things in the subject lines of his posts (I can only assume because he has this incredible need for attention) and _never_ takes responsibility for what he has said there. Whatever is wrong about Michael Bellesiles, it isn't that he is ignorant and, if you begin with such a wrong-headed notion, you'll never even get to scholarly discourse. Instead, we laugh till we almost pee in our pants, things are hilarious, yadda-yadda-yadda.
John G. Fought - 1/14/2004
Rules of Scholarly Discourse:
(a)Never concede a point to an opponent.
(b)Set high standards of civility for opponents.
(c)Never mind citing evidence.
(d)Never concede a point to an opponent.
Ralph E. Luker - 1/14/2004
Don,
a) I don't teach at Emory;
b) I don't know which of my 5 or 6 "obscure tomes" you have reference to;
b) My point is that you drone on and on with pointlessly lengthy posts here and
c) Attempt to draw attention to them by including gratuitous personal insults in the Subject line.
d) Nobody is paying attention.
e) Why not go do something constructive.
Don Williams - 1/14/2004
Oh, I forgot. To make erudite repartee like "If your pants are wet, it's time to change your diaper" , one must have at least a PhD in History plus have published an obscure tome.
It seems to me that such an educational program has some apparent shortcomings, however -- one of which is a self-acknowledged inability to address facts which lie outside one's narrow "area of expertise" -- what Herman Kuhn once noted as the "educated incapacity" developed by US higher education. It seems to me this shortcoming leads to a certain gulliability and naivete'.
There are compensations, however. One develops a certain quiet assurance --that quality which the unwashed sometime mistake for pomposity. Plus an ability to discourse endlessly on a topic while never once actually saying something.
Ralph E. Luker - 1/14/2004
Don, If your pants are wet, it's time to change your diaper.
Don Williams - 1/14/2004
Saul Cornell could write a laudatory review of the Chicago Kent articles -- and their incorporation of Bellesiles' dubious history via extensive citations -- because the historical profession had played rope-a-dope during the Bellesiles affair by (a) insisting critics remain silent while the sancrosanct Emory Investigation proceeded over almost a year (b) secretly restricting the scope of the secret Investigation to a few very narrow issues while ignoring many other major flaws in Arming America (c) exempting Arming America from serious peer review even after flaws were pointed out (d) having an OAH forum on Arming America chaired by Jan Wiener and Paul Finkelman --a forum which by all report accomplished nothing --and (e) having the Journal of American History continue to promote Bellesilesean history --in the form of the Chicago Kent articles -- even after Bellesiles had been (temporarily?) sacrificed.
For example, one of the Chicago Kent Law Review articles -- supporting the gun control interpretation of the Second Amendment -- is Jack Rakove's "THE SECOND AMENDMENT: THE HIGHEST STAGE OF ORIGINALISM"
--see http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/RakoveChicago.htm
Mr Rakove's article --which was cited by the Ninth Circuit Court in it's ruling that US citizens have no right to own firearms -- included the following statement:
--------------
"The behavioral context is most clearly associated with the work of Michael Bellesiles, which will doubtless attract substantial notice and scrutiny. Probing beyond the hackneyed paeans to American sharpshooting that occur both in the primary sources (some of them clearly contrived for European eyes)[143] and in later writings, Bellesiles is evidently the first historian to examine the actual use of firearms in the colonial, Revolutionary, and post-Revolutionary eras.[144] What he discovers, among other things, is that many, perhaps the majority of American households, did not possess firearms; that Americans imported virtually all of their firearms; that the weapons they had were likely to deteriorate rapidly, firearms being delicate mechanisms, prone to rust and disrepair; that gunsmiths were few, far between, and not especially skilled; that the militia were poorly armed and trained, their occasional drilling days an occasion for carousing rather than acquiring the military art; that Americans had little use for hunting, it being much more efficient to slaughter your favorite mammal grazing in the neighboring pasture or foraging in nearby woods than to take the time to track some attractive haunch of venison with a weapon that would be difficult to load, aim, and fire before the fleshy object of your desire went bounding off for greener pastures. (Trapping was much more efficient than hunting, and hunting was a leisure activity for the elite.)[145] All of these considerations make plausible and explicable the concerns we have already noted in describing the Virginia ratification debate of mid-June 1788: that without a national government firmly committed to the support of the militia, the institution would wither away from inefficiency, indifference, and neglect (which is pretty much what happened in any case, for reasons both Federalists and Antifederalists readily foresaw). Americans of all political persuasions could pay rhetorical lip service to the value of an armed citizenry, because that [Page 155] sentiment was embedded in the traditions that the individual right interpretation celebrates; but the reality was quite otherwise.[146]
Bellesiles's findings, coupled with the evidence that militia reform was indeed the object of debate, thus illustrate a fundamental problem that all originalist inquiries must address. "
-----------
Was any of the Bellesilesean claims cited by Rakove ever verified by the historical community's peer review and Emory Investigation?
Don Williams - 1/14/2004
1) On September 9, 2003 you expressed shock that the Journal of American History "will apparently take no action to acknowledge the flaws in the article that launched the book." See http://www.hnn.us/readcomment.php?id=17925#17925 .
I grinned when I read your blog post because you failed to recognize that the Journal had already responded to the Bellesiles matter. Recall my comment to you on Sept 11, 2003?? ( http://www.hnn.us/readcomment.php?id=18013#18013 )
In March 2003, the OAH Newsletter printed my letter to Lee Formwalt noting the Journal's obligation to clear up the case files in Silveria v Lochyer and US vs Emerson -- to clear up which of the cited Bellesiles' findings were true, false, partially true, or mistaken.
In it's June 2003 issue, the Journal printed Saul Cornell's glowing review of the Chicago Kent Law Review articles -- the articles containing extensive citations to Bellesiles and --as noted by the Fifth Circuit Court -- containing the definitive argument for the "collective right" view of the Second Amendment. In spite of Bellesiles' resignation, the revocation of the Bancroft, and Knopf's suspension of Arming America publication, the Journal was still promoting Bellesiles' dubious history --
and it's use in two major Supreme Court cases.
Hence, I found your late-breaking outrage rather comical. When I recalled all of your past assurances to us here re the integrity of the history profession's "processes", I almost wet my pants from uncontrollable laughing.
2) Your solemn printing of Saul Cornell's response to John Fought's article ( http://www.hnn.us/readcomment.php?id=18203#18203 )
was equally hilarious -- given that you did not appear to know that Mr Cornell had received $400,000 from the Joyce Foundation to pick up where the Chicago Kent Symposium had left off. See http://www.hnn.us/readcomment.php?id=18236#18236
3) In fact, your blog comment seemed similar to Jan Wiener's article in The Nation, which presented Jack Rakove's remarks in the light of an objective elder statesman without ever informing the Nation's readers that Rakove was involved in the Bellesiles mess -- that (a) Rakove had a view of the Second Amendment supported by Bellesiles' articles (b) Rakove had sponsored Bellesiles for the fellowship at Stanford Humanities Center, where Bellesiles wrote Arming America (c) Rakove had made Bellesiles the keynote speaker at a Stanford Symposium on the Second Amendment, giving Bellesiles the opportunity to fulfil one of the fellowship requirements (d) Within Arming America's acknowledgements, Bellesiles had thanked Rakove for his extensive review of Arming America (e) the glowing review of Arming America in the Journal of American History was penned by a professor at Haverford College -- Jack Rakove's alma mater.
4) I do not think my observations and criticisms presented in the past two years are all that noteworthy -- if my tone sometimes seem derisive, it is because I think that watching the history profession react in this affair has been as comical as watching a Saturday Night Live satire about Bill Clinton in the Lewinski matter -- or watching a four year old toddler make up increasingly implausible (but creative) explanations to get out of an embarrassing situation.
5) The latest cause for hilarity has been Richard B Bernstein's solemn assurance that judges are not influenced by historians. This at a time when the Joyce's Board --containing several Partners of major law firms -- has spent almost $500,000 developing a history and almost $2 million to have the Violence Policy Center promote it. Plus let us not forget all those prominent historians strongly engaged in what dog breeders call a "campaign".
Ralph E. Luker - 1/14/2004
Don Williams calls my 4 line post a "tirade"! I simply asked you to refrain from abusive insult. You go on and on and on, however, to not much point. I don't read all this stuff you post, Don. Just thought you ought to know.
Don Williams - 1/13/2004
I'm not sure what sparked Mr Luker's tirade above. My suggestion that Benny and Bellesiles are ignorant of how history works seems to me to be the most charitable of several possible explanations for their past publications.
I assume that Mr Luker had no objection to my distinction between primary sources vs secondary sources?
Possibly he thought I was rude to Benny --but he was not bothered by Benny's comment re "NRA Apologists masquerading as historians"
The only long posts I've put up recently have been the comments re the Battle of Cowpens made by John Marshall and Daniel Morgan. I note that I put those excerpts up after Benny suggested that I was posting my "interpretation" of what those men said, not what they actually said.
Possibly Mr Luker was hurt by John Fought's comment above that "the actual participants in an event can't be trusted: we need to wait for the cool, objective judgement of professional historians making careful use of each other's secondary work generations later.". I assume Mr Luker was intelligent enough to recognize Mr Fought's acid sarcasm, although apparently Benny lacked the wit to do so.
Most likely, however, Mr Luker realized with a sinking feeling that he has once again been made to look like a fool.
A few months ago, Josh noted Mr Luker's blog entry containing Saul Cornell's criticism of John Fought's comments. See http://www.hnn.us/readcomment.php?id=18203#18203
At the time, I noted:
---------------
You don't understand the ..er.. "context" of Mr Cornell's response, Mr Fought (#18236)
by Don Williams on September 15, 2003 at 2:24 PM
I hope to explain it in a few days -- I'm trying to work something out at the moment. When I do, I hope you will find Mr Cornell's comments as comical as I do.
-------------
Similarly, I thought it was hilarious that Mr Luker huffed and puffed about JAH not responding to the Bellesiles matter -- and failing that JAH already had already showed which way the wind was blowing.
To understand, look at the my information on JAH and Saul Cornell at the bottom of this post:
http://www.hnn.us/readcomment.php?id=28229#28229
Ralph E. Luker - 1/13/2004
Don, I'm never quite sure what the object of your lengthy posts here is. Could we have fewer demeaning references in the subject lines? Whatever may be the problems with Michael Bellesiles, ignorance is not one of them. Your calling other people ignorant on a fairly regular basis seems only to indicate your own need for self-inflation. I, for one, stopped reading your over-long posts long ago. They do, as you would say, hurt my head. Call me ignorant, if you will, but I just don't have time for your unjustified preening about how wonderfully knowledgeable you are about all things considered.
Richard Henry Morgan - 1/13/2004
Just for the record, Don, I'd point out that what we know as Cicero's defense of Milo is not the defense he provided at trial -- for which there is no record. He rewrote his defense (and rewrote history?) much later. According to accounts, the first version he delivered was faltering, and Milo was convicted by a large majority, and sent into exile. The rewritten version is so at odds with the lost original that when Milo saw the second, he was said to have remarked that if Cicero had delivered it he (Milo) never would have had the opportunity to enjoy the seafood of Marseilles (in exile).
Don Williams - 1/13/2004
I would place "forensic history" at least as far back as Cicero and the fall of the Roman Republic. Consider Cicero's argument --in defense of Titus Annius Milo circa 52 BC -- that assassination of political opponents is sometimes justified : "Take, for example, those occasions on which Tiberius Gracchus and Gaius Gracchus were killed , and the armed action of Saturninus was put down. Their repression could not fail to convulse the Republic; though it was to safeguard the Republic that it had to be carried out."
As historian Appian noted circa 160 AD, in Book I of his history "The Civil Wars", the unjustified killing of the Gracchi reformers by the patricians --resentful at the Gracchi campaigns against patrician corruption and theft of public lands -- marked the begining of the end for the Roman Republic. As Appian noted, the murder of Tiberius Gracchi (circa 133 BC --80 years prior to the trial of Milo ) marked the first point in the Republic in which political disputes had been settled by violence instead of debate and compromise. Plutarch essentially agrees with Appian.
Cicero justified the Gracchi assassinations because Cicero ,like some other lawyers, had become rich and famous by being an advocate for the rich and powerful patricians-- by promoting their agendas with sophistry and deceit.
All hail the beautiful Clodia, sister of Clodius and lover of many men and possibly some women. When Cicero was later proscribed, hunted down, and his chopped-off head was returned to the Forum, Clodia pulled out the once eloquent tongue and stuck her hatpin through it.
A salute also to General Pompey who --wearied of the legal sophistry and corruption of his age -- said : "Speak not to us of laws --we carry swords "
Richard Henry Morgan - 1/12/2004
I'm not sure we're really disagreeing, Prof. Bernstein. Judicial practice, as you describe it, does extend back beyond the legal realists. As a conscious formal movement, with an associated title, dedicated to studying and describing actual judicial practice, I believe (and I could be wrong) it goes back to, as you say, the 1920's and the 1930's. I was just trying to put a name to what I thought was your view, not describe the origins of that brand of judicial practice.
As an example (at its worst) of what we are talking about, I offer this tidbit from Reinhardt's opinion in Siveira v. Lockyer (available at http://www.potomac-inc.org/silveira.html):
"Moreover, in other public fora, some of the framers explicitly disparaged the idea of creating an individual right to personal arms. For instance, in a highly influential treatise, John Adams ridiculed the concept of such a right, asserting that the general availability of arms would "demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man— it is a dissolution of the government." 3 JOHN ADAMS, A DEFENCE OF THE CONSTITUTIONS OF GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES 475 (1787). n51"
Those familiar with the Second Amendment literature will recognize this familiar truncated quote, as it is often deployed by those arguing for a collective right interpretation of the Second (individualist theorists have their own favorite truncated quotes). Here is the fuller quote:
"It must be made a sacred maxim, that the militia obey the executive power, which represents the whole people in the execution of laws. To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, counties or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed, and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws."
Adams is not arguing against a general availability of arms -- how else could they be used in private self-defense, a use to which he has no objection? Nor is there any argument offered vis-a-vis "an individual right to personal arms". The discussion is centered on the subordination of the militia to civil authority. Arms in the hands of individual citizens acting in personal self-defense, or under civil authority, are not a threat. If by "general availability" Reinhardt means "available to non-citizens too", then he has a point, as Adams restricts his discussion to citizens, those who would serve in the militia (and might or might not have a private right as conducive to a proper functioning militia). A private right to keep arms, and a right to bear arms (say, to serve in the militia, as a protection against a select militia), should not be confused with a right to carry arms, or use them indiscriminately (say in armed vigilante bands).
I also disagree with Reinhardt's contention that Adams "Defence of the Constitutions ..." was "highly influential" in the sense of informing the meaning of the Second Amendment. Certainly his "Thoughts on Government" influenced state constitutions, but his "Defence" was openly laughed at by many (even by many Federalists) as outdated, elitist, and anti-democratic.
R. B. Bernstein - 1/12/2004
I respectfully disagree with Richard Henry Morgan's attempt to trace the pedigree of the understanding of what judges do. It goes back before the legal realists of the 1920s and 1930s. In fact, as some of the best work on the intellectual history of the era of the American Revolution teaches (e.g., works by Bernard Bailyn, Gordon S. Wood, Peter Gay, the late Clinton Rossiter, and the late Douglass G. Adair), it goes back to the mid and late 18th century. Professor John Phillip Reid of NYU Law School calls it "forensic history" -- the invoking and deploying of carefully selected historical facts and arguments in the service of a present political or legal position.
Or, to quote the Book of Ecclesiastes, "there is nothing new under the sun."
Richard Henry Morgan - 1/12/2004
Don, the Joyce Foundation's money, and the Chicago-Kent historians' efforts were not wasted. They provided more current, more fashionable building materials for Reinhardt's construction. Bernstein's point is that the locus of control is the judges writing the decision, and that historical arguments have little epistemic force with them -- the judges merely cherry-pick a bit here, and bit there, and then roll their own rationale.
Bernstein's view of the matter has a pedigree. It is called (or is similar to) a theory of judicial behaviour called legal realism, and it came out of Columbia and Johns Hopkins, and Yale. One of the tenets, closely associated with Cardozo, is that there is not necessarily one correct way to decide a case. This is a reaction against the formalism that had been taught, complete with law as a syllogistic structure.
There is no precise metric for weighing competing arguments, and cases at the upper appeals levels often have good arguments on both sides. if the law doesn't uniquely determine the outcome, what does? That's the function of ideology in both legal realism and political theory. Legal realism doesn't explain all judicial behaviour, but I think it explains a plurality or even a majority of decisions in the upper levels of the appeals courts, particularly involving cases with large ideological implications. Do you honestly think that Reinhardt, in the absence of the Chicago-Kent contributions, would have found an individual right? Do you think that Scalia, as the graduate of an all-male military prep school in NYC, would have ever decided differently in the VMI case?
Don Williams - 1/12/2004
Benny commented:
"The list of primary sources Mr. Williams trusts on Cowpens all have in common that they were Continental officers who would be expected to put the best face on their victory."
I don't see any reason why Morgan, Howard, or Washington would feel compelled to "put the best face on their victory" -- they whipped Tarleton's ass in a convincing fashion. The results spoke for themselves-- over a hundred British dead, hundreds taken prisoner, and the much vaunted Tarleton running like a whipped cur.
Benny also seems to be trying to ignore the point I make -- Continental officers were more likely to condemm militia than to praise them and to acknowledge their contribution in achieving victory.
I don't see where Morgan, Howard, or Washington condemmed the militia the way Bellesiles does. Morgan didn't say the militia blundered around the battlefield --he said they retreated in accord with his orders.
Benny Smith - 1/11/2004
Mr. Williams appears to be climbing farther out onto his limb with his prolific rants here. Primary sources may be fine but to infer that they never mislead or lie is preposterous. And where would we be without secondary sources like history teachers, history texts, encyclopedias—indeed without persnickety pundits like Mr. Williams himself?
The list of primary sources Mr. Williams trusts on Cowpens all have in common that they were Continental officers who would be expected to put the best face on their victory. To continue with Mr. Williams’ courtroom analogy, accepting the officers’ accounts as unadulterated truth would be like having a trial where only the police testify without so much as a cross-examination. Normally in a trial, you could have forensic evidence, eyewitness reports, circumstantial evidence, and expert witnesses representing more than one view. A judge relying on his professional experience and training will ultimately determine what likely took place. In viewing history, professional historians are in many ways like judges. They may read various eyewitness accounts; evaluate archeological evidence; study expert reports and interpretations; read contemporary journals and newspaper articles; and possibly visit the site itself. Then, they report what likely took place. That’s why professional historians are so important for students of history, regardless of whether they are primary or secondary sources. However, just as judges differ in their opinions, historians may differ similarly.
With that in mind, I located a slightly different interpretation of the battle of Cowpens that may more closely adhere to the gospel according to Don. This is from the book An Eyewitness History: The American Revolution: “Realizing the militiamen’s low tolerance for sustained battle, Morgan decided to emplace them as his two front lines with orders for each line to fire two volleys at the enemy and then withdraw uphill to entice Tarleton’s legions, presumably reduced by the volleys, into striking the Continentals.” This account does not call the retreat of the militia “quailing” from the charges of the British, nor does it mention patriot commanders rallying fleeing militiamen (it is a brief account, however). Instead, it credits clever, if risky, planning in putting the militia up front, knowing that they were likely to cut and run anyway.
Although debating various historical interpretations can be fun and enlightening, I view this forum as a poor venue for this purpose. Indeed, it is difficult now to know exactly where this post will appear in the thread or whether the title will appear at all. For armchair history buffs like Mr. Williams, may I suggest the “phorums” at http://www.earlyamerica.com/ Just follow the prompts to the town crier forums where Mr. Williams and others will find an active discussion going on regarding many topics of early America.
Don Williams - 1/11/2004
I've received the program for the Organization of American Historians(OAH) Annual Meeting in Boston: March 25-28, 2004
On page 56, there is an announcement of a session
"Guns in Early America: Ownership, Meaning, and Violence"
with Edward M Cook (University of Chicago) Presiding.
Presenters are Amy A Cox, Kevin Sweeney, Robert H Churchill,
and Randolph A Roth; with Comment by Gloria Lund Main.
Note that the last three (Robert H Churchill, Randolph A Roth, and Gloria Lund Main) were the major critics of Arming America within the historical profession.
Don Williams - 1/11/2004
See http://chronicle.com/ .
A temporary copy of the article will be available here until around January 15:
http://chronicle.com/temp/email.php?id=k1p5onqb6zy6l7r2dey8a9kbx8xxbsy1
Some excerpts from the article:
--------------
"RELOADED: Michael A. Bellesiles is having his say again. A revised edition of Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture has been issued by Soft Skull Press, a small New York City imprint. The previous edition was withdrawn by Vintage Books in January 2003, after two scholarly committees found serious problems with Mr. Bellesiles's use of historical data. In the months before Vintage's cancellation, Mr. Bellesiles resigned from the faculty of Emory University, and Columbia University rescinded the 2001 Bancroft Prize in History, which had been awarded to the book."
(Nice leadin, no?)
--------------
"Not everyone is pleased with Mr. Bellesiles's choice of publishers. "I think he made a very serious mistake in not turning to a university press, not going through peer review," says Saul Cornell, an associate professor of history at Ohio State University who is completing a book about the Second Amendment for Oxford University Press. Mr. Cornell shares Mr. Bellesiles's skepticism toward the National Rifle Association's view of guns in American history, but says that Mr. Bellesiles "should have taken time to think hard about the criticisms of his book. Not just about the charges of misconduct, but about the general criticisms of how he framed the issues."
(One passenger abandons the sinking Arming America boat with a big splash )
----------------
"I thought that what happened to Arming America was the ugliest thing I've ever seen in my time in academia," says Richard B. Bernstein, the author of the new Thomas Jefferson and the Revolution of Ideas (Oxford), who has been a friend of Mr. Bellesiles's for several years. "As far as I'm concerned, my faith in his integrity is unshaken. ... I am very glad that this book is going to get a second lease on life."
(wotta guy. Someone throw this man a life preserver )
---------------
Mr. Bellesiles is now falsely minimizing the importance of probate records to his original argument, according to Peter Charles Hoffer, a professor of history at the University of Georgia and the author of the forthcoming Historians on Trial: The Cases of Stephen Ambrose, Michael Bellesiles, Joseph Ellis, and Doris Kearns Goodwin, which PublicAffairs will publish late this year. "In the pamphlet, he says, Look, I only devoted four pages to the probate stuff," says Mr. Hoffer. "He doesn't even mention the full-page table."
(Another passenger jumps overboard with a big splash. I believe Mr Hoffer , along with Bellesiles, was one of the signers of the Yassky Brief in US vs Emerson )
------------
Don Williams - 1/11/2004
It seems strange that the Chairman and Directors of the Joyce Foundation would waste almost $500,000? in developing historical narratives that Mr Bernstein assures us are ignored by judges. Especially when the
Chairman and several Directors are PARTNERS in major law firms.
The Joyce Foundation's Board of Directors are here:
http://www.joycefdn.org/about/aboutmain-fs.html
Another site , http://www.consumerfreedom.com/activistcash/donor_detail.cfm?DONOR_ID=139 ,
gives more detail about the Chairman and individual Directors:
1) Chairman John T. Anderson --Managing Partner, Lord Bissel & Brook
2) Vice Chairman Richard K. Donahue --Partner, Donahue & Donahue;
3) Director Anthony S. Earl --Former Wisconsin Governor; Partner, Quarles & Brady LLP; Chair, Center for Clean Air Policy; Director, Great Lakes Protection Fund
4) Director Roger R. Fross -- Partner, Lord Bissel & Brook
Don Williams - 1/11/2004
1) The pro-gun control Joyce Foundation spends millions every year in grants for gun control groups-- see
http://www.joycefdn.org/programs/gunviolence/gunviolencemain-fs.html.
If history has no influence on judges,
why did the Joyce give Saul Cornell and the Ohio State Department of History a grant of $399,967 in 2002 for " the creation of a comprehensive Second Amendment Research Center. (2 yrs.)"??
2) At first, I accepted your superior judgement and assumed that the Foundation was simply carelessly throwing money away. Then it occurred to me that the Foundation received a pretty good return on one 1999 grant:
Illinois Institute of Technology,
Chicago-Kent College of Law
Chicago, Illinois $84,000
For a symposium and law review on the Second Amendment (6 mos.)
3) After all, the Ninth Circuit Court used the Chicago Kent Law Review articles from the Joyce Symposium as it's "forensic history" when it ruled that US citizens have no right to own firearms. And that happened even with the Billesiles trainwreck --which after all, was triggered by Clayton Cramer and James Lindgren's criticisms, not by the professional historical community.
4) Now, we have the Organization of American Historians(OAH)'s Journal of American History publishing Saul Cornell's praise (June 2003) for the Chicago Kent Law Review articles, packaged into a book by Carl Bogus:
"The Second Amendment in Law and History: Historians and Constitutional Scholars on the Right to Bear Arms." Ed. by Carl T. Bogus. (New York: New Press, 2002. x, 358 pp. $24.95, ISBN 1-56584-699-0.)"
5) In it's Dec 5, 2002 Press Release on the Ninth Court's ruling (that the American people have no Second Amendment right to "keep and bear arms"), the leading gun control advocacy group "Violence Policy Center" noted the following:
" Citing cutting-edge scholarship such as the 2000 Chicago Kent Law Review—Symposium on the Second Amendment: Fresh Looks, the Silveira decision details the history and context of the Second Amendment, as well
as existing legal precedent, and makes clear that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms."
6) I assume this is objective judgement and was not influenced in any way by the following Joyce grants to the Violence Policy Center:
2002:
Violence Policy Center
Washington, DC $800,000
To support research, public education, communication, and advocacy efforts promoting public health oriented gun violence prevention policies. (18 mos.)
2000:
Violence Policy Center
Washington, DC $1,000,000
To support its efforts to promote public health-oriented gun policy through research, public education, coalition building, and advocacy. (2 yrs)
Don Williams - 1/11/2004
I have just found out that Bellesiles has supposedly just released a pamphlet --in addition to the Soft Skull Press book -- in which he allegedly addresses criticisms of Arming America, version one (finally). I therefore retract my last statement-- that Bellesiles did not defend Arming America --until I obtain and review his pamphlet.
(Soft Skull Press web site currently says to find it "at " but fails to give a location.)
In my next to last statement in the above post, I wish to clarify that I do not definitely know that Bellesiles and his allies "made up a pack of lies" to mislead the Supreme Court --merely that I see that as a possibility and that the massive negative effects of a Supreme Court judgment are such that that should not be allowed to happen. Hence, people advocating the curtailment and possible abolition of a major civil right should expect to have to defend the truth of their claims/assertions.
I can not eliminate my doubts re the truth of either Bellesiles history or of the Chicago Kent Law Review articles because, in my opinion, the people who are attempting to influence a major legal judgement using a historical narrative are ,at the same time, saying that historical narrative is not subject to the ordinary challanges of the legal process.
It has long been legal procedure that two parties in a legal battle present their facts, answer challenges to their submittals, and that truth will emerge from this contention.
In most areas of scholarship, a similar process exists in which a thesis is submitted with evidence and undergoes "peer review" in which peers may challenge the thesis if it (a) misrepresents known facts, (b) presents nonexistent or false facts or (c) does not address pertinent known facts which are contrary to the thesis
Yet now the meme seems to be that there are no real facts --merely "interpretations" and that one interpretation is pretty much as good as another. If that is so, then why the enormous effort to submit this mallable, indeterminate thing called "history" into a major Supreme Court case?
Why did Bellesiles' demurs regarding the fallability of historians not show up in the Chicago Kent articles and the legal briefs submitted by gun control advocates in US vs Emerson?? I saw damm little confessions of fallability in that material.
In my opinion, Arming America, the 1996 predecessor article, and the Chicago Kent Law Review articles citing Bellesiles' work have short-circuited peer review--as I have described in the past. So let's see what has happened since Bellesiles' resignation.
In spring 2003, OAH had their annual meeting, including a preliminary forum on Arming America. So what was the result? Nothing?
In March 2003, I suggested to the OAH that it had an obligation to correct the case files for US vs Emerson and Silveria vs Lochyer by determining which of Bellesiles' assertions were true, false, mistaken, or partially true.
In response, the OAH's Journal of American History blandly published in June 2003 a rather laudatory review of the Chicago Kent Law Review articles , reissued as a book edited by Carl Bogus. The review was by Saul Cornell -- the historian who has received $400,000 from the Joyce Foundation to investigate the Second Amendment's history. The same Joyce Foundation which put up the money for Bellesiles and others to conduct the Chicago Kent Symposium solely for the creation of a defense of the "collective right" (pro gun-control )interpretation of the Second Amendment. The same Joyce Foundation which receives the yearly revenue of almost $1 Billion in assets tax-free because it tells the IRS that it does not engage in political lobbying.
See http://www.historycooperative.org/cgi-bin/justtop.cgi?act=justtop&url;=http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jah/90.1/br_14.html
Mr Cornell lauds the Chicago Kent authors --although I seem to recall that he mentions that Bellesiles is controversial. From what I remember, Mr Cornell doesn't discuss the extensive citations to Bellesiles that the other authors make. Yet it seems to me that citations to Bellesiles -- who resigned from Emory, whose Arming America was withdrawn from publication by Knopf, and whose Bancroft prize was rescinded -- would reflect badly upon the knowledge, judgment,and credibility of the other Chicago Kent authors. It seems hilarious to me that Knopf can halt publication of Arming America yet Bellesiles' history lives on in the legal arena in the form of
"The Second Amendment in Law and History: Historians and Constitutional Scholars on the Right to Bear Arms." Ed. by Carl T. Bogus. (New York: New Press, 2002. x, 358 pp. $24.95, ISBN 1-56584-699-0.)
R. B. Bernstein - 1/11/2004
So you are NOT the Richard Henry Morgan who wrote THE SUPREME COURT AND RELIGION in 1972? Then it's a case of mistaken identity and not some sort of "joke." I was proffering a sincere comment to *that* Richard Henry Morgan; if you are not that Richard Henry Morgan, then I apologize for the confusion.
Other than that, I have nothing to add to what I've already said. Bellesiles's critics charged deliberate, willful, malice-aforethought professional malfeasance; it seems odd that they resist the usual approach of a profession to charges of professional malfeasance, but there is so much that's odd about their approach to l'affaire Bellesiles that a reasonable person would become exhausted counting the oddities.
Yes, *that* bitter number-crunching joke *was* deliberate.
R. B. Bernstein - 1/11/2004
No, I wouldn't. I've given my reasons for not having written the preface, and you will have to be content with that.
Don Williams - 1/10/2004
Curious minds want to know.
After all, I assume that Amazon.com would not have promised a Preface from you without some committment on your behalf to Bellesiles. Surely you wouldn't break a promise to a close friend, would you?
Don Williams - 1/10/2004
Benny keeps referring to SECONDARY SOURCES -- accounts written by people who lived 200 years after an event took place.
What I've provided is PRIMARY SOURCES --accounts written by people who lived 200 years ago and who were eyewitnesses to events when they occurred.
SECONDARY SOURCES are of value only to the extent that they provide detailed citations to the PRIMARY SOURCES which support the narrative provided by the SECONDARY SOURCE -- and to the extent that the SECONDARY SOURCE does not overlook major PRIMARY SOURCES which provide information/evidence which contradicts the narrative of the SECONDARY SOURCE.
The reason for this approach is that SECONDARY SOURCES can be mistaken or even lie.
ARMING AMERICA is a SECONDARY SOURCE -- one which, in my opinion, is very lacking PRIMARY SOURCE citations to support it's argument and also one which overlooks/ignores much PRIMARY SOURCE evidence which contradicts it's argument.
The documents Benny have cited above have all bee SECONDARY SOURCES -- his last citation seems to lack any references to PRIMARY SOURCES to back it's argument but is merely a story on the Internet. I don't have access to the 100 year old history he cites so I don't know if that historian provided any PRIMARY sources as evidence.
History is very much like a police investigation and testimony presented at a courtroom trial. Jurors must ignore hearsay -- including assertions made by lawyers for either the prosecution or defense who may be trying to mislead them. Instead, jurors must focus on the EVIDENCE:
who actually saw the events? How credible are they? Are there contradictory accounts? Is there an explanation for the contradiction?
John Marshall, Harry Lee, Daniel Morgan, Col Washington, and Col Howard were all CONTINENTAL Officers who were quick --in other circumstances -- to speak of militia shortcomings with contempt. Witness Marshall's description of Camden , for example. That they spoke well of Pickens' militia at Cowpens discredits Bellesiles' account greatly.
Benny Smith - 1/10/2004
Mr. Williams will have to forgive me if I don’t trust the military’s accounts of their exploits as gospel. Long before Baghdad Bob, long before our commander in chief’s steadfast warnings of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, truth became the first casualty of war. Any real student of the American Revolution will tell you that propagandizing was existent there too. That is why I agree with Mr. Fought that it is better to rely on the "cool and objective judgement of professional historians." And why I believe that history, particularly military history, provides fertile ground for such a rich and divergent mixture of views and interpretations. Certainly, it is not a field where one’s views, supported by authoritative literature, should be dismissed as fraud, lies, wrong, etc.
Unfortunately, history has become so politicized that one must become wary when seeing gun lobby compatriots rallying around a particular historical view, especially when it is the gospel according to Don. Is Mr. Williams affiliated with the NRA? Should objective and open-minded students then be wary of what he has to say? From my experience dealing with the gun lobby, I believe that to be the case.
Regarding the battle of Cowpens, although I do not necessarily trust internet sources, here is what one referential site said that may shed some light:
"Lt. Colonel Tarleton ordered his infantry to reform and they now attacked Lt. Colonel John Eager Howard's Continentals on the right. The disciplined Continentals exchanged heavy fire with the British for several minutes. Meanwhile General Morgan rode to the rear to help Andrew Pickens rally the militia. Many of whom were willing to continue their withdrawal and leave the field of battle entirely. Morgan and Pickens succeeded in gathering most of the militia and they headed for Howard's right flank in reaction to the latest British movement."
http://www.patriotresource.com/battles/cowpens/page5.html
Although this account appears to support Bellesiles’ thesis, I am not going to say it is 100 per cent correct any more than I am likely to say that Mr. Williams is 100 per cent wrong. But what the gun lobby has tried to do in attempting to censor Bellesiles is wrong—100 per cent wrong.
R. B. Bernstein - 1/10/2004
No, I did not read the second edition. I have not seen it in any shape or form.
R. B. Bernstein - 1/10/2004
Prof. Morgan has correctly characterized my view.
R. B. Bernstein - 1/10/2004
Nobody seems to have noticed that I already answered this question back in December in another thread. The answer is simple. It has nothing to do with any doubts about Michael Bellesiles as a scholar. It has everything to do with the pressure of my own writing schedule. I have spent much of the past five years writing a book, which appeared on 4 Septmeber 2003: THOMAS JEFFERSON (NY: Oxford University Press, 2003). I then had to finish a young-adult version of the book, titled THOMAS JEFFERSON AND THE REVOLUTION OF IDEAS, which Oxford will publish in early 2004. THOMAS JEFFERSON was reviewed in THE NEW YORK TIMES BOOK REVIEW on 14 December 2003 by Gordon Wood, who had nice things to say, thank Heaven. And Michael Bellesiles read the entire manuscript and provided an excellent and constructive critique that greatly improved the book.
Further deponent saith not, save to say that I am sick and tired of people trying to figure out what I might thing or might not think or why I did what I did or did not do why I did not do. Perhaps someone might have thought to ask me directly. It's not hard to find my email address or to drop a letter to me c/o New York Law School. But, of course, it's so much more fun to speculate ominously about "reasons" and "motivations," isn't it? So true to the spirit (in the loosest possible sense) of History News Network.
Don Williams - 1/9/2004
I actually have a much more negative view of Bellesiles' character now --due to my initial examination of the Soft Skull edition --than I initially had due to the first edition of Arming America. I saw much sophistry and misdirection in the first edition but I saw the possibility that Bellesiles had been compromised by the poor job prospects for historians, the benefits from the patronage of prominent historians --like Garry Wills, Jack Rakove, Don Higginbotham, Saul Cornell, and other authors at the Chicago Kent Second Amendment Symposium-- and his own gun control bias.
From what I see so far of the second version(Soft Skull) of Arming America, Bellesiles corrects few of the major errors in the first version (Knopf). Plus, in my opinion, Bellesiles has gone from lying about events of 200 years ago to lying about events of the present day.
For example, Bellesiles states on page 8 of the new edition:
"When Arming America appeared in September 2000, it inspired a firestorm of criticism. Many of these attacks worked on the premise that this book assailed an individual's right to own a firearm. There is , however, nothing in this book to support that characterization, and a great deal to support a contrary reading. On the other hand, that the book observes that gun regulation was historically part of various patterns of political and social repression does not mean that I set out to undermine or endorse current efforts at gun control."
This above comment seems rather misleading to Bellesiles' readers--given that his pose as an objective historian does not mention to them his heavy involvement in gun control advocacy in 2000 --until Arming America began to smell -- and the way Bellesiles' assertions were used by gun control advocates in legal briefs to sway the Supreme Court in US vs Emerson. It does not mention that the Chicago Kent articles --recently used by the Ninth Circuit Court to rule that Americans have no right to own firearms--extensively cite Bellesiles to make their gun control argument.
Similarly, Bellesiles' claim on page 15 that "What an historian says has little impact on present conditions".
That , of course, is utter bullshit.
Two of the Supreme Court judges most sympathetic to gun rights are also constitutional originalists --i.e., approach the interpretation of the Constitution by looking at history and trying to determine the original intent of the founders. Some of the same historians who are now trying to run from the Arming America debacle were arguing several years ago that THEY ALONE were qualified to
describe Early American history -- that scholars of Constitutional Law who promoted the Standard Model of the Second Amendment were ignorant of the American Founding.
The prominent historians who joined with Bellesiles in writing the Constitutional Commentary articles, the Chicago Kent Law Review articles, and who signed the Yassky brief -- the primary legal arguments by gun control advocates in US vs Emerson --were trying to convince the Supreme Court to make a fundamental civil right into a dead letter. They were trying to destroy the primary bulwark against tyranny in this country and the primary protection for the Constitution.
On page 582 of his book, Bellesiles expresses appreciation that "many people who value free speech and fair play have spoken out on my behalf". On page 584, he states of his young daughter that "No one should have to end her childhood as the witness to the sort of fury and cruelty as was directed at her father".
To this pitiful whining, I respond: Timothy Emerson and millions of other Americans should not be thrown into prison, lose all civil rights as convicted felons, and be condemmed to a life of poverty because a group of avowed "intellectuals" think they can execute a Foucaultian Maneuver -- disarm American citizens by making up a pack of lies to mislead American voters and the Supreme Court.
In my opinion, Bellesiles' suggestion that he has responded to criticism of Arming America is also false -- he hid out in Britain and refused to defend Arming America or to address factual criticisms to any significant extent.
Don Williams - 1/9/2004
Your first memory refers to Colonel Howard's response when Daniel Morgan rode up and asked if Howard's Continental Line was beaten (given the unplanned retreat). Howard responded
that men were not beaten who retreated in an orderly manner.
Your second memory refers to Captain Duncanson , of the 71st Highlanders, grabbing at Col Howard's saddle and asking for his protection --given the cries of "Tarleton's quarter" that began ringing out among Morgan's men, a reference to the Waxhaws massacre in which Tarleton killed about 100 US Continental soldiers after they had surrendered.
Lawrence Babits, of East Carolina University, recounts both events in his book "A Devil of a Whipping" (1998)--the best account so far of the Battle of Cowpens.
Babits, in turn, acknowledges a debt to the study of Revolutionary War pension applications --which include soldiers' accounts of battles in which they participated --done by Bobby Moss of Limestone College, Gaffney, South Carolina. I wonder if Don Higginbotham at the University of North Carolina has corrected his course material to reflect the findings of Mr Babits and Mr Moss.
I disagree somewhat with the suggestion that Bellesiles
was misled by the secondary sources to which he referred.
While Don Higginbotham's text had the error to which I referred, such errors are easily exposed if one reads seven or eight histories on a particular matter. Doing that tends to reveal errors, different accounts, or unusual extrapolations which should be investigated further by looking at the author's cited evidence. Plus a real historian will go beyond the accounts written by other historians and look at the primary sources -- the actual accounts left by people who lived 200 years ago.
Richard Henry Morgan - 1/9/2004
I have somewhere floating in the recesses of my mind, two vague memories, whose provenance is uncertain. One is an occasion where either Morgan or one of the upper officers decried the fleeing of some American troops, with a colonel responding that they were retreating to a new position in good order.
Another memory is a British officer, having dropped his weapon and surrendered, grabbing the saddle-horn of an American officer, and begging not to be left behind. When the American officer inquired as to his behaviour, the Brit said he expected to be killed despite surrendering, as Tarleton had ordered the Brits to do to Americans (just as they had at the Battle of the Waxhaws, or Buford's Massacre). Given knowledge of Tarleton's tactics, I can imagine that the planned repositioning might not have looked all that orderly to an observer not familiar with the plan (I'll bet they beat a hasty retreat to their new position, rather than forming up into nice, neat rows).
It's interesting, Don, that you picked up the discrepancy between Bellesiles' acocunt and the facts. I remember reading the official US Army history of the battle, and was shocked that they too said it was the Continental unit that blundered about (shocked because I had read so much bad history before).
Bellesiles' account demonstrates the perils of synthetic history. Taking such a broad topic, and approach, and so many different kinds of "evidence", the synthesizer can't be expert in as many fields as are demanded, and ends up being at the mercy of the few sources he does choose -- and then is left with the task of making a silk purse from a sow's ear.
Don Williams - 1/9/2004
I need to turn in. If you are interested, I also have Light Horse Harry Lee's account of Cowpens --and an account of the Battle given in William Gordon's 1788 History-- which I intend to post below for Benny's edification in the next few days.
Don Williams - 1/9/2004
Daniel Morgan mentioned the following men in his dispatch to Congress -- a traditional way of honoring subordinates' performance in battle. Following is taken from the Penn microfiche and is the enclosed list Morgan alluded to
in his letter posted above.
----------------
DAN MORGAN
A LIST of teh commissioned officers in the action of the 17th of jan, 1781
Of the light infantry.
John Howard, Lieut. Col. Commandant
Benjamin Brooks, Capt. and Major of Brigade
Captains, Robert Shenkwood Delaware
Anderson Maryland
Dobson, ditto
Lieutenants Ewing ditto
Watkins ditto
Hanson ditto
Barnes ditto
Miller ditto
Ensigns King ditto
Dyer Maryland
Smith ditto
Of the third Battalion of Dragoons
Lieut Col Washington Virginia
Major Richard Call ditto
Captain Barrett ditto
Lieutenant Bell ditto
Cornet Simmon South Carolina
Of the Maryland State Battalion
Edward Giles, Major, and acting Aid-de-camp
Of the Virginia Militia
Major Triplett
Captains Buchanan
Tate
Gilmore
Ensigns Combs
McCorkill
Wilfoe
The Baron de Glafbuck served as a volunter to General Morgan's family, and Mr Andrews with Col Washington's battalion
Col Pickens, and all the officers in his corps, behaved well; but from their having lately joined the detachment, it is impossible to collect all their names and rank. So that the General does not particulate any , lest it should be doing injustice to others.
[Col Pickens' militia did not join up with Morgan until the night before the the battle ]
Note that Morgan did not mention Captain Andrew Wallace, whose unit had triggered the inadvertent retreat by the Continental Line. Contrary to Bellesiles' description, it was the Continental Line and Wallace's unit which was blundering around the battlefield at Cowpens.
Note that Congress later award medals to Morgan, Howard, and Washington and gave Col Pickens a sword.
Morgan's commendations and Congress's award would hardly have occurred if the militia had behaved at Cowpens as depicted by Bellesiles in Arming America.
John G. Fought - 1/9/2004
Thanks, Don. Marshall's account is very easy to follow, and the coordination of units by Morgan during the action seems to have worked as well as anyone could have hoped. It's striking how few men were involved. Of course, the actual participants in an event can't be trusted: we need to wait for the cool, objective judgement of professional historians making careful use of each other's secondary work generations later.
By the way, I've meant to tell you and Richard and the rest that I've enjoyed two recent books by John Mosier: The Myth of the Great War and (slightly less) The Blitzkrieg Myth. (He's an English professor...) In both, he gets and gives important insights from simply studying at first hand some crucial bits of terrain, an elementary exercise that doesn't seem as common among military historians as it should be. I'd like to hear from any of you who's read either book, though I guess this isn't quite the right venue. And remember, always keep your legal pads dry and your office doors wet.
Don Williams - 1/9/2004
Following is from http://freepages.history.rootsweb.com/~familyinformation/transcripts/morgan1.html
but I have checked it against a microfilm copy of the document at the University of Pennsylvania (Van Pelt Library, Microfiche 821, number 44035 )
--------------------------
General Morgan's Report on the Battle of Cowpens
Papers of the Continental Congress M247 roll 175 vol. 1 pg. 541
National Archives & Records Administration
Transcribed by Billy Markland
COPY
Camp near Cain Creek
Januay 19 1781
Dear Sir.
The Troops I have the honor to command have gained a compleat Victory over a Detachment from the British Army commanded by Leut. Colonel Tarlton. The Action happened on the 17th Inst. about Sunrise at a Place called the Cowpens near Pacolet River.
On the 14th having received Intelligence that the British Army were in motion, and that their movements clearly indicated their Intentions of dislodging me, I abandoned my Encampment at Goindales Ford and on the 16th in the Evening took possession of a Post about 7 miles from the Cherokee Ford on Broad River. My former Position subjected me at once to the Operations of Lord Cornwallis and Colonel Tarlton and in Case of a Defeat my Retreat might easily have been cut off. My situation at the Cowpens enabled me to improve any advantages that I might gain and to provide better for my Security should I be unfortunate. These Reasons induced me to take this Post notwithstanding it had the Appearances of a Retreat. On the Evening of the 16th the Enemy occupied the Ground we had moved from in the morning. An Hour before daylight one of my Scouts informed me that they had advanced within five Miles of our Camp. On this Information the necessary positions were made and from the alacrity of the Troops we were soon prepared to receive them.
The Light Infantry, commanded by Leut. Colonel Howard and the Virginia Militia under Majr. Triplett were formed on a rising Ground. The 3rd Regiment of Dragoons consisting of about 80 men under the command of Lt. Colonel Washington were so posted in their Rear so as not to be injured by the Enemy's Fire and yet to be able to charge them should an occasion offer. The Volunteers from N. Carolina, S. Carolina and Georgia under the command of Colonel Pickens were posted to guard the Flanks. Majr. McDowell of the N. Carolina Volunteers was posted on the right Flank in front of the Line 150 yards and Majr. Cunningham of the Georgia Volunteers on the left at the same distance in Front. Colonels Brannon's and Thomas of the S. Carolina Volunteers on the right of Majr. McDowell and Colonels Hays and McCall of the same Corps on the left of Majr. Cunningham. Captains Tate and Buchannan with the Augusta Riflemen were to support the right of the Line.
The Enemy drew up in one Line 400 yds. in Front of our advanced Corps. The 1st Battn. of the 71st Regt. was opposed to our Right. The 7th Regt. to our left. The Legion Infantry to our Center and two Companies of light Troops of 100 each on our Flanks. In their Front they moved two pieces of Artillery and Lt. Colonel Tarlton with 280 Cavalry was posted in the rear of his Line. The Disposition being thus made small Parties of Riflemen were detached to skirmish with the Enemy on which their whole Line advanced with the greatest Impetuosity shouting as they advanced. Majers [sic] McDowell and Cunningham gave them a heavy and galling fire and retreated to the Regiments intended for their support. The whole of Colonel Picken's Command then kept up a Fire by Regiments retreating agreeable to orders. When the Enemy advanced to our Line they received a well directed and incessant Fire but their Numbers being superior to ours they gained our Flanks which obliged us to change our Position. We retired in good order about 50 Paces, formed, advanced on the Enemy and gave them a brisk Fire which threw them into disorder. Lt. Colonel Howard discovering this gave orders for the Line to charge [with] Bayonets which was done with such address that the Enemy fled with the utmost Precipitation.
Lt. Colonel Washington discovering that the Cavalry were cutting down our Riflemen on the left charged them with such Firmness as obliged them to retire in Confusion. The Enemy was entirely routed and the pursuit continued upwards of 20 miles.
Our loss was inconsiderable, not having more than 12 killed and 60 Wounded. The Enemy loss was 10 Com. Officers and upwards of 100 Rank and File killed, 200 Wounded. 29 Com. Officers and above 500 Privates Prisoners, which fell into our Hands with two Pieces of Artillery, two Standards, 800 musquets [sic], one travelling Forge, 35 Baggage Waggons, 70 negroes and upwards of 100 Dragoon Horses with all their [Musith?]. They destroyed most of their Baggage which was immense.
Altho our Success was compleat, we fought only 800 Men and were opposed by upwards of 1000 of proven British Troops.
Such ws the Inferiority of our numbers, that our Success must be attributed to the Justice of our Cause and the Bravery of our Troops. My Wishes would induce me to mention the Name of every private Centinel [sic] in the Corps. In Justice to the Bravery and good Conduct of the Officers, I have taken the Liberty to enclose you a List of their Names from a conviction that you will be pleased to introduce such Characters to the World.
Majr. Giles my Aid d[e] Camp and Capt. Brooks acting as my Brigade Majer [sic] deserve and have my thanks for their assistance & Behaviour on this occasion.
The Baron De Glaibeuh, who accompanies Majr. Giles with these Dispatches, served with me as a Volunteer and behaved in such a manner as to merit your attention.
I am Dr Sir
Yr. Obt. Servt.
Dan Morgan
-----------------------------
Note that Morgan testifies that the militia gave the British line a heavy fire before retreating and that the retreat was according to his plan (because a British bayonet charge would overtake the militia line before the rifles --slow to reload --could be reloaded). Bellesiles description of militia fleeing from the British is misleading -- some of them --with unloaded rifles --fled from a British cavalry charge on Morgan's left flank, but it is misleading to suggest this occurred for all of Pickens' militia. Moreover, the militia fled the British cavalry because Washington was slow to cover them as had been planned.
Don Williams - 1/9/2004
Benny
I assumed that when I gave two references, you would have
the initiative to get off your duff and check the books I cited. I forgot that your "insights" have been, in my opinion, usually fact-free and consisting almost wholly of cheap rhetorical gestures such as unsupported assertions, unsupported suppositions about the character of Bellesiles' critics, and unsupported skepticism re facts submitted by others. So devoid of content are your comments -- so shallow in their thought --that I think I could program a computer to mimick your comments.
Given below is what John Marshall wrote in "The Life of George Washington" (pages 470-473, Volume I, Walton Book Co, New York, 1930,an exact copy of the 1848 text per publisher's note. The 1848 text was a revision of the book released in 1832. )
In submitting it, I do not expect you to finally engage reality -- I never pursue forlorn hopes except in poker. Rather, I think Mr Morgan and Mr Fought may find John Marshall's comments of interest.
--------------------------------------------
"But Morgan had great and just confidence in himself and in his troops, he was unwilling to fly from an enemy not so decidedly his superior as to render it madness to fight him; and he also thought that, if he should be overtaken while his men were fatigued and retreating, the probability of success would be much less than if he should exhibit the appearance of fighting from choice.
These considerations determined him to halt earlier than was absolutely necessary.2
[John Marshall notes in his Footnote 2:"These reasons for his conduct were given to the author by General Morgan soon after his return from the southern campaign." ]
Tarleton, having left his baggage under a strong guard, with orders not to move until break of day, recommenced the pursuit at three in the morning.
Before day, Morgan was informed of his approach, and prepared to receive him.
Although censured by many for having determined to fight, and by some for the ground he chose, all admit the judgment with which his disposition was made.
On an eminence, in an open wood, he drew up his continental troops, and Triplet's corps, deemed equal to continentals, amounting to between four and five hundred men, who were commanded by Lieutenant Colonel Howard. In their rear, on the descent of the hill, Lieutenant Colonel Washington was posted with his cavalry, and a small body of mounted Georgia militia commanded by Major M'Call, as a corps de reserve.
On these two corps rested his hopes of victory, and with them he remained in person. The front line was composed entirely of militia, under the command of Colonel Pickens. Major M’Dowell, with a battalion of North Carolina volunteers, and Major Cunningham, with a battalion of Georgia volunteers, were advanced about one hundred and fifty yards in front of this line, with orders to give a single fire as the enemy approached, and then to fall back into the intervals , which were left for them in the center of the first line.
The militia , not being expected to maintain their ground long, were ordered to keep up a retreating fire by regiments, until they should pass the continental troops, on whose right they were directed again to form.
His whole force, as stated by himself, amounted to only eight hundred men.
Soon after this disposition was made, the British van appeared in sight. Confident of a cheap victory, Tarleton formed his line of battle, and his troops rushed forward with great impetuosity, shouting as they advanced.
After a single well directed fire, M’Dowell and Cunningham fell back on Colonel Pickens, who, after a short but warm conflict, retreated into the rear of the second line. 1 [Marshall’s Footnote 1, p 471:”some of them formed afterwards, and renewed the action on Howard’s right” ]
The British pressed forward with great eagerness; and, though received by the continental troops with a firmness unimpaired by the route of the front line, continued to advance. Soon after the action with the continental troops had commenced, Tarleton ordered up his reserve. Perceiving that the enemy extended beyond him both on the right and left, and that, on the right especially, his flank was on the point of being turned, Howard ordered the company on his right to change its front, so as to face the British on that flank.
From some mistake in the officer commanding this company, it fell back, instead of fronting the enemy, upon which the rest of line, supposing a change of ground for the whole to have been directed, began to retire in perfect order. “
[ Don Williams Note: The unit which triggered this unplanned retreat by the Continental Line was a Virginia Continental unit, led by Captain Andrew Wallace. Lawrence Babit’s book “A Devil of a Whipping” describes this in detail. This unplanned retreat could have been a disaster, if the British troops had not been so worn out by days of fast marches and little sleep so that they were slow in the pursuit, giving the Continentals time to reload , regroup , and face the Brits with a sudden firing when the Brits finally caught up . One can imagine the impact that the Continental retreat had upon the militia reforming behind them –who were supposed to have been protected by the line while they reloaded their rifles.
Bellesiles justifies his narrative by citing a circa 1960 book by Don Higginbotham, which MISTAKENLY asserted that Virginia militia caused the retreat. As I noted on H-OIEAHC, one of Bellesiles’ more endearing traits is an ability to locate blunders by prominent historians and to quote them to support his misleading descriptions. He did something similar with John Ward’s hilariously flawed description of the Battle of New Orleans ]
(Marshall continues:) “At this moment General Morgan rode up, and directed the infantry to retreat over the summit of the hill, about one hundred yards to the cavalry. This judicious but hazardous movement was made in good order, and extricated the flanks from immediate danger. Believing the fate of the day to be decided, the British pressed on with increased ardour, and in some disorder; and when the Americans halted, were within thirty yards of them. The orders then given by Howard to face the enemy were executed as soon as they were received; and the whole line poured in a fire as deadly as it was unexpected. Some confusion appearing in the ranks of the enemy, Howard seized the critical moment , and ordered a charge with the bayonet. These orders were instantly obeyed, and the British line was broken.
At the same moment the detachment of cavalry on the British right was routed by Washington. The militia of Pickens, who rode to the ground, had tied their horses in the rear of Howard’s left. When the front line was broken, many of them fled to their horses, and were closely pursued by the cavalry, who, while the continental infantry were retiring , passed their flank , and were cutting down the scattered militia in their rear. Washington, who had previously ordered his men not to fire a pistol, now directed them to charge the British cavalry with drawn swords. A sharp conflict ensued, but it was not of long duration. The British were driven from the ground with considerable slaughter, and were closely pursued. Both Howard and Washington pressed the advantage they had respectively gained, until the artillery, and great part of the infantry had surrendered. So sudden was the defeat, that a considerable part of the British cavalry had not been brought into action; and, though retreating, remained unbroken. Washington, followed by Howard with the infantry, pursued them rapidly, and attacked them with great spirit; but, as they were superior to him in numbers, his cavalry received a temporary check; and in this part of the action he sustained a greater loss than in any other. But the infantry coming up to support him, Tarleton resumed the retreat.
In this engagement upwards of one hundred British, including ten commissioned officers, were killed; twenty nine commissioned officers, and five hundred privates were made prisoners. Eight hundred muskets, two field pieces, two standards, thirty five baggage wagons, and one hundred dragoon horses , fell into the hands of the conquerors.
Tarleton retreated towards the head quarters of Lord Cornwallis, then about twenty five miles from the Cowpens.
This complete victory cost the Americans less than eighty men in killed and wounded.
Seldom has a battle in which greater numbers were not engaged, been so important in its consequences as that of the Cowpens. Lord Cornwallis was not only deprived of a fifth of his numbers, but lost a most powerful and active part of his army. Unfortunate, Greene was not in a condition to press the advantage. The whole southern army did not much exceed two thousand men, a great part of whom were militia.”
------------------
[ Don Williams NOTE: That unfortunate situation was due to the entire Southern Continental Army –over 6000 men – having been captured at Charleston , when Continental General Lincoln made the stupid decision to defend a penisula—thereby leaving his force vulnerable to the full might of the British fleet. As John Marshall discusses on pages 461-469 , after Charleston, the British were largely held at bay in the Carolinas by the militia armies of Francis Marion, Colonel Andrew Pickens, and Thomas Sumpter. The US Army’s “American Military History” notes that the turning point in the Revolutionary War occurred when a group of western Virginia /Tennessee mountaineers—angered by threats sent to them by British Major Ferguson, trapped and exterminated Ferguson’s army at King’s Mountain. Ferguson’s unit was a major component of Cornwallis’ forces and King’s Mountain ruined Cornwallis’s plan to take North Carolina.
Bryan Haskins - 1/7/2004
I to am always struck at how quickly my topics of discussion have been shunted aside by you, Mr. Smith, the regular Arming America defender, while you busily plug your own agenda or criticism with all the predictability of a pull-string talking doll. It is a mystery to me why you constantly muster here at our feet, only to strike camp and flee as soon as I attempt to engage you in an honest discussion. Why do you quail whenever I attempt to start a discussion with you? After all, I’m not advancing upon you with raised bayonets.
Now if relevance to your posts is what you truly want, then I will once again make you this offer: You chose a topic—-be it an outrageous quote from some “gun nut,” a complaint against AA you feel is unfounded, or whatever else you think is relevant to AA, its thesis, or its author. Post that topic and ask for my comment upon it. I’ll freely give it to you (its possible the answer could even surprise you) and we’ll go from there. Then, once we have discussed that matter, I will chose a relevant topic and ask for your opinion of it. If it works and stays civil, then we can continue alternating the choice of discussion topics. If at any time you feel that the discussion becomes uncivil or becomes a waste of your time, then you can just call it off and we’ll go back to talking about each other rather than too each other.
W. Whitelaw - 1/7/2004
"In his book 'The Life of George Washington', John Marshall (Continental soldier and first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court) noted the following about the Battle of Cowpens:"
I do believe John Marshall was the fourth Chief Justice, being preceded by John Jay, John Rutledge, and Oliver Ellsworth. Marshall was the first long-termer, serving from 1801 to 1835.
Richard Henry Morgan - 1/6/2004
"So, once again, history written far before our present time seems to favor Bellesiles’ retelling rather than Mr. Williams.'"
Except that the sources which Williams quotes, and which aren't favorable to Bellesiles, predate the source you quote.
Benny Smith - 1/6/2004
(with apologies to Melanie)
I am always struck at how quickly my topic of discussion is shunted aside by the regular Arming America critics, who plug their own agenda or criticism with all the predictability of a pull-string talking doll. Why the gun lobby has to constantly muster at my feet is a mystery to me. At least, I wish their responses could be relevant to my post, which here had to do with NRA propagandists masquerading as historians.
So far as Mr. Williams query on the disappearance of the foreword, I’m sure I have no answer to that. Perhaps, he should forward his concerns to Mr. Luker, who indulges literary gossip more than I. Out of curiosity, I did follow up on Mr. Williams’ complaint about Bellesiles’ treatment of the battle of Cowpens. Using the genealogical database that I have been researching for a while, I searched on the appropriate keywords to find references to Cowpens. Interestingly, the first one I looked at, from “The History of the American Nation”, a nine-volume tome published by William Jackman almost 100 years ago, contained the following description of this important battle in the American Revolution:
“Morgan disposed his men to the best advantage; the Continentals (the army regulars) on a woody hill and the militia in a line by themselves . . . The militia stood their ground, delivered their fire, but quailing before the bayonet, broke and fled. In pursuing the fugitives, the enemy almost passed by the Continentals, who to avoid being taken in flank, fell back in order.” And the passage followed with the Continentals counterattacking and routing the British. Jackman’s use of the word “quailing” to describe the flight of the militia is significant. To “quail” means to recoil in dread or terror, falter, cower, etc. If anyone has seen a group of quail scurrying about the forest floor at the approach of man, they will understand how the word is being used here. I believe our commander in chief went quail hunting recently and shot five or so of the fleet-footed fowl.
So, once again, history written far before our present time seems to favor Bellesiles’ retelling rather than Mr. Williams.’ But then, I guess I need to reconsider my original complaint. Perhaps Mr. Williams’ contribution here was more relevant to the topic of my thread than I originally considered it to be.
John G. Fought - 1/5/2004
No, there's no Bernstein contribution in it. I got mine about a week ago, and have merely glanced through it. My favorite thing in the book so far is the postively Byronic photo of the author on the first page. The tables and graphs look suspiciously familiar. I won't be able to work on this for a while, since I'm tied up with a more pressing obligation. Does anyone have a listing of everything B has published from 2000 to the present? I'm betting that most of it will show up in the book.
Richard Henry Morgan - 1/5/2004
Is there no Bernstein contribution therein? Back on Dec. 3 Bernstein said he had finished his Jefferson biography and hadn't read the second edition of AA. As of that date he was still pondering what to say about the second edition, which wasn't published until Dec.18.
Bernstein (here at HNN, on Dec. 3) stated:
"I have not yet seen the pages of ARMING AMERICA's second edition and I cannot comment on what they contain.
As for the content of the original book, for the past five years I have been struggling to finish my own book, which Oxford University Press has just published."
Bernstein's Jefferson book (according to the net) was published in August 2003. Apparently, he was never previously in a position to argue the merits of the first edition, having never read it -- his Dec, 3 post suggests his support of Bellesiles was based on friendship and past experience, not on any familiarity with the first edition (and therefore restricted to a plea for due process and fundamental fairness). Based on his prior personal and professional experience with Bellesiles alone (his Dec. 3 post suggests), Bernstein refused to believe that Bellesiles "lied or misrepresented evidence." Understandable.
As of Dec. 3, Bernstein says he hadn't seen the second edition. This leaves open the possibility that he read the first between August and Dec. 3, and the second between Dec. 3. If there's to be no Bernstein contribution to the second edition, did Bernstein read the first edition between August 2003 and Dec. 3, and change his mind?
Samuel Browning - 1/5/2004
I'm going to start comparing the texts of the original version of Arming America and the newly released edition to discover what changes Belliseles made to his text. I anticipate that I will be done in mid to late February. Please keep the thread going in my absence :)
Richard Henry Morgan - 1/5/2004
Bernstein asserts:
"What I tried to do in the controversy over ARMING AMERICA was to insist that the historical profession treat this matter as an instance in which standards of due process and fundamental fairness should be followed."
This is precisely a point at which I disagree with Prof. Bernstein. The evaluation of a work of history, even to the point of asserting fraud, is not (in my view) the special or exclusive professional province of the historical profession. It certainly isn't fair to harass Bellesiles, and all who make charges potentially face legal exposure in a forum where "due process" has a settled meaning. Most would certainly hope for, or even insist, that Bellesiles be accorded whatever passes for due process and fundamental fairness in a professional setting. To the extent that Bernstein would apply those standards outside the professional setting or to those outside the profession, is to claim a monopoly for professional processes that I reject.
Bernstein also asserts:
"I offered an affidavit with documentation pointing out that there were two strong traditions of church-state relations in the United States in that period, strict separation and nonpreferentialism, and that it was hard to say which was stronger in a given historical context, but that it was a clear error to assert that one or the other clearly predominated. (Professor Richard Henry Morgan may be pleased to know that I have learned a lot from his work on this very subject, and that I remain grateful to him for his lucid scholarship on that area of history and law.)"
I'm not sure what to make of this. Having already pointed out that I'm not a professor, and not having provided any scholarship on the subject, I guess I'm left to conclude this is Bernstein's joke, of sorts. OK. I can take the hit. What I have pointed out in more than one post, is that one possible motivation for support of the religion clause of the First Amendment is that it precluded a federal preference or establishment, while permitting a state preference or establishment. An analogy to the Second Amendment was made -- it prohibits federal banning of the right to keep and bear arms, while permitting the states to institute such bans. The USSC has never held that the 14th Amendment incorporates the Second as limit on state power.
On the tradition of religious preferentialism (as opposed to the nonpreferentialism of McConnell and, say, Rehnquist), the Massachusetts Constitution made it clear that religious freedom did not extend to a ban on preference. This was a declining tradition, and I would not argue that it was a strong one -- though I still suspect it influenced the formation and passage of the First Amendment.
I would quote just this one source, without claiming it authoritative, and let the the historians of religion debate the merits:
"However, legal preference of the Congregational Church still survived into the nineteenth century in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Connecticut with government-required financial support. This condition continued to exist despite the New England support for the First Amendment ending federal government support of religion." (it's written by Carl L. Becker, and can be found at http://earlyamerica.com/review/2003_summer_fall/religious_freedom.htm )
If Becker is right, then there would seem to have existed a third tradition.
Richard Henry Morgan - 1/4/2004
In any case, a request for judicial notice of the "fraudulent work" of Michael Bellesiles was filed Dec. 30, 2003, and the recommended passages were replaced by Reinhardt in his amended opinion of Dec. 5, 2002 (http://www.keepandbeararms.com/silveira/status.asp).
One would think that such important matters would be decided by a method more exacting than judicial notice -- though one might reasonably hold that Reinhardt was not endorsing the charge of "fraudulent work."
Finally, a point where I misunderstood Prof. Bernstein. He is correct that judges don't take dictation from historians -- they select which historians to take dictation from based on their own opinions of the matter at hand. I think I agree with Bernstein on this score (if I have not unfairly mischaracterized his view).
An example of this Reinhardt's decision where he quotes, with approval, Finkelman's claim: "Historians have
observed that “[n]o state at the time, nor any state before, had
ever compelled people to carry weapons in their private
capacity.” Finkelman, supra, at 228."
The fact is Finkelman's claim is not just false, but laughably so.
Richard Henry Morgan - 1/4/2004
Don, do you think the backing out of Bernstein (or negotiations over such) was the cause of delay in publishing the Soft Skull edition?
My problems with Bernstein mirror yours, and perhaps go beyond yours. Here was a man of reputation whose apologia consisted of vouching for Bellesiles' character (a "good man and a fine scholar") and citing his work on Ethan Allen. When challenged on certain depictions, he vouched for another author, rather than argue the merits. At one point he allowed that "Bellesiles concedes that he made mistakes in crunching his numbers" -- as though that were the extent of the problems. Bernstein misconstrued, in my opinion, the criticisms of Lindgren (as a personal attack), and the criticism of Randy Barnett. While he offered protestations of supporting debate on the one hand, he seemed inclined to easily construe debate as personal, thus putting it beyond the pale.
Bernstein appealled to "appropriate professional processes" as the final arbiter -- processes undemocratically arrived at by historians and academics (as though they alone had a final say in what constitutes fraud ). There is a well-established history of publishing just such charges in journals, and elsewhere, and the appeal to "appropriate professional processes" as a "moral and ethical duty" assumed by those making such a charge, is an appropriation, by bureaucrats, of the realm of truth. I believe my mistrust of "appropriate professional processes" was more than justified by the Emory Report, where the committee was hamstrung by legal exposure (the university failed to indemnify them), a narrow portfolio, and an exceedingly high standard of evidence.
To Bernstein, the report of the committee "rejected the charges that he committed fraud or set out to deceive or to mislead". As the report makes clear, they were restricted to just five questions, none of which explicitly dealt with his treatment of travelogues (though, whether selective quoting constitutes misrepresentation of evidence, and thus falls under Question 5, is open to debate).
The report does state:
(p.6)"The problems with documentation are compounded by the fact that to date no one has been able to replicate Professor Bellesiles' results for the places or dates he lists."
(p.8): "How the Westmoreland material survived the flood in his office, we do not know"
(p.8):"Significantly, neither he in his subsequently published data nor any other scholar has been able to replicate the low percentages of guns reported in those tables for eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries."
(P.11-13): "Professor Bellesiles’ critics have charged him with claiming to work with records that do
not exist. The San Francisco issue has been widely discussed. His critics have charged
that he has fraudulently claimed to have read records that do not exist because the San
Francisco records he claims to have used were destroyed in 1906. He has responded by
saying that he at least thought he was using San Francisco records and has provided
examples of several files from Contra Costa County that contain references to San
Francisco.
If Professor Bellesiles did indeed read Contra Costa records believing they were from
San Francisco, then the issue could again be one of extremely sloppy documentation
rather than fraud. There are three aspects of this story, however, that raise doubts about
his veracity.
a. He didn’t accept the opportunity to go find the San Francisco records until a friend
suggested he may have found them in Contra Costa. So the idea that he had confused
the origins of the records seems to have come from outside. In addition, there is some
question as to whether the records he now cites could indeed be ones that he had read
in 1993.
Material dealing with discrepancies in Professor Bellesiles’ accounts of this
matter, his initial reluctance to go to California to check on his San Francisco
sources, his announcement of finding them in Contra Costa records, and the
questions raised by the director of the History Center in Martinez, CA, is to be
found most usefully in the following documents, attached to the preliminary and
confidential internal report [Tab 3, Vol. 1 of documentation]:
E-Mail Correspondence, Tab 4C
AAOOO88, AA00091, AA00093, AA00096, AA00097. AA0107, AA00128
AA00134, AA00136, AA00138
12
Tab 4G: ”Notes on Supposed San Francisco Records in the Contra Costa County
Historical Society History Center, from the Director [AA 00266-69]
The Preliminary and Confidential Internal Report : The essential discussion is on
pp. 16-18 [AA00029-31] and 21-25 [AA 00034-38]. On p. 25 of the report it is
mentioned that the Contra Costa records in dispute and which Professor
Bellesiles claimed to have read at the History Center in 1993 did not in fact go to
the History Center until 1998 (they had earlier been stored in a county warehouse
used to store records from the Contra Costa Superior Court.)
b. The records he selected and photocopied from that Contra Costa archive were hardly
random, but explicitly chosen because they had the words “San Francisco” in them,
even though the records themselves clearly identify them as deriving from the Contra
Costa court.
c. The records he selected do not seem to provide the sort of information his project
requires. They may be California records. They may bear the name “San Francisco”
somewhere in the files, but they do not appear to be detailed inventories of personal
property. The Welsh inventory includes only livestock and wheat, and the Crippen
only livestock and a wagon. These do not seem to be appropriate sources for
determining either the presence or absence of guns.
At issue as well is his claim to have read microfilms at the National Archives Record
Center in East Point, Georgia. When told that the National Archives had no probate
records, he responded that he read so-called “Mormon microfilm” that he brought with
him to the archives. When others pointed out that those microfilms do not circulate, he
responded that he got them through a friend. [AA 00136, MB 00025-27l]
Since microfilms owned by the LDS Family History Library in Salt Lake City are freely
available to the public through hundreds of small branch libraries all over the United
States, we found this explanation puzzling. One need not be a Mormon or even know a
Mormon in order to borrow microfilm through this library, and scholars can with
permission of the original archive purchase film for a small fee. Wanting to make sure
we had not misunderstood his story, we raised the question again in our written queries.
He responded, “Over the time I was looking at probate microfilms, two graduate students
in my department were working on dissertations that involved economic themes. All
three of us benefited from our association with a member of the Mormon Church who
assisted us in getting microfilms. At the time none of us thought anything about it, but I
may have endangered his job by what I thought was an innocent activity.” (Since branch
libraries are staffed by volunteers, however, there was no “job” to endanger.) [MB
00450-00451]
When we asked Professor Bellesiles how his friend knew what microfilm to borrow on
his behalf, he said that he selected them from “a binder” that listed the available records.
While it is certainly possible that an unnamed friend provided Professor Bellesiles with
the microfilms he needed, it would have been an extraordinary act of service and surely
13
would have merited thanks in the acknowledgements of a book. LDS branch libraries do
not in fact contain records. What they hold is a catalog (initially on microfiche and later
on computer) of the vast Salt Lake holdings. No binder could possibly contain this
information. Significantly, Professor Bellesiles told us on June 14 that he had never
visited one of these libraries. [Transcription of Interview, AA 00731-AA 00733]"
At this point I repeat for the hard of hearing:
"If Professor Bellesiles did indeed read Contra Costa records believing they were from
San Francisco, then the issue could again be one of extremely sloppy documentation
rather than fraud. There are three aspects of this story, however, that raise doubts about
his veracity."
How delicately put. The committee establishes a hypothetical, where mere sloppiness can account for the discrepancy, and then it cites evidence that the hypothetical does not obtain, ending with the claim that the evidence "does raise doubts about his veracity".
The report also states:
(p.13)"Our concern about when—or whether—Professor Bellesiles did his Massachusetts
research was increased, however, when our research assistant attempted to collect data on
gun ownership in those counties in the nineteenth century."
(p.13)"Our attempt to replicate his numbers failed. There are NO extant Suffolk inventories for
1849-50 or 1858-59. For the years 1830-31, our assistant found 133 inventories that
enumerated personal property other than stocks, bonds, or debts [Suffolk County Probate
Record Book, Vols. 128-129, microfilm reels #99 and #100]. Of these 133 estates, 10
(7.5%) contained guns. This, of course, is exactly opposite to Professor Bellesiles’
conclusion that gun ownership increased in the nineteenth century. (His figure for
“Northern coast: urban” for 1858-59 is 25%).
(p. 14)"The issue with Table 3 seems to be less the existence of these annual militia censuses,,
however, than with Professor Bellesiles’ claim that they represent an accounting of
"Private Gun Ownership in Massachusetts." As a number of scholars have pointed out,
such censuses were actually counts of guns brought to the annual muster. [Robert
Churchill review, AA 00382-AA 00390, James Lindgren review, AA 00339]"
(p.15)"We also reviewed materials relating to Professor Bellesiles’ discussion of 1746
Connecticut records. In Arming America, he wrote that in preparation for an assault on
Canada, “Connecticut finally raised its six hundred troops, 57 percent of whom did not
have guns.” [Arming America, p. 141] Our assistant confirmed the problems other
scholars had originally noted. The primary sources Bellesiles cites confirm that in extant
reports from company captains 368 of 456 men (80.7%) were armed. Our hunch is that
15
Bellesiles skimmed the surface of these sources, relying instead on a passage from Harold
Selesky, War and Society in Colonial Connecticut, “The volunteers in 1746 were not
vagrants, although a few were ‘very poor,’ and many enlisted without a blanket or a gun.
In some companies as many as fifty-seven of the hundred men lacked a firearm.” [New
Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1990, 91.] Significantly, Selesky’s “some
companies” became for Bellesiles the whole.
(p.15) "His lumping together of guns and ammunition in his
discussion of Benedict Arnold’s march on the powderhouse in 1776 is reminiscent of his
conflating of wills and inventories."
Conflation? What a delicate way to put it. Conflation is when you run to things together, but in this case, there were no guns.
The committee recognized some of the problems with their portfolio, which made the focus rather narrow:
"We should mention at the outset that we have not found Emory's statement of Policies
and Procedures entirely adequate by itself in guidance for this kind of inquiry (unless it
were, as the present allegation is not, one of plagiarism or manufacturing records,) since
it seems basically designed for the investigation of alleged misconduct in the life and
physical sciences."
Interestingly, while Bernstein takes solace in the lack of a committee finding of fraud, the committee did find reason to doubt Bellesiles veracity. Just what would constitute conclusive evidence of fraud in the matter of the San Francisco archives is not clear. Apparently, non-existence of the archives is not enough. Apparently the later citing of Contra Costa records not available to Bellesiles at the time, is not sufficient.
Even more interestingly, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals seems to take the charge of fraud seriously (though one might hesitate to say the Court endorsed the view, rather than just took a prophylactic step). In any case,
Don Williams - 1/3/2004
One of Bellesiles most steadfast defenders on H-OIEAHC , HNN, and the Chronicle of Higher Education has been Richard B Bernstein of New York. Until recently, the Amazon advert for Version2 of Arming America promised a Preface written by Richard B Bernstein.
As I noted to Richard Morgan above, I was highly interested in seeing what defense of Bellesiles Mr Bernstein would produce. I had discussed several shortcomings in Arming America Version 1 with Mr Bernstein on H-OIEAHC. At the time, Mr Bernstein's had limited his defense of Bellesiles largely to Bellesiles as a person while , in my opinion, largely ignoring the factual problems in Arming AMerica . Nevertheless, I respect Mr Bernstein as a scholar and looked forward to his Preface.
Yet the promised Bernstein Preface does not appear in the Soft Skull edition -- and Amazon appears to have dropped the Bernstein reference from their advert.
What happened, Benny? Did Mr Bernstein have second thoughts about supporting Bellesiles after seeing the Second version of Arming America?? I noticed that the
Second Version has many of the same major errors contained in Version 1 -- including what I consider to be false and misleading descriptions of militia performance in Revolutionary War battles.
For example, Bellesiles still describes the militia's role in the Battle of Cowpens as (a) militia firing one volley (b) militia trying to flee but being stopped by Daniel Morgan and Andrew Pickens "waving their sword threateningly" (nice way to stop several hundred armed but panic-stricken men, no?) and c) militia blundering around the battle field while "John Howard's Continentals" performed "a perfect change of direction, fire a withering musket volley at ten yards, and then charge the British with fixed bayonets" while "the militia, which had to fire only that single volley, managed to hold on to their guns this time"
In his book "The Life of George Washington" , John Marshall (Continental soldier and first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court) noted the following about the Battle of Cowpens:
a) After the militia line was forced to retreat by the British line, it retreated behind the Continental Line --
some fled to their horses but some reformed on the right hand of the Continental Line and renewed the attack
b) A major part of Howard's "Continental Line" was made up of Virginia militia under Captains Triplet and Taite-- although many of this militia included men with previous service in the Continental Army
c) Howard's "perfect change of direction" was a halt to an unplanned retreat by the Continental Line --in which the Line reformed about 100 yards to the rear of it's initial position, faced about, and fired a volley at oncoming British line which had been chasing the Continentals during their retreat.
(It appears to me that this tactic worked largely because Morgan/Howard's men were well rested and could run faster than the British Line --which been on the fast march chasing Morgan for almost 40 hours , without sleep. The slow staggering pace of the British line gave the Americans time to reload their muskets on the run and reform a new line. The surprise of the volley may have been due to the new Continental position being on the other side of a slight rise -- in which their new line was concealed from the British until the British were almost upon it. Plus the British line appeared to have become dispersed and spread out -- the British soldiers panicking when charged by the bayonet because they were separated from their fellows with no one to guard their left/right flanks)
John Marshall was not at Cowpens but his bio of Washington notes that Marshall "received statements of this action from General Morgan and from Colonels Howard and Washington(calvary leader at Cowpens)"
Note also that John Marshall's bio of George Washington was based upon George Washington's volumious collection of private papers --given to Marshall by George Washington's heir, Bushrod Washington.
Marshall's account tallies with the account of Cowpens given by calvary leader "Light Horse" Harry Lee in his "Memoirs of the War in the Southern Department of the United States". Harry Lee was not at Cowpens but his calvary detachment served with Andrews Pickens' mounted militia (which was at Cowpens) in the weeks following Cowpens. Harry Lee would likely have heard much of the truth from Andrew Pickens, Morgan's soldiers, and General Nathanael Greene.
Carl Naaman Brown - 1/2/2004
Before anyone defends Bellesiles, I would wish they would read all of Bellesiles' different accounts of the Bowden Hall Flood. First, the pipe in his ceiling burst and sprayed water on his notes for six hours while he was in England and third parties threw his pulped notes away.
Latest, he admits the flood occurred 2 April that year, before he went to England, but the water leaking from the floor above his office caused a "mud" of ceiling tile to fall on his notes. He left them that way, and when he came back from England, the notes were too pulped to be entered on his computer. There are several versions of the Bowden Hall flood from Mr. Bellesiles, all contradicting themselves.
Richard Henry Morgan - 1/2/2004
Sorry for this break from protocol, but I've only now just responded to something you posted elsewhere, some two weeks back, which is now archived. You can find it at http://hnn.us/articles/1558.html
Benny Smith - 12/31/2003
In the book “The Treasury of the Gun” which sits on a shelf of my local library, author Harold Peterson wrote, “Because firearms were so important on the frontier, every man became proficient in their use. Boys learned to shoot as soon as they were big enough to hold a long rifle steady . . . a whole population grew up in the school of marksmanship.” That statement, unsubstantiated by any footnote, not only runs contrary to the theses advanced in Arming America, but is not supported by the written history I have encountered while doing genealogical research.
For example, in “The History of the Lehigh Valley,” I found these passages: “The inhabitants of Easton were in hourly danger of their lives, without any means of defence; they had none or but very few guns, and were not provided with ammunition. They were all too poor to purchase guns . . . Colonel Burd: ‘I was in the town of Northhampton; I found only four guns, three of which were unfit for use, and the enemy within four miles of them.’ All these frontier towns were settled by the poorest class of people, such as could purchase no lands, or could not procure the necessary implements for farming purposes. Many of them were tradesmen to whom a town was most congenial and probably most to their interest.” Now I know that Professor Bellesiles has maintained, to the guffaws of many gun huggers, that guns were often scarce on the frontier. But the historical text here supports him and not Mr. Peterson. Why is that? Could it be that, besides being an author of "The Treasury of the Gun", Mr. Peterson is, or was, a director of the National Rifle Association, according to the book jacket?
It’s noteworthy that when I raised the fact that early American city directories list only a tiny number of gunsmiths, contemporary NRA propagandist and amateur historian Clayton Cramer replied that the services of a vast number of gunsmiths were not needed, since guns were unlikely to break. “It seems entirely likely that the average owner would have little or no reason to go to a gunsmith,” Mr. Cramer said. Yet here, as in another example I had given earlier, most of the few guns in town are “unfit for service.” Wasn’t it Bellesiles who said many of the guns possessed in the 17th and 18th centuries were broken, or otherwise out of service. So again, written history favors Bellesiles’ point of view over the NRA propagandist.
I only raise this issue since I noticed a historian’s comment that he would be wary of anything Bellesiles has written or is writing. Since so many of Bellesiles’ critics are in one way or another associated with the gun lobby, discriminating readers should cast a wary eye towards their writings as well. Even more so.
Samuel Browning - 12/28/2003
Hi John:
Could you please e-mail me again with your address and phone #? I will promptly have Bellisles latest edition shipped to you at my expense. My e-mail is TappingReeve@aol.com
Happy Holidays
Samuel Browning
Ronald Best - 12/18/2003
I paid $3.00 for my copy of Arming America through abebooks.com. It is curious that Amazon.com's listing for the second edition does not identify it as such. The listing does mention a co-author, Mr. Berstein.
R. B. Bernstein - 12/4/2003
I just discovered this thread. I have abjured History News Network for over a year, because of its function as an accelerant (people who read about arson in true-crime books or murder mysteries will get the reference) of invective rather than as a useful forum for discussing history. It seems that nothing has changed.
I am still pondering what to say as to the second edition of ARMING AMERICA. I think that the ARMING AMERICA controversy is a case-study in the scholarly politics of personal destruction. As to the factual errors in ARMING AMERICA, based on my six years knowledge of Michael Bellesiles as a fellow historian (author of a fine book on Ethan Allen and the Vermonters) and as a good and loyal friend, I do not believe one word of the claims that he lied or misrepresented evidence. That he may have made serious, self-damaging errors is another matter.
I have not yet seen the pages of ARMING AMERICA's second edition and I cannot comment on what they contain.
As for the content of the original book, for the past five years I have been struggling to finish my own book, which Oxford University Press has just published. For what it's worth, it's a concise biography of Thomas Jefferson.
What I tried to do in the controversy over ARMING AMERICA was to insist that the historical profession treat this matter as an instance in which standards of due process and fundamental fairness should be followed. I tried to make these points with respect and fairness, but I admit to having made them with increasing heat as time went on, and as the lynch-mob atmosphere of the controversy became more and more apparent. I did not deliberately or consciously seek to condescend to anyone.
I still stand by my profound skepticism about the position, advanced by some people in this controversy, that historians have some way of clouding judges' minds (a la Lamont Cranston, a/k/a The Shadow). The record of how judges use history is all too clear: judges pick and choose whatever history they want to use to bolster legal conclusions they've reached by means other than historical reasoning. There's not much that historians can do about that, one way or the other. In many cases, historians join forces to sign briefs in droves, proffering historical arguments to courts, only to have courts rebuff them or ignore them. In many cases, teams of competing historians pelt judges with conflicting readings of the past presented with equal certitude. You have to feel sorry for the judges, sometimes.
The one time that I got involved in making a historical argument in a lawsuit had to do with one of the Alabama cases involving the Ten Commandements posted on a courtroom wall. In response to a religious historian (let me be clear -- a historian of American religion, who may also have been a religious person who was a historian) who insisted that there was no such thing as strict separation of church and state in the era of the Revolution and the making of the Constitution, I offered an affidavit with documentation pointing out that there were two strong traditions of church-state relations in the United States in that period, strict separation and nonpreferentialism, and that it was hard to say which was stronger in a given historical context, but that it was a clear error to assert that one or the other clearly predominated. (Professor Richard Henry Morgan may be pleased to know that I have learned a lot from his work on this very subject, and that I remain grateful to him for his lucid scholarship on that area of history and law.)
So ... there it is. That's all I have to say. I hope it provides some light, more than heat, and I wish you all well, and we now return you to your regular program.
Phil Lee - 12/2/2003
Courage and integrity are two qualities you need develop.
Courage won't keep you from being criticized, but it will enable you to withstand criticism. Integrity will cause you to exercise care in your work and will help minimize the potential for criticism. Important to your integrity is to recognize your biases and to strive to overcome them as you look for truth.
If you have both qualities and exercise ordinary care, no topic area should give you pause.
Josh Greenland - 11/29/2003
Are you implying that Arming America didn't deserve most of the criticism it got?
And do you really think you could do as badly as Bellesiles with the sources?
A lot of academic work is done on guns, supporting different viewpoints, but I haven't seen any of it attract the amount of condemnation that Arming America received.
John G. Fought - 11/29/2003
There's nothing special about guns as a subject. Whatever you write about, you can expect to be criticized not only for mistakes you made but also for scholarly virtues: for originality ("not convincing") and for failing to cater to the prejudices of your reviewers, whoever they may be ("out of the mainstream"). At the same time, as you can see from reading the discussions on HNN, your work may be stolen, in some cases by those who criticized it. All this will begin no later than your doctoral dissertation, and quite possibly sooner. Welcome to your world. You might do well to seek out somebody who seems trustworthy (and lets hope that's true) for some tips on how to cope with pettiness, jealousy, and vanity in those around you. Oh, I almost forgot denial, especially denial that misdeeds like these are commonplace.
New Young Doctoral Student - 11/29/2003
Having just read within the last two weeks Michael Bellesiles book for the first time for a class, and then many other documents critiquing it, I have the following observations as an historian:
1. I used to be concerned about making mistakes in facts or methodologies for my history writing. "Concern" has turned to "worry" if I ever hope to have something of mine published, especially because I do work in similar kinds of sources that Bellesiles used.
2. I don't think there is an objective person on this planet about guns. I finally had to stop reading the critiques for that reason.
3. I will NEVER write anything about guns!!
jhorst - 11/26/2003
Mr. Williams:
Very good. I'd like to add that Bellesiles has not learned his lesson related to manipulating history to support his agenda. My study of American Revolution history revealed that the Ferguson rifle was abandoned after the battle of Brandywine, due to Feguson being wounded and unable to support his new rifle while he was convelescing. No or insignificantly few Ferguson rifles were used in the southern campaigns, so how could Ferguson have ever reasoned that his extrodinary rifle would so demoralize the over mountain men that they'd drop their arms and run for the hills? Please correct me if I am wrong.
It is ridiculous to think that the Ferguson rifle was ever considered by the British army to produce the shock and awe affect Bellesiles is attempting to link. The Ferguson rifle, again, per my study, was an invention of Patrick Ferguson, and was the British army's attempt to respond to the regular use of rifles, not muskets, early in the war, by the Americans. Ferguson had an extremely difficult time just getting the few rifles into the hands of his soldiers, as an experiment. Will Mr. Bellesiles ever stop? He sounds like a complete fool.
Don Williams - 11/26/2003
See the Amazon page at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1932360077/ref=lpr_g_1/002-0126530-7021655?v=glance&s;=books
I recall the hardcover and softcover editions of Arming America --
round 1 --being eventually discounted at 30% as the scandal grew.
(I believe the $30.00 original hardcopy edition is now available for about $2.85 from some dealers. One could almost buy a hundred copies and stage a bookburning at the next NRA annual convention in order to drive Benny into a carpet-chewing frenzy ...hee hee hee.
Alternatively, $2.85 for 603 pages makes it cheaper than toilet paper for the frugal.)
However, my understanding from the above Amazon page is that the unreleased Soft Skull revision is now also being discounted at 30%. That plus the delayed release makes me wonder if demand is ..er..limited??
It would be rather funny if the Soft Skull book revision was largely bought by critics on this page.
Don Williams - 11/25/2003
I'm glad that Bellesiles is finally aware of King's Mountain --he conspiciously overlooked that militia victory in "Arming America". This was an especially noteworthy omission given that many histories -- including the US Army's "American Military History" --consider King's Mountain to be the turning point in the American Revolution.
However, I would correct Bellesiles' impression of the battle. The battle occurred contrary to Fergueson's desire because of the rapid mobility of the American militiamen -- as Cornwallis noted, the excellent quality of their horses allowed them to assemble suddenly out of the blue and trap/destroy Ferguson's unit before Cornwallis could come to it's aid. A similar fate befell Tarleton's unit shortly afterward at Cowpens. Those two militia victories destroyed Cornwallis's two mobile wings and destroyed his ability to suppress Patriot guerrillas in North Carolina. Even today, the US Army realizes that high mobility –e.g, helicopters in Air Cav units –is needed to fight insurgents.
Cornwallis tried to make his regular army into "light infantry" (remember the glum faces of the British soldiers as he poured their rum ration on the ground to lighten the wagons?) but was run into the ground chasing General Greene around North Carolina. The toll on his men from disease, poor nutrition, exhaustion,etc eventually forced Cornwallis into the retreat to Yorktown.
In the meantime, Cornwallis’ s lack of mobility meant that he controlled only the area within 100 yards of his army. Which meant that he could not form a puppet government because he could not protect Loyalist leaders from executions by the Patriots. Nor could he protect the transportation routes.
Which meant that no profits could be gained from commerce. Meanwhile maintenance of Cornwallis’s army in the field ate up money at a horrendous rate. When the Dutch bankers saw the morass in which King George III had placed himself, they cut off their loans to him and the British military effort collapsed. The King could not continue the war using English taxes because when the English people asked “Why should we continue to spend blood and money in North America?”, the King’s only answer was “Because some of our aristocrats’ have investments there.” (Anyone see any lessons for present day Iraq?)
Bellesiles also failed to note that the militias’ high mobility relative to the British –and the greater accuracy of their rifles – led to different tactics than set-piece standup battles.
Finally, I seemed to remember that Fergueson’s army at King’s Mountain ran into a major disaster -- the loosely fitting balls in their muskets fell out of the barrels when the muskets were aimed downhill. (The loose fit was favored by the British because it allowed rapid reloading). The Loyalists were forced to rely on bayonet charges –but having flatlanders chase hillbillies up and down a heavily-forested hill is not a profitable tactic. (Rapid movement up and down steep terrain requires special muscle development in the legs and buttocks which is found in mountaineers, not in the Loyalist flatlanders.) The steepness of the terrain made it easy to shoot Loyalists in the back as they struggled back up the hill to their camp. Plus the heavy cover of forested terrain gave the advantage to accurate riflemen over inaccurate muskets.
To the best of my knowledge, Bellesiles (and many historians) have never been within 500 miles of an active battlefield. Which
raises the interesting question of whether historians are competent to interpret the historical data which exists. (For another example, note Bellesiles' failure to recognize the limitations of cannon --due to the fixed choke pattern-- at the 1815 Battle of New Orleans .
Benny Smith - 11/22/2003
Michael Bellesiles’ re-appearance in the media does not come without some irony. One of the newspapers that picked up Bellesiles’ opinion piece is the Provo Daily Herald in Utah. Anyone familiar with issues of gun control knows that Utah is a veritable haven for gun rights activists. The legislature there has gone to great pains to bend to the whim of the NRA and other pro-gun groups. This included going to court to force state colleges and universities to accept concealed guns on campus. Gun huggers in that state have also tried to force their admittance with guns, albeit unsuccessfully, to the recent winter Olympics and to a venue where our vice president was speaking. So I can imagine the consternation that must have occurred among the right wing and gun rights activists when Bellesiles’ op-ed piece appeared in that NRA nirvana there.
Meanwhile, other pro-gun forces have not given up their efforts to ban Bellesiles’ Arming America. A district library in Colorado recently turned down two censorship requests, one of which was a request from an individual to pull Arming America from the shelves. The man who made the request was not available for comment but called Bellesiles’ book “revisionist history.” This latest incident was reported just last week in the Greeley Tribune.
By the way, I believe that Diane Nicholl, whose post started this thread, is a member of the gun lobby herself, which makes me wonder, apparently as Mr. Luker does, what her motive was in posting her information.
Phil Lee - 11/21/2003
Bellesiles opinion piece is superficial for attributing failures to technology when failure might better be attributed to leadership vision or lack. For example, Bellesiles writes that Smith's vision of technology did not win an immediate battle against the indians in Virginia. By contrast, it is clear that technology did win the day for Pizarro against the Incas in 1531 and that technology did include firearms.
Bellesiles is simply wrong about the American peasants carrying old-fashion weapons. American rifles (and American marksmanship) were superior to all but the small numbers of Ferguson rifles. The British military commander was a fool not to realize what that technology might have done for their side.
As to his WWII bombing examples, Dresden was late in the war and has been critized for the lack of military purpose. By contrast, Albert Speer told allied interrogators after the war that the shock of the Hamburg rade was severe and that several more blows of that type could have caused a collapse of Germany. The allies were not aware of this effect or they might have persisted. Again, not technology, but vision was decisive.
And, if Mr. Bellesiles want to re-write the history of WWII, he needs to explain why the Germans made such great efforts to field defenses against the airforces of Britain and the US if they were so ineffective. Why not use those resources against the Soviets.
Bellesiles is a lesson for our time. While it may be a free country and we are all entitled to our opinions, Bellesiles' opinion on anything military is just so much undisciplined bushwah.
John G. Fought - 11/21/2003
Bryan, I don't care what he thinks. When he appears in the costume of an expert in an op-ed, it's reasonable to expect some expertise. He shows no more in that column than he did in AA or the 1996 aritlce. Douhet's fundamental doctrine was that air-power, in the form of bombers, should be used offensively at once against the civilian population of the enemy in order to force the enemy into early capitulation; while this terror bombing was in progress, the land forces would merely contain the enemy forces until the prompt surrender of the enemy government. The recent air campaign in Iraq, as I understand how it developed, involved precise targeting of key military and government assets in order to limit the enemy's ability to resist the coalition's rapid offensive movements (also aided by close air support). You can be sure that the Air Force did not name the operation "Shock and Awe": that has this White House all over it. It wasn't the civilian population we were trying to influence, since they had no control over their government anyhow. The civilian population was spared as much as possible. Except for this important detail, the Iraq invasion was a high-tech version of the German offensives early in WWII. The 1939 invasion and conquest of Poland within a few weeks was quite similar in implementation, except for the technological differences in target acquisition and weapon aiming. The Germans used their air weapons as an extension of their artillery, to open and protect the advance of their ground forces. What they did later (the so-called Blitz of Britain) was quite different, and was also quite ineffective.
So, Bellesiles' fundamental argument is based on an elementary mistake about Douhet and the history of air power. Of course he's free to sell his junk for whatever he can get. But it is still junk, at any price. As I said, my problem is with his bogus expertise.
Bryan Haskins - 11/21/2003
I don’t have a problem with his op ed. It would be different if he were falsely offering himself as an expert on the application of military force, for that would be misleading. Here, it looks like he is just offering his own opinion, which he is certainly entitled to do. Everyone is free to accept or reject the point he makes. In this instance, I agree with his opinion (and I pray that my comrades in arms within our vast right-wing-destroy Bellesiles conspiracy will forgive me for saying so).
Josh Greenland - 11/21/2003
"...I have a problem with Bellesiles' credentials and product as a military commentator, let alone a historian."
I agree with you.
If Michael Bellesiles is a historian who is competent to write on military matters, then I guess Ira Gruber's article in William & Mary Quarterly shredding Arming America on its handling of weapon and military history didn't mean anything. Maybe I just hallucinated that article....
But when skipping around in Arming America I thought I caught a remark or two about colonists hunting with muskets. Only tens of pages into AA, it was already dotted with dubious statements about military establishments of the last few hundred years choosing weapons for reasons of image and machismo rather than for effectiveness. (Gloria Main in her W&MQ; article scorched Bellesiles for saying the same thing about American Indians.)
Michael Bellesiles seems like the majority of gun control activists: he doesn't know much about guns themselves, and doesn't want to know about them.
How can Bellesiles be considered any kind of historian, given the lies and use of fabricated evidence throughout AA?
I'm quite sure that HNS is posting his article because they agree with his gun control politics, and I assume that they'd justify their actions by sticking to the fallback position of Bellesiles supporters, that the only errors in Arming America are those found by the Emory committee.
Ralph E. Luker - 11/20/2003
John, Whatever social disease one may acquire from sharing space with historians, I acquired long ago. By now, it is a part of who I am. The decision about circulating the Bellesiles op-ed was made by the editors of HNS, but it is one that I, as an author of other HNS op-eds and a member of HNS's advisory board, support on the grounds that the piece should be judged on its own merit or lack of merit. Similarly, I supported Rick Shenkman's decision not to post Bellesiles's op-ed on HNN, as a decision which Shenkman as HNN editor was entitled to make. Generally speaking, I do wish Michael well in his effort to make a professional recovery. As he knows, it will not be easy and it may be impossible.
Samuel Browning - 11/20/2003
Surprisingly enough I do agree with Belliseles's thesis that anglo-americans tend to believe that technology will solve our military problems while avoiding the consideration of certain unpleasant tactical realities, (see Somolia). From first glance it appears his 20th century history is relatively accurate, but anyone know if John Smith actually said the words that Belliseles attributed to him?
John G. Fought - 11/20/2003
I don't know about her, but I have a problem with Bellesiles' credentials and product as a military commentator, let alone a historian. I just read his 'Shock and Awe' piece, and it's certainly his: short yet shallow. Sharing space with him sounds like a bad idea to me. I sure hope you don't catch anything.
Ralph E. Luker - 11/20/2003
Ms. Nicholl, You have a problem with that?
Diane Nicholl - 11/19/2003
I found a newspaper story by Bellesiles from the History News Service. http://www.h-net.org/~hns/articles/2003/111103a.html
He has joined with Ralph Luker and others to as HNS states "present opportunities for historians to learn the practices and values of professional journalists."
Bryan Haskins - 11/18/2003
Thank you for your kind words about my wife and daughter, Mr. Smith. Actually, those pictures you saw of my daughter are a little old now. She will be four in March, and I have a son who will be two later this month (both of whom are thankfully sound asleep as I write this).
That’s quite a list of accomplishments, Mr. Smith. After reading it I think it would be fair to characterize your efforts here as being primarily “counter battery” fire directed at exposing what you believe are the vengeful motives that compel Bellesiles’ critics to say what they have about his work. I must say that I remain amazed at the time and effort required by such an oblique defense of AA and its author. Indeed, I still think that it would have been so much simpler (and I imagine far less time consuming) to, for example, say something like: “No, Mr. Lindgren, you didn’t add it right. My calculations show that AA’s probate stats are mathematically possible.” I looked, Mr. Smith, but I could not find any attempt to directly challenge or even address the content of a single criticism that has been leveled at AA. Surely you must see how easy it is to conclude that your reason for refusing to answer these many criticisms is that you either believe them to be accurate or at the very least you are aware that you cannot refute the evidence which supports them. Additionally, I am certain that there are some out there who are of the opinion you so desperately want to believe in the validity of AA’s thesis that all your efforts here are really designed for your own consumption—sort of an elaborate attempt to focus on what you want to believe is true so that you may divert your attention from the nagging doubts about AA that must occasionally creep into your consciousness. I for one don’t believe in either of these reasons for refusing to address the specific criticisms of AA, and I hope that one day you will put an end to such rampant speculation by telling us the reasons for your refusal.
I don’t believe that I said my year here was wasted. On the contrary, I think it has been a lot of fun. I wish you could have relaxed a little and taken the time to enjoy it with me, though. By the way, it’s not too late, you know. All you have to do is start addressing the real issues, which in my opinion are (and I say this because even you must admit that AA contains errors): (1) what the errors are; (2) how did they get into the work (i.e. whether through an innocent miscalculation, a deliberate falsehood, or through any number of other reasons); AND (3) what effect, if any, these errors have on the validity of AA’s thesis. I know you have asked yourself these questions, Mr. Smith. All I am asking for is a chance to freely compare and discuss your conclusions with mine.
Samuel Browning - 11/17/2003
Amazing Mr. Smith, you managed to do all that without once apparently opening Bellesiles' book to address the flaws of the text itself. Perhaps you can actually tell me where that run of San Francisco Probate records actually came from since none of Michael's stories panned out. The staff of the California historical society he visited post critism, do not remember him having done research there prior to the publication of Arming America. I could go on, but if you never responded to Bryan on his various entries to address specifics within this book so I doubt you're going to change your approach at this date. As for intellectual lynching it was more of an intellectual suicide since no one but Michael made Michael take the liberties with the truth that he did, but I suppose that this is another reality that you are uncomfortable with.
Benny Smith - 11/16/2003
Mr. Browning wrote: "Hi Bryan (Haskins):
When the new version of arming America comes out, would you like to help me and John review it for changes?"
Since Mr. Haskins considers his year here wasted, Mr. Browning, I do hope he will consider your offer if he can find the time. The value of whatever scholarship he produces on your behalf would certainly surpass the worth of his lengthy, repetitive attempts to court my attentions.
On the other hand, I feel that my year here has been rather productive. Besides providing contrast to the shrill, angry voices calling for Michael Bellesiles’ intellectual lynching, I believe that I have provided some insight and perspective. My posts have demonstrated the deep involvement of the gun lobby in the attacks on Bellesiles—from my posting here a gun lobby website that implored readers to e-mail Columbia University administrators who were re-considering Bellesiles’ Bancroft prize, to revealing a $1 million NRA grant to the university sponsor of the History News Network, itself a prominent bulletin board for Bellesiles’ critics. I took on Bellesiles’ critics themselves, including Clayton Cramer and Northwestern Professor James Lindgren. I demonstrated Cramer’s extremism to the point where a reader here admonished him, saying, "You should be ashamed." Another of my posts caused Lindgren to admit that he had passed on criticism of Bellesiles without independently verifying it himself.
I also posted updates to show how the gun lobby has failed in its attempt to discredit Arming America. One story spoke of an Iowa library board that responded to an NRA member’s attempt to have Arming America pulled from the shelf with the statement: "No citizen in a democracy has a right to prevent another from reading a specific book by demanding its removal from the library shelves." And I wrote of how research from Arming America was included in the newly published reference work, "Guns in American Society." Also, how Bellesiles’ book has been included in an English university’s America Studies course that asks, "What accounts for America’s apparent love affair with the gun?" And how Bellesiles himself chaired an American Studies seminar at a recent convention in Wales. In fact, my research has gleaned so much news on Bellesiles and Arming America that the editor of the Emory University newspaper recently published an article that insisted I must be Bellesiles himself.
Although my contributions have been sporadic at times, I have taken my involvement here seriously. I have avoided the name-calling, ridicule and fun-poking that so many others have engaged in at my expense, and at Bellesiles’ expense as well. And that is not meant to single out anyone in particular, including Mr. Haskins. I know that the assistant prosecutor has been fighting the good fight against the criminal element and hopefully he can continue to focus his efforts there. He also has a young wife and a lovely pre-school daughter, who certainly are more deserving of his attentions than you, Mr. Browning, or I. (I haven’t yet known a little girl who wouldn’t benefit from more of her father’s attention).
However, I certainly hope you find some competent book reviewers who are able to keep an open mind to the subject, Mr. Browning. Good luck in your endeavor.
Richard Henry Morgan - 11/14/2003
Touche, Ralph. I should have said Scalia was the greatest free speech absolutist in the constitutional context. Silly mistake by me, after going to all the trouble of distinguishing the First Amendment free speech provision from free speech, tout court.
Samuel Browning - 11/13/2003
Hi Bryan:
When the new version of arming America comes out, would you like to help me and John review it for changes? If you're interested my e-mail is TappingReeve@aol.com Nice to see that Benny is back to his usual escapades.
Bryan Haskins - 11/13/2003
I support each and every amendment within the “Bill of Rights,” Mr. Smith. I do so every day. I just finished my fourth capital murder prosecution, a drug-deal-gone-bad murder. As I am required to do in each case, whether great or small, I scrupulously honored every right that gun-toting crack-dealing murderer had: his 4th. Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure; his 5th. Amendment right to not have to answer for a capital crime unless an indictment had been returned against him by a grand jury of his peers; his 5th. Amendment right to remain silent; his 5th. Amendment right to receive due process of law during my attempt to deprive him of his liberty; his 6th. Amendment right to speedy trial; his 6th. Amendment right to confront and cross examine his accusers; his 6th. Amendment right to be represented by counsel; his 6th. Amendment right to trial by an impartial jury of his peers (a right I forced upon him after he tried to waive it); and his 8th. Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishments.
He got life + 58 years. Five of those years came from possessing a firearm after having been previously convicted of a violent felony--an offense which some could suggest infringes upon his 2nd. Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Yet I believe that all of these individual rights (including the one recognized by the 2nd.) are not absolute, and a prohibition of firearms possession for those who have previously been convicted of trying to kill another with one is a restriction on the right to keep and bear arms I wholeheartedly endorse.
I’m sorry that I don’t fit your comfortable stereotype of a gun rights demagogue, Mr. Smith, but I am at a loss to understand why this frightens you away from entering into a dialogue with me. While it may seem easier to vent your ongoing frustration by lobbing verbal bombs at everyone who does not share your views, I am sure that entering into a dialogue with me would channel your energy in a direction which we would both recognize as productive. For example, we can easily agree on the importance of protecting the individual liberties recognized by the 1st., 3rd., 4th., 5th., 6th., 7th., and 8th. Amendments. It would appear that our only area of disagreement concerns the interpretation of the 2nd. Amendment. Why not discuss this amendment with me, Mr. Smith? Oh, I doubt that either of us will convince the other into changing his view--but you must agree that a respectful and informed discussion of this (or any other) issue would yield more results than the snipe & run offense you continue to use. After all, what have you to show for our one year together here?
Ralph E. Luker - 11/13/2003
Richard, Unless you know something I don't know, which is often the case, I don't recall Justice Scalia protesting the cancellation by CBS of the production about the Reagans.
Alec Lloyd - 11/12/2003
On this very website. Or are you mugging for your fan base?
Richard Henry Morgan - 11/12/2003
"After the cancellation, the manager of James Brolin, who portrayed former President Ronald Reagan in the series, told a Today show correspondent that the only amendment that mattered to conservatives was the Second, the right to bear arms."
Brolin's manager, like Benny Smith, has a rather loose a grip on the First Amendment, which enjoins the government from censorship, not CBS, and not individuals. Perhaps this confusion between government and CBS was just the manager's backhand admission that the unelected media often have greater power than the elected government. In any case, the greatest free speech absolutist on the US Supreme Court is ... you guessed it ... Antonin Scalia, the most conservative.
Benny Smith - 11/11/2003
Right wing zealots have claimed another victory over the First Amendment with the cancellation of the Reagan mini-series on CBS. For those who have followed the efforts of gun huggers and extreme conservatives to silence the voice of Arming America author Michael Bellesiles, this continuing campaign of right wing censorship is becoming all too familiar. After the cancellation, the manager of James Brolin, who portrayed former President Ronald Reagan in the series, told a Today show correspondent that the only amendment that mattered to conservatives was the Second, the right to bear arms. Although he was referring to the clamor to cancel the Reagan series, he could have just as well been referring to Bellesiles’ book.
Led by conservative talk show hacks and backed by Republican Party stalwarts, an army of ideologues quickly subverted CBS intentions to prominently run the series in prime time. What was it about the series that so inflamed these people? One complaint I heard was Reagan’s response to the plight of AIDS victims in the line, “They that live in sin, shall die in sin.” Although admittedly dramatized, as is common with such dialogue, conservatives wailed that the line was dishonest and unfair to the former president. However, history records Reagan as being, at best, indifferent to the plight of AIDS victims. In the Reagan biography Dutch, Reagan is quoted as saying “maybe the Lord brought down this plague . . . because illicit sex is against the Ten Commandments.” Former Reagan chief of staff Donald Regan was quoted in Reagan—the Man and his Presidency: “The Reagan administration realized that there was an AIDS crisis but that it was being caused by immoral practices, and how far do you want to go to make the world safe for immoral practices.” And Reagan himself was quoted in Time magazine as saying “When it comes to stopping the spread of AIDS, medicine and morality teach the same lessons.” What lesson is that? “That they that live in sin, shall die in sin?” So that dramatization is anything but a dishonest response, based on Reagan’s legacy.
The right wing drive to control what we see and hear is not confined to just re-writing history. I heard a tour guide in New Hampshire speak about Reaganites’ quest to re-write geography as well. There is a push among conservatives to re-name something in Reagan’s honor in every state. In New Hampshire, this involved re-naming Mt. Clay to Mt. Reagan. At the same time, conservatives added an amendment that officially re-named Mt. Clinton, Mt. Pierce. Never mind that Mt. Clinton was not originally named for former President Bill Clinton. Perception is reality enough for the right wing zealots of this country.
Josh Greenland - 11/9/2003
The use of the excerpt from Garry Wills' review is amusing from another angle: "progressive" Soft Skull chose a passage that is laughably Eurocentric and condescending to Native Americans. Gee, weren't some American christians burning and drowning "witches" in the 17th century?
Richard Henry Morgan - 11/8/2003
Waiting, as I am, impatiently (nay, breathlessly) for the revised edition of Bellesiles' book, I chanced upon this little portion of the Soft Skull (General Paresis?) website:
"The mythology of the gun would be elaborated and drummed into Americans, during the second half of the 19th century, by massive advertising and by popular celebration in dime novels and Wild West shows.…Bellesiles has dispersed the darkness that covered the gun's early history in America. He provides overwhelming evidence that our view of the gun is as deep a superstition as any that affected Native Americans in the 17th century."
—Garry Wills THE NEW YORK TIMES BOOK REVIEW
Seems the boys, girls, whatever, at Soft Skull are using Wills' favorable review from the first edition to flog the revised edition, though Wills has removed his imprimatur from the work. Tsk, tsk. http://www.softskull.com/detailedbook.php?isbn=1-932360-07-7
Josh Greenland - 10/25/2003
How sad that the San Jose Mercury is now writing those too-short, uninformative articles so typical of the rest of the SF Bay Area's press. It wasn't clear what exactly Rakove thought was wrong with California recall other than that it was too easy to get enough signatures for recall, and that he didn't like the idea of popular electoral processes like recall and initiative.
Those who didn't like this recall were already pushing for changes in the law before the October election. They complain that too few signatures are required to qualify a recall (but 900,000 sounds like a lot of me, even in California), and that a judge should rule on whether a recall has "sufficient grounds" in some kind of politician malfeasance. This last especially makes me nervous given that California's recall was intentioned to be free of judicial gatekeeping, given that the abuses it was created to correct included a judiciary that was even more corrupted and controlled by a single corporation (Southern Pacific) than were the legislature or governor's office (per an article here on HNN).
Samuel Browning - 10/23/2003
What James Madison would think in a case like this is not particlarly relevant because the intent behind the recall mechanism dates from a change in, I believe, the California State Constitution enacted during the early 1900s. States have long had the option to experiment with the stucture of democracy as long as their efforts do not deny rights protected by the US constitution which are made applicable to the states by the 14th amendment. Rakove's argument, as reported by the media, is so vague that it is not particularly credible. (though in fairness the media could have always abreviated Rakove's comments so abruptly that they did him a disservice.)
SteveH - 10/23/2003
http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/7051097.htm
Top Historian warns of flaws in California recall process
San Jose Mercury News
Sunday, October 19, 2003
Founders didn't Aim for Popular Rule, Panel Told
by Renee Koury
Mercury News
James Madison would have been very disappointed that
Californians got together and kicked their governor
out of office this month, a noted historian told a panel
of deep thinkers at Stanford University on Saturday.
...
"There is something deeply disturbing about what is
going on in this state," Rakove told the panel.
[I guess that's because minorities can be politically
terrorized by the tyranny of the majority.]
"People have learned to manipulate the initiative
process," Rakove said. "The smaller
the group, the more dangerous it is," he said...
[woops...]
Ralph E. Luker - 10/20/2003
Bryan, Of course, you are correct. Benny will not respond substantially to your questions any more than he will identify himself. Whether Benny is Bellesiles or not remains unproved, but it is increasingly clear that he is a sock-puppet for someone who goes about in the world under some other name.
Bryan Haskins - 10/20/2003
He will never answer my questions, Sam, because he cannot dispute the facts contained within them. His entire history on this site can be summarized like this: He avoids addressing the underlying facts that led to Bellesiles’ downfall by simply responding to all who report them with “liar [biased gun hugging] liar pants on fire.”
I have been following Mr. Smith’s lack of progress on this site for months. I told him long ago that the exclusive (and obsessive) reliance on the “you are all biased liars” theory was a horse that would not run. It stumbled badly right out of the gate, and he has since fallen so far behind that he can no longer even see the pack he is racing against. Indeed, he is not even making an attempt to understand the posts that appear here anymore. From his responses to them, it is clear that he merely skims them looking for one of two things: 1) Something that he can latch onto and claim to have taken offense from, OR 2) Something that will allow him to claim that the writer is somehow connected to (and therefore proving to all the existence of) a vast right-wing NRA-funded gun-hugging conspiracy to get Bellesiles.
He may, of course, prove my analysis of his behavior completely wrong at any time. All it takes is the courage to consider my questions, stand up, and actually say what he really believes (and, in fairness, a request that I do the same for questions he may have for me). For the reason provided in my first sentence, however, I am confident that he will never accept these repeatedly offered opportunities to try and prove me wrong.
Samuel Browning - 10/17/2003
With the three well written posts by Tim Lambert, Phil Lee, and Reader there is not much new ground to cover in this response to Benny's October 13, 2003 letter. Benny, you assume that some of us have a facility with doing advanced internet searches that we do not, and here I speak for myself and presumably Ralph. But even concluding your search engine superiority here, Reader is right in his post. You could have easily provided such information to the Emory Wheel and decided not to for whatever reason.
They should make a correction but because of your game playing they do not owe you a retraction or apology. Remember they argued that you are either Belliseles or in cahoots with him. Assuming you Michigan IP is correct you are not the former, but still can be the latter.
Certain parts of your post I find hard to understand. You quoted from the Atomic Book's site and then you didn't want to disclose this site because you thought that Mr. Morgan wouuld make fun of you? Benny give me a break, you know that quoting from a website leads to inquiries as to its location.
I don't care if you are suspicious concerning my inquiry concerning the exact dates of the e-mails that passed between you and Mr. Ackerman. This information is valuable in indicating how long he waited before writing his editorial and therefore helps reconstuct whether he rushed to judgment or made a reasonable attempt to obtain information from you that was not forthcoming and then ran his story. I should ask though, when are you going to finally address Mr. Haskin's questions since he has ben trying to get a answer from you for months.
Don Williams - 10/15/2003
Note that Congress, in the 1792 Militia Act, did not define the full militia --they simply said that all white males 18-44 years of age must serve. They did not exclude others. I seem to recall , however, that Section 2 gave the States the power to exempt people from militia service --which might have been used to exclude some people from training but not necessarily from membership.
On the one hand, this power could be helpful -- State governments could ,in the future, resist a tyrannical government by forming a large paramilitary police force and claim members of said force are State officials and hence exempt from federal command (via the draft or federalization.) Congress could, however, overturn the exemption by passage of law, not Constitutional amendment.
On the other hand, the States power to exclude people has allowed abuse of minorities in the past. There is also an argument that the 14th Amendment made the Bill of Rights binding on the States as well as the Federal Government and hence States no longer have the power to exclude people from the militia. As Akhil Amar has noted, Part of the background of the 14th Amendment was predecessor federal laws passed after the Civil War which affirmed that African American citizens had a Second Amendment right to possess firearms --and to defend themselves from violence in the South.
Where Congress stepped over the line was in the Dick Act. The Dick Act ,passed circa 1903, replaced the 1792 Militia Act and
set up the present dual-hat National Guard. The Dick Act was where Congress presumed to define the militia solely as all male citizens 18-45 years of age not serving in the federal military.
I think this limiting definition was unconstitutional.
If Congress can define which citizens are members of the militia, then it can exclude population groups -- e.g, it can copy the Nazi's "Draft Law for the Regulation of the Status of the Jews" and exclude from military service anyone..
"a) who adheres to the Jewish faith,
b) whose parents or all grandparents adhered to the Mosaic faith,
even if they or some of them later abandoned the Mosaic faith,
c) who is a descendant of those named under a) and b) "
Alternatively, it could exclude all those who adhere to the Islamic faith.
Reader - 10/15/2003
I agree with Phil Lee -- let's take a step back.
All this wrangling by Benny Smith and his quick two-step has diverted attention from the real issue -- Bellesiles was discredited and remains discredited. His research was shoddy, as was his method. It is apparent to me that he had a axe to grind and he manipulated data….or made some of it up….to reach the conclusions already well stamped in his mind.
I knew that the bulk of his arguments were bogus when I first read the book. It didn't take too much research to come up with discrepancy after discrepancy and misrepresentation after misrepresentation.
My friends were first a bit skeptical of my assertions -- after all, I was just one reader.
But then the floodgates opens and Bellesiles got a flood much more than of his offices.
So, aapparently Bellesiles is 25% complete with his renewed research. I hope he keeps better records than he did last time. I actually hope that he does publish some of his research and correct, when necessary, his earlier work. I think he has a real tough row to hoe.
It doesn't take too much to pick Smith apart. On one hand he says: "First, let me say I’m not fond of providing internet links. They don’t always cut and paste easily, they sometimes throw up a red flag of "spam" to forum hosts—some of whom won’t even permit their posting—and they occasionally disappear." Then he quotes his wife as saying he is a "search engine genius."
For a so-called genius, he certainly expresses that he has difficulty with the basics.
Smith implies criticism of the editor of the Wheel: "I found it strange also that Mr. Ackerman’s work was referenced and praised by many. Did NOBODY think to check to see if this website existed?"
Well, Benny, being the search engine genius and all, you could have whipped up that site cite very quickly and provided it to the Wheel. But you didn't...or couldn't.
Additionally, Smith takes refuge in the ultimate "disgrace" and criticism -- a word was misspelled in the Wheel article. It is amazing that when many scoundrels are cornered on the internet, they become "grammar police" and heap ridicule on their "enemies."
Smith is being coy. And secretive.
He is reluctant to answer specific questions, which would shed light on the issue. His connection to Arming of America is suspect, at best. He seems to have a connection outside being the humble researcher he claims to be. Of course, all he has to do is provide some information and it could be cleared up.
But Smith revels in the limelight. He is, now, Somebody.
And there is a Conspiracy out there and he has now been targeted.
He now lives is exciting times.
Phil Lee - 10/14/2003
Some people crave attention, and they don't care whether it is positive or negative. They see a forum as a means to gain attention they can't get in their own life. Fanciful argument and denial of information are means of stretching out this attention. By never conceding a point they indulge their fantasies of cleverness that they really lack. They frequently justify their actions because of bad behavior of others or of tools (i.e., I would have told you where the material was found, but someone would make a snide remark or the computer might make it disappear).
Honest people interested in a meeting of the minds and factual discussion of issues, don't play got-ya games. They don't mind sharing information even if it might occasionally disappear or involve a little extra work to cut and paste.
Behavior by people trying to make themselves the center of attention is well recognized on the web. The term to use is "troll." The only way to deal with trolls is to remember they are playing a game and ignore them.
In my previous note, that is why I suggested the need to regain focus.
Phil Lee
Richard Henry Morgan - 10/14/2003
Don, thanks for your lengthy and informative reply. I share your view of Bernstein -- he is a reputable scholar, though less than credible as a defender of Bellesiles. Politics can warp the judgment.
I will get the Veit collection on Inter Library Loan. So too with some of the sources in Uviller and Merkl's contribution to Bogus' The Second Amendment in Law and History (the article by U&M; was ginned up into a book put out by, I believe, Duke University Press, a condensed version of which appeared on HNN). U&M; go to great lengths to trace the history of that portion of the militia trained to arms, arguing in the end that there is no milita today, so there is no Second Amendment. Their argument obscures the fact that there is an unbroken statutory stream (right up to the present day) which defines the militia as, at a minimum, all able-bodied males 18 to 45. The question is, does this unbroken statutory stream simply embody a common-law understanding of what a militia, tout court, is, or is the stream a statutory invasion of the constitutional realm by stipulative definition?
What you will never see from the collectivists is the words from the Miller decision, which suggest that the constitution itself embodies a common-law definition of militia (complete with a reference to Justice Story and his famous interpretive principle that common-law terms maintain their everyday meanings in constitutional interpretation).
This explains the almost manic preoccupation on the part of the collectivists to cast the Knox Plan as a select militia plan. It also explains why they consistently ignore the words of Rufus King in the Philadelphia Convention. Most hilarious of all is Rakove (in Bogus) quoting Mason to the effect that the militia might in the future be anything at all, where in previous writings Rakove offers that AntiFederalists are so consumed by paranoia that their views offer no real insight into the meaning of constitutional text. Mason might best be read as warning against the possibility of later statutory restrictions via stipulative definitions, or the equivalent by activist judges. When you see what has happened to the commerce clause you can understand his concern. The votes in the House and Senate do give some clue to the original understanding of those two bodies, but not too much of a clue -- in any case, the real balance of weight must lie with the ratifiers, and the state ratification records (when it comes to the Bill of Rights vary from poor to non-existent).
Don Williams - 10/14/2003
Richard
I have been out of town for several days --it was Parent's Weekend at my son's school. His school's library, for some reason, has an excellent collection of primary source material on the American Founding and I wanted to check something before responding to you.
a) When I said Bernstein was a persistent defender of Bellesiles on H-OIEAHC, I did not mean to imply that he was a credible defender of Bellesiles. I don't not recall Bernstein ever attempting to address the specific criticisms of Arming America or attempting to determine whether primary sources supported or disproved Bellesiles' claims. Bernstein's approach, as I recall, was a patronizing "Historians have different interpretations
and maybe if you were a historian you would understand that" meme. In my opinion, Bernstein will simply dismiss the San Francisco records issue as an inadvertent error in sourcing.
Bernstein will probably be much bolder in his Arming America Preface than he was on H-OIEAHC because no one will have the right to reply to his Preface -- to still his yapping by rubbing his nose in the mess and smacking his behind with a rolled up newspaper.
b) Re the definition of the militia, I found a Helen Veit collection, called "Documentary History of the First Federal Congress, 1789-1791", which listed primary sources describing
the detailed actions taken by the First Congress, including the creation of the Bill of Rights. (NOTE:I don't know if this collection has been updated in later works by Veit --or if this collection has material not in similar works.)
c) At the beginnning of Volume IV(Legislative Histories) of the Documentary History, there is a detailed log for development of the Bill of Rights , with citations to contemporary newspaper articles, Maclay's Journal,etc for detailed accounts of Congress' deliberations.
d) The Histories indicate that:
(1) The deliberations on the Bill of Rights explicitly started with consideration of petitions from the States arising out of the Constitution's approval process
(2) Several of those petitions (New Hampshire?, Virginia?) explicitly state that the militia is "composed of the body of the people"
(3) The First Congress decided not to be limited solely to the
State petitions in drawing up the Bill of Rights
(4) The text of the Second Amendment submitted by the House to the Senate explicitly stated that the militia was composed "of the body of the people"
(5) The House explicitly voted DOWN a resolution to limit the militia to those people "Trained to Arms" (e.g., National Guard )
(6) The Senate deleted the phase "composed of the body of the people" but left no reason re why it did so
(There is very little information on Senate deliberations --my understanding is that the Senate tried to preserve it's lofty
image and mystery by only reporting it's final results and not how it reached the results -- One reason why Maclay kept his Journal. However, Maclay evidently left no record on the Senate's intent.)
e) As you've noted, if Congress could decide who has membership in the militia, then it could nullify the States' right to appoint officers --which would be contrary to the explicit statement in Article 1.
This is very relevent today. A few years ago, a highly decorated female Army colonel was dismissed from the US Army because it was discovered that she was a lesbian. However, she was accepted into California's National Guard. This raises the interesting question of whether Congress can extend the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy to the National Guard and other state militias. I would argue that gays have a right to be in the militia and a corresponding Second Amendment right.
f) Congress and State Governor's obviously control the militias -- i.e., decide who stays at home, who engages in training exercises, and who fights in a war.
Note that the 1792 Militia Act did NOT say that the state militias would consist SOLELY of white males 18-45 years of age --it merely said that the militias would include such males at a MINIMUM. I believe that many early militias used elderly men over 45 years of age as a "Home Guard" to help defend a home area when men of military age were away on campaign.
Don Williams - 10/14/2003
Richard
I have been out of town for several days --it was Parent's Weekend at my son's school. His school, for some reason, has an excellent collection of primary source material on the American Founding and I wanted to check something before responding to you.
a) When I said Bernstein was a persistent defender of Bellesiles on H-OIEAHC, I did not mean to imply that he was a credible defender of Bellesiles. I don't not recall Bernstein ever attempting to address the specific criticisms of Arming America or attempting to determine whether primary sources supported or disproved Bellesiles' claims. Bernstein's approach, as I recall, was a patronizing "Historians have different interpretations
and maybe if you were a historian you would understand the process" meme. In my opinion, Bernstein will simply dismiss the San Francisco records issue as a mere error in sourcing.
b) Re the definition of the militia, I found a Helen Veit collection, called "Documentary History of the First Federal Congress, 1789-1791", which listed primary sources describing
the detailed actions taked by the First Congress, including the creation of the Bill of Rights. (I don't know if this collection has been updated in later works by Veit --or if this collection has material not in similar works.)
c) At the beginnning of Volume IV(Legislative Histories) of the Documentary History, there is a detailed log for development of the Bill of Rights , with citations to contemporary newspaper articles, Maclay's Journal,etc for detailed accounts of Congress' deliberations.
d) The Histories indicate that:
(1) The deliberations on the Bill of Rights explicitly started with consideration of petitions from the States arising out of the Constitution's approval process
(2) Several of those petitions (New Hampshire?, Virginia?) explicitly state that the militia is "composed of the body of the people"
(3) The First Congress decided not to be limited solely to the
State petitions in drawing up the Bill of Rights
(4) The text of the Second Amendment submitted by the House to the Senate explicitly stated that the militia was composed "of the body of the people"
(5) The House explicitly voted DOWN a resolution to limit the militia to those people "Trained to Arms" (e.g., National Guard )
(6) The Senate deleted the phase "composed of the body of the people" but left no reason re why it did so
(There is very little information on Senate deliberations --my understanding is that the Senate tried to preserve it's lofty
image and mystery by only reporting it's final results and not how it reached the results -- One reason why Maclay kept his Journal. However, Maclay evidently left no record on the Senate's intent.)
e) As you've noted, if Congress could decide who has membership in the militia, then it could nullify the States' right to appoint officers --which would be contrary to the explicit statement in Article 1. This is very relevent today. A few years ago, a highly decorated female Army colonel was dismissed from the US Army because it was discovered that she was a lesbian. However, she was accepted into California's National Guard. This raises the interesting question of whether Congress can extend the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy to the National Guard and other state militias. I would argue that gays have a right to be in the militia and a corresponding Second Amendment right.
f) Congress and State Governor's obviously control the militias -- i.e., decide who stays at home, who engages in training exercises, and who fights in a war.
Note that the 1792 Militia Act did NOT say that the state militias would consist SOLELY of white males 18-45 years of age --it merely said that the militias would include such males at a MINIMUM. I believe that many early militias used elderly men over 45 years of age as a "Home Guard" to help defend an area when men of military age were away on campaign.
Tim Lambert - 10/14/2003
So Benny Smith admits that he deliberately withheld the information about where he found the cover art in the hope the the Emory Wheel would be embarrassed. This makes his demand for an apology rather disingenous.
Jimmy Wales has looked at the IP numbers of some of Benny Smith's emails. These suggest that it is unlikely that Smith is really Bellesiles. It appears that Smith was posting from Michigan when Bellesiles was still at Emory.
So, it looks like Benny Smith has been allowing the mystery to continue so people would pay more attention to him.
Benny Smith - 10/14/2003
First, let me say I’m not fond of providing internet links. They don’t always cut and paste easily, they sometimes throw up a red flag of "spam" to forum hosts—some of whom won’t even permit their posting—and they occasionally disappear. A couple weeks ago even Professor Lindgren had such links drop out from one of his posts here on HNN. Anyone who has been following my posts knows that I use and suggest using Google searches. For example, you asked about that Thomas Jefferson quote, Mr. Browning. Using the advanced web Google search, type in "Thomas Jefferson" as the exact phrase, then pick out a less-than-usual word from the quote, such as "disputant." Check your results. I believe I originally discovered the "atomic" site by combining the phrase "soft skull" with "Bellesiles" and "October," since I knew his revised Arming America was being released by Soft Skull in October. On my search, the "atomic" site popped up on the first page of hits.
Once I posted to HNN, then it became even easier to Google-find my site, since I quoted directly from the site itself. Google-search the words Bellesiles, Bernstein, "Soft Skull" and either "obliterate" or any other word I used in quotes and you get only a tiny handful of hits, including "Literary Finds for Mutated Minds," the site I used. That’s why I believe Mr. Luker is being disingenuous when he claims he and others searched for the site repeatedly. Either he is lying or can’t negotiate the internet. I honestly felt I was being "set up", first because of the offbeat name of the site, and because Bellesiles’ book looked somewhat ill-placed among the comic books and children’s toys. Certainly, my linking the site would send Arming America critics like Mr. Morgan, or as it turned out, Mr. Lee, into a fun-poking frenzy with me the stooge. Of course, how was I to know that this site was the only one with the book jacket photo of the revised Arming America. When I later learned there was another possible Arming America book jacket cover, albeit a dead dog ugly one, I hedged in my reply to one of your posts, saying that the photo I saw could have been just an advertising graphic. Then I saw the curious reply from Mr. Luker who seemed to be accusing me of knowing too much.
So I saw where Mr. Luker posted "Benny Smith Meet Mary Rosh." However, Mr. Luker was sly enough not to stick his neck out too far. He left that for Mr. Ackerman, the editor of the Emory Wheel. Now, I do believe that the Emory Wheel is "in cahoots" with Bellesiles’ critics and have allowed the gun lobby to steer them to stories or viewpoints they want published. It’s not just coincidence that very shortly after the Emory Wheel published their story on me, Luker was putting out his "Extra, Extra" article on his blog, publicizing Ackerman’s editorial. And another prominent Bellesiles critic, Mr. Fought, praised Mr. Ackerman’s article in an on-line comment almost simultaneously.
Mr. Browning, you can see by my first e-mail that I did try to steer Mr. Ackerman towards doing a more balanced story, rather than merely continuing to report right wing gossip and innuendo. But any shrewd propagandist could see the opportunities Mr. Ackerman presented. Afterall, the Emory Wheel has not been kind to Bellesiles. And lately, neither has Luker. There was a chance for some vindication, even perhaps, briefly, a larger stage to make my voice heard. So I certainly was not going to stand in the way of a runaway train of Bellesiles’ critics heading down the wrong track. And when the train crossed the point of no return, with Luker blowing the train whistle hard and more of Bellesiles’ tormentors, including an Emory administrator, hopping aboard . . . well, I am reminded of Leonardo DiCapprio’s con man character’s favorite line in the movie Catch Me If You Can—"Even better."
To be honest, I fully expected to be vindicated afterwards when some alert reader located my original "atomic" site. That nobody did this leads me to one of three conclusions: that nobody other than Bellesiles haters reads this stuff, that nobody cares, or that I am, in the words of my wife, a search engine genius. Of course, I couldn’t wait for Luker’s "he got me" response. When I forwarded his "Benny’s Revenge" blog to a close confidant, she replied, "He says you can’t read. I think he wants to fight. Be nice, be nice." So I will let his vituperative remarks slide this time. I hope I have satisfied your curiosity, Mr. Browning. So far as dates of the e-mails in question, they were not included in the body of text that I cut and pasted and I am frankly suspicious of your asking for them. If I recall correctly, Mr. Ackerman first e-mailed me about a week ago and we exchanged correspondence through last Thursday.
Benn Ray - 10/13/2003
Phil Lee stated: "If you look at the focus of Atomic books (comic books, books on strippers, ...), it would be fair to say that Bellesiles has found a retail outlet to match the qualities of his book. "
Why thank you.
Samuel Browning - 10/13/2003
Nice save on the photograph Bennie, while I don't trust your word, Tim Lambert is reliable, and I accept his and Mr. Lee's posts. Of course you did "dangle" this issue by posting this discription on October 2nd without providing an accompanying link which is standard procedure on this board. After all, we readers could spend weeks searching the internet fruitlessly, that's not our responsibility, and you know that. But there are omissions in your version of events which are as follows.
On October 2nd your post quoted from the Atomic website as follows: The new book "answers his academic critics, providing updated research addressing their legitimate concerns, while finding that the underlying thesis of his book remains as solid as ever," then Bernstein's foreward examines "the virulent power of the American Right to obliterate those voices which speak out in opposition to their own." The original text is at http://www.atomicbooks.com/comingsoonoct.html Now to get these forty odd words in correct order you must have either printed out this blurb or taken notes which you had in front of you while you typed.
In your Ocober 3, 2003 post you avoided the issue of origin by saying that you didn't remember finding this information on the Soft Skull website, without mentioning the website that you did take the quote from. You also stated "By the way, what I interpreted to be book cover art could end up being an advertising graphic" when you would have to have known based on the atomic picture, that it was indeed cover art.
Now I cannot prove that such omissions establishes that you are Belliseles but I can say that any errors in the Emory Wheel were promoted by your behavior since you deliberately did not provide this link until well after a timely request from at least yours truly to explain where at least the picture accompanying your chosen text came from. I also do not understand why you removed the dates from your correspondance with Andrew Ackerman unless it was to obscure that he wrote you days before his editorial ran which would have given you the opportunity to provide the same link to him defusing this issue.
It is also apparant that you did not tell him the truth when you said you did not have the website handy. If you took notes from it, or printed it out, you would have been able to, at a mimimum, provide him with more of a lead on where to find it. Its kind of hard to forget an Atomic Books in Baltimore. But Ackerman's editorial raised another issue, how did you know back on December 15, 2002 that Belliseles had lawyered up if you have no connection to Michael. Your stories are not consistant over time Benny.
Tim Lambert - 10/12/2003
I emailed Benn Ray and he replied:
"The cover image displayed on my site is from the catalog of a distributor of Soft Skull Press' books. It has been up on our site for several months."
Also posted to http://timlambert.org/2003/10#1012 for people who think that this isn't me.
Phil Lee - 10/12/2003
It seems to me that Bennie Smith's tactic is to divert attention and change the subject whenever possible. Perhaps it is only for reasons of ego he is trying to make himself the issue rather than Bellesiles' product.
I think he has succeeded and many of you should re-focus.
To add a brief bit of factual information which will not settle the issue of whether or not he is Bellesiles, I explored the Atomic Books web site. What I found is:
The picture describe by Smith was posted to that site on 12-Jul-2003 15:36 and appears to have been posted by Benn Ray with e-mail benn@atomicbooks.com. The date of posting (assuming they did not diddle the server clock) is given from:
http://www.atomicbooks.com/dugimages/
(scan down until you reach armingamerica.jpg). It appears this site follows the practice of listing poster in a file with similar root name and extension "LCK" so the cover is:
http://www.atomicbooks.com/dugimages/armingamerica.jpg
and the poster is in
http://www.atomicbooks.com/dugimages/armingamerica.jpg.LCK
Benn Ray is pictured on the web site's contact page along with other employees. His picture may be found at:
http://www.atomicbooks.com/dugimages/benn.jpg
Atomic books is a retailer based in Baltimore with address:
1100 W. 36th Street
Baltimore, MD 21211
410.662.4444
If you look at the focus of Atomic books (comic books, books on strippers, ...), it would be fair to say that Bellesiles has found a retail outlet to match the qualities of his book.
Phil Lee
Richard Henry Morgan - 10/12/2003
"I have removed only ads, phone numbers and other personal identifying information"
You seem to have also removed the dates, which might be of interest for establishing a chronology. Of course Mr. Ackerman can always avail himself of the Bellesiles Defense -- he doesn't recognize the e-mails as his, somebody hacked into his computer, a flood destroyed his records, the records can be found at East Point, or was it the San Francisco Court House?
Benny Smith - 10/12/2003
Regarding the Emory Wheel article:
:http://www.emorywheel.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2003/10/10/3f86484674de4
I have seen newspapers occasionally perpetrate hoaxes on April 1st, but Andrew Ackerman’s opinion column in the Emory University’s student newspaper on Friday ranks right up there as one of the more fantastic concoctions perpetrated in print, regardless of the date. Well, even an "intemperate" soul like myself is deserving of a good laugh once in a while, and my family and I had a great laugh over the Emory Wheel’s conspiracy theory. No, I am not Bellesiles, nor am I "in cahoots" with him or any of his associates. My research and my opinions are 100 per cent my own. I have never said otherwise.
The linchpin of Ackerman’s piece is a theory that I somehow received an advance copy of Michael Bellesiles’ second edition of Arming America, since I described aspects of the new foreword and the cover. However, if you compare my article with my internet source (both linked here), it should be abundantly obvious to even a junior high cub reporter where my information came from. Why Mr. Ackerman could not locate this site, or even whether he tried, is a good question and deserving of an answer.
http://www.historynewsnetwork.com/comments/19502.html
http://www.atomicbooks.com/comingsoonoct.html
I found it strange also that Mr. Ackerman’s work was referenced and praised by many. Did NOBODY think to check to see if this website existed? Among those praising Mr. Ackerman for his ‘scoop’ were several authors of weblogs, including Ralph Luker here at HNN who twice declared, "Benny Smith meet Mary Rosh", comparing me to pro-gun author John Lott who invented a fictitious on-line persona to defend himself. Although I’ve considered ‘blogs’ to be mostly self-indulgent gossip-mongering, these internet columnists would have us believe that they know the worldwide web better than anyone else. Obviously, this is not the case.
What you see here is a microcosm of the smear campaign against Michael Bellesiles and Arming America. Criticism is picked up and repeated ad infinitum without anybody checking to see whether the criticism is valid or whether the critic is biased. I am reminded of how Professor James Lindgren, Bellesiles’ chief critic, was rebuked in Emory University’s Bellesiles investigation for accusing Bellesiles of an incorrect militia count, when it turned out that Bellesiles was correct. Lindgren’s excuse was that he was quoting another critic and did not bother to check the primary source material to see if the criticism was accurate. What an incredible abuse of academic authority!
Anyhow, in the case of the Emory Wheel editorial (it was not a "news" item), I thought it might be instructive to read the e-mail exchanges between Mr. Ackerman and myself, which I have reprinted below, with the most recent e-mail on top. I have removed only ads, phone numbers and other personal identifying information (there was one last e-mail from Mr. Ackerman where he briefly asked me to contact him by phone, but the story was in print before I had a chance to respond):
Benny: I appreciate you getting back to me. In any event, no, a lot of what you've written about is not available to the public on the Internet or at my local library. That's just insulting and condescending. The cover of the forthcoming paperback that you described isn't available at Soft Skull Press' site nor anywhere else. Bernstein's forward isn't available, either. Yet you insist that they are. Would you tell me where I can find them? A lot of people would like to know how you found them. In my column for tomorrow's Wheel, I make it clear that Professor Bellesiles is either using you as his mouthpiece or is you. I've looked at the IP addresses from some of your messages. They appear to originate from a Michigan ISP, giving credence to your claim to be a database administrator from Detroit. But there's no way you could have known anything about the cover or the Bernstein forward or a number of other minutiae related to Bellesiles and _Arming America_ unless you were close to Michael or an online persona that he invented. Yet you've written on HNN that you don't know Bellesiles personally. So something's wrong here. You just won't talk about it seriously. -Andrew >
Andrew, Although I am both flattered and amused that my humble scribbles here might be mistaken for that of a respected author and essayist, I do not believe those making such "charges" are serious. None of my information is "secretive." It is all available, either on the internet or at your local library. > >Benny > >
Benny: > >A lot of people insist that you're really Bellesiles, and it's beginning to sound like you are, considering the secretive information that you're privy to and a random database administration from Detroit wouldn't have access to. How do you respond to those charges? > >-Andrew > >>
Andrew, >> >> No, I do not have an advance copy of the second edition of Arming America. My information came from the internet, although I do not have the website handy. I hope your coverage of the Bellesiles matter in the future will be more balanced. Unfortunately, the Emory Wheel has been less than objective in the past, depending much upon many sources who bore personal/professional grudges, or who were ideologically aligned against the theses Professor Bellesiles proposed. Check out this website:
>>http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/features/reader/0,2061,566717,00.html
It describes what happens when hard core politics trumps academic freedom in this neo-conservative age. When the new edition of Arming America comes out, I hope you read the new foreword by Richard B. Bernstein. It also describes how right wing power politics can silence voices that we need to hear. Journalism should always be on the side of free speech, particularly when it involves academic freedom. Unfortunately, the Wheel allowed itself to be seduced and abused by the radical right. Benny >> >> >>
Andrew Ackerman wrote: Hi there. I'm working on a column for the Emory Wheel, Emory's student paper. You're probably familiar with my stories last year on the Bellesiles controversy. I see that you've posted recently on HNN regarding the forthcoming paperback 2nd edition of _Arming America_. Did you obtain a preview copy of the Soft Skull book? If not, how were you able to describe its cover so accurately? >> >>Thanks, >>Andrew >> >>-- >>Andrew Ackerman >>Editor in Chief,
Note that Mr. Ackerman discovered that my posting address indicated that I am from Michigan, as I have stated. He even admits that gave credence to my story." Did that appear in the Emory newspaper article then? No. Why let the facts get in the way of a good story? I realize that rumor and gossip is often more sexy than the truth, but it is the truth that respectable journalists should always print. Also note that I spelled "foreword" correctly. One of the Emory Wheel’s reader responses chided Mr. Ackerman for spelling it incorrectly, at which time the Emory corrected itself but left the misquote of me unchanged, except for a ‘sic’ to try to put the blame for the spelling mistake upon me. That may be just sloppy journalism, but I also think it is also representative of the immature manner in which Emory has covered the Bellesiles matter. I still do believe they have allowed themselves to be seduced and abused by the gun lobby in this matter. And it unfortunately continues a sad trend at the Wheel. And it damages the integrity of Emory University itself, particularly when the article is so publicly praised by a member of the university’s inner echelon.
Bryan Haskins - 10/11/2003
Well, the Emory Wheel article is certainly an eye-opener. I must tip my e-hat to the EW editorial staff once again. In addition to the denial quoted by the article, I thought you had answered this question at least once more, Mr. Smith,. I went back and found this rebuke of Mr. Luker (http://hnn.us/comments/11906.html):
“Did I also hear you suggest that by my speaking to Bellesiles I might be having a conversation with myself? I have heard that suggestion put forth by Bellesiles' critics here, but I am surprised that you bought into that fiction as well. Perhaps you have allowed yourself to be held captive too long by the gun lobby's rhetoric here. The Stockholm syndrome is having its effect. You are losing your perspective.”
I can only construe this May post as a denial of being even distantly related to Mary Rosh, and I await your response to the latest EW article.
I have followed your posts for nearly a year, Mr. Smith, and I am saddened to see the box you have placed yourself in. How is it that you, who began with so much promise, have found yourself ostracized by everyone here?
Let me get straight to my point. Here is where I see your dilemma, Mr. Smith. From the beginning no one has doubted your zeal to defend what you believe to be a man wrongfully accused of academic fraud. Additionally, I at least have noticed your considerable ability to conduct background research as well as your ability to pay careful attention to detail (both of which you demonstrated during your April/May “deconstruct Clayton Cramer phase”). Yet, with all this zeal, time, and ability, you shy away from addressing even one factual allegation of fraud made by Bellesiles’ critics. Why is that? Surely you see how this odd behavior has led to a general consensus that your silence equals acceptance of the truth contained in these allegations? Everyone here believes that if you could have proven these claims false you would have done so long ago. Therefore, can you not agree that your avoidance of these claims of fraud should be construed as a concession that you cannot dispute them?
In saying this I am mindful that you have argued ad infinitum about the evil motives which possessed the critics and caused them to write what they have said about Bellesiles and AA. Yet, I am sure you will agree that the (rare) coin of this realm remains truth, and your claims of motive to fabricate are only one side of that coin. The time has come, Mr. Smith, for you to show me the other side of that coin--for you to tell me WHAT is factually wrong with the critical analysis leveled at AA. Either you must explain how the factual criticism leveled at both AA and its author is incorrect, or you must admit that some of it is true and further explain just how much fraud you are willing to accept being included in the “definitive word” on guns in early America.
Regardless of whether you are truly Bellesiles or Smith, please understand that I am only trying to help you. For example, do you not see the bitter irony in your recent choice of Jefferson quotes? Why, of all the quotes you could have “googled” from the ether, would you chose one which contradicts the very theory of AA?---“I never saw an instance of one of two disputants convincing the other by argument. I have seen many on their getting warm, becoming rude and shooting one another.”[shouldn’t that be “many of them”?]---Does the “definitive word” explain where the firearms came from that were used in the “many” shootings TJ refers to? Since you obviously possess some special knowledge of AA2d, can we expect it to account for the presence of the firearms used in these confrontations TJ references?
In closing, let me offer in return a few TJ quotes. I doubt you will find them behind that as yet unseen cover you definitively say will grace the second edition of AA:
1. “A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind....Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks.” Cite: Thomas Jefferson, Encyclopedia of T. Jefferson, p. 318 (Foley, Ed., reissued 1967). (Letter to Peter Carr, his 15-year-old nephew, August 19, 1785).
2. “SIR, Your letter of Sep. 15. 1777 from Paris comes safe to hand. . . . From the kind anxiety expressed in your letter as well as from other sources of information we discover that our enemies have filled Europe with Thrasonic accounts of victories they had never won and conquests they were fated never to make. While these accounts alarmed our friends in Europe they afforded us diversion. We have long been out of all fear for the event of the war. I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence. This is the best history of the war which can be brought within the compass of a letter. I believe the account to be near the truth, tho' it is difficult to get at the numbers lost by an enemy with absolute precision. Many of the articles have been communicated to us from England as taken from the official returns made by their General. I wish it were in my power to send you as just an account of our loss. But this cannot be done without an application to the war office which being in another county is at this time out of my reach. I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy. Cite: Letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, Williamsburg, June 8, 1778, The Letters of Thomas Jefferson, 1743-1826.
3. “False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put and end to personal liberty--so dear to men, so dear to the enlightened legislator--and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer? Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. They ought to be designated as laws not preventative but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree.” Cite: Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book, 1774-1776, quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment, 1764.
Samuel Browning - 10/10/2003
My congradulations to Andrew Ackerman for a first rate article that meets the standards of any national newspaper. Any comments Bennie? It appears this college senior just hung you out to dry.
Alec Lloyd - 10/10/2003
The Emory Wheel has an article on the mysterious Mr. Smith.
http://www.emorywheel.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2003/10/10/3f86484674de4
Samuel Browning - 10/10/2003
Hey Bennie:
BTW where did you find your last quote by T.J. involving people who shoot each other? I'd like the specific cite to see how far off you are from the original language. And please answer my question from the other thread. Where on the web did you find the Belliseles graphic you referred to in your earlier post?
Richard Henry Morgan - 10/9/2003
Again, though without surprise, my questions went unanswered. BTW, the shorter paper on Wills is done but is getting expanded into a group portrait of the collectivists. Thanks for the interest, Benny. The editor of this site has had a copy for months, a blogger on this site for weeks. Again, reasoned argument would be appreciated. Can you address the questions I asked? I add them again, just in case you missed their two prior postings.
(a) HOW WOULD STATE ARMS SHOW UP AS PRIVATE PROPERTY IN PROBATE RECORDS, AND THUS BIAS THE COUNT, THEREBY JUSTIFYING THEEIR EXCLUSION FROM BELLESILES' FIGURES?; (b) HOW DOES THE CONSTITUTION SUPPORT A LEGISLATIVE POWER TO RESTRICT THE MILITIA TO A SELECT MILITIA, WHEN MADISON'S NOTES FROM PHILADELPHIA CLEARLY SHOW THAT THE FRAMERS UNDERSTOOD "ORGANIZING" TO MEAN NOT A CONSTITUTIVE ACT, BUT AN ORGANIZATION OF A PRE-EXISTENT ENTITY, AND THE MILITIA ACT OF 1792 CLEARLY INTENDS A UNIVERSAL AND NOT SELECT MILITIA?; (c) HOW WILL BERNSTEIN PLACE NON-EXISTENT ARCHIVE RECORDS IN HIS CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM OF BELLESILES' MISTAKES -- QUANTIFICATION, OR OVERARGUING, NEITHER OF WHICH SEEM TO APPLY?
Benny Smith - 10/9/2003
Mr. Morgan wrote: “So yes, BS, I aim for immunity from mere opinion, though not from reasoned argument. Maybe some day you will indulge us with the latter?"
To quote Thomas Jefferson once more: “I never saw an instance of one of two disputants convincing the other by argument. I have seen many on their getting warm, becoming rude and shooting one another.” Since Mr. Williams and Mr. Morgan toe the line of the NRA and guns, I would be wise not to argue by Jefferson’s advice. How Mr. William’s scatological insults or Mr. Morgan’s fun-poking (he is back to crudely referring to me as “BS”) qualifies as reasoned argument escapes me in any case. It seems to me that they are only getting warm and becoming rude, just as Jefferson observed.
Why must Mr. Williams with his yearning intellect or Mr. Morgan with his classical education use me as a stepping stone to their scholarly stage? Their purposes would seem better served by authoring serious mainstream scholarly literature to buttress their views. Mr. Morgan has been promising for close to a year a scholarly treatise regarding Garry Wills. I Google-searched, pairing “Don/Donald Williams” with his alma mater, and I recorded no significant hits to indicate that he has written any reputable published materials. So there remains a dearth of serious mainstream literature to back up their arguments. Last I heard, even Clayton Craemer was having difficulty finding a publisher who found his own ‘arming America’ work acceptable for print.
In the meantime, Professor Bellesiles’ second edition of Arming America will soon be available. Despite all the personal attacks, scurrilous charges and investigations against its author and his work, Arming America remains the definitive word on the origins of our gun culture. That speaks volumes in itself.
Richard Henry Morgan - 10/9/2003
BS, you apparently (what a surprise!!) don't understand the meaning of 'immunity from opinion' -- that would necessitate a long disquisition on the distinction between episteme and doxa, but I fear it's a little late in life for you to acquire a classical education. Freedom from the tyranny of [mere] opinion is a substantial concern of JS Mill in his On Liberty:
"Precisely because the tyranny of opinion is such as to make eccentricity a reproach, it is desirable, in order to break through that tyranny, that people should be eccentric. Eccentricity has always abounded when and where strength of character has abounded; and the amount of eccentricity in a society has been proportional to the amount of genius, mental vigour, and moral courage, which it contained. That so few now dare to be eccentric, marks the chief danger of our time."
At one point, in his Democracy in America, Tocqueville comes to grips with the power of opinion:
"This all-powerful opinion penetrates at length even into the hearts of those whose interest might arm them to resist it; it affects their judgment whilst it subdues their will."
So yes, BS, I aim for immunity from mere opinion, though not from reasoned argument. Maybe some day you will indulge us with the latter?
Richard Henry Morgan - 10/9/2003
I sak pertinent questions, and all I get is ad hominem blather. Imagine my surprise. If there is anyone else out there who can answer the questions, please feel free to jump in.
To repeat: (a) HOW WOULD STATE ARMS SHOW UP AS PRIVATE PROPERTY IN PROBATE RECORDS, AND THUS BIAS THE COUNT, THEREBY JUSTIFYING THEEIR EXCLUSION FROM BELLESILES' FIGURES?; (b) HOW DOES THE CONSTITUTION SUPPORT A LEGISLATIVE POWER TO RESTRICT THE MILITIA TO A SELECT MILITIA, WHEN MADISON'S NOTES FROM PHILADELPHIA CLEARLY SHOW THAT THE FRAMERS UNDERSTOOD "ORGANIZING" TO MEAN NOT A CONSTITUTIVE ACT, BUT AN ORGANIZATION OF A PRE-EXISTENT ENTITY, AND THE MILITIA ACT OF 1792 CLEARLY INTENDS A UNIVERSAL AND NOT SELECT MILITIA?; (c) HOW WILL BERNSTEIN PLACE NON-EXISTENT ARCHIVE RECORDS IN HIS CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM OF BELLESILES' MISTAKES -- QUANTIFICATION, OR OVERARGUING, NEITHER OF WHICH SEEM TO APPLY?
If anyone has anything intelligent to say on these matters, I'd be interested to hear from them.
Don Williams - 10/9/2003
Mr Jefferson's support. Given Benny's posts here and at the Emory Wheel, I think Mr Jefferson would have regarded Benny in the same light as he would have viewed chicken manure soiling his riding boots.
Mr Jefferson described the ruling spirit of his University (and of his intellect) in a Dec 27, 1820 letter to William Roscoe:
"for here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it "
A related tradition is the University's Code of Honor: "We will not lie, cheat, or steal --nor tolerate among us anyone who does"
What this means is that if student A observes dishonorable conduct by studentB, then student A is REQUIRED to ask student B
to leave the University -- and to bring formal charges if student B does not comply. There is only one sanction --explusion and lose of degree if one has been awarded. If studentA is observed to not do his duty --i.e., if he ignores dishonorable behavior, then student A is expelled as well.
When taking exams, students are free to leave the room and go elsewhere --trusted to not look up answers in textbooks,for example. The professors often leave the room during exams, without monitoring the students.
With regard to firearms, The honor code arose early in the University's history. Some German professors had been imported and attempted to impose their ideas of discipline on the Southern students. When one of the professors was shot dead for his troubles, the faculty agreed to leave enforcement of the gentleman's code to the students.
A 1997 article in the Stanford Alumni magazine noted that Stanford was attempting to "revive" its honor code.
See http://www.stanfordalumni.org/news/magazine/1997/marapr/articles/honor.html
Considering that Bellesiles and Arming America were the product of Stanford's Humanities Center, I think they may still have a few bugs in the system.
The above Stanford article noted :
"The tradition of the honor code can be traced to the schools of the antebellum South. William and Mary College instituted the country's first honor code in 1779, and the University of Virginia adopted one in 1842. In those days, an honor code was simply an informal vow taken by the sons of plantation owners not to lie, cheat or steal. Violators were ostracized and pressured to promptly leave the school.
For many years, academic historians doubted honor codes could work above the Mason-Dixon line. "The sentiment of honour is an aristocratic product, fostered in the South by family pride," wrote University of Oregon professor Henry Sheldon in his 1901 book, Student Life and Customs. According to Sheldon, an early attempt to establish an honor code at Stanford failed because "the strong sense of personal honour is the peculiar product of Southern life and conditions."
Sheldon was wrong. Around the time that he was writing, honor codes began appearing outside the South, typically at smaller schools like Haverford and Williams. Stanford adopted its Honor Code in 1921. "
-----------------
Actually , Sheldon was probably correct. The Stanford article itself goes on to note that "But most institutions, including Stanford, have come to embrace more lenient readings of the tradition. ... At Stanford, students are almost never expelled for a first offense. "
Don Williams - 10/9/2003
Mr Jefferson described the ruling spirit of his University (and of his intellect) in a Dec 27, 1820 letter to William Roscoe:
"for here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it "
Benny Smith - 10/8/2003
The posts of Mr. Williams and Mr. Morgan here are revealing not so much in what they propose, but in how they reflect their authors' dogmatic convictions. It appears that Mr. Morgan and Mr. Williams alone possess the truth. Their interpretations, their insinuations, their opinions have become sacrosanct. Mr. Morgan has declared himself "immune to others’ opinions." Mr. Williams is apparently just as immutable. A famous philosopher once said, "Convictions are more dangerous to truth than lies." I wonder if either Mr. Williams or Mr. Morgan has encountered that expression in their literary travels.
Anyone who has dealt publicly with the gun lobby knows that Mr. Williams and Mr. Morgan are representative of that culture. Gun rights activists speak their opinions as if they steadfastly believe them to be gospel truth. Never mind that in the case of Arming America we are dealing with circumstances and events that occurred centuries ago. The gun lobby’s history of America is its Bible and any challenges must be reduced to heresy and the heretics persecuted with zeal.
Thomas Jefferson once said , "A single zealot may become persecutor and better men be his victims." With an army of zealots, one can only imagine the damage that can be inflicted on a free society.
Richard Henry Morgan - 10/8/2003
Don, I too consider Bernstein a scholar -- I used his works in constitutional history to prepare a course in con law I once taught as an ordinary schoolteacher. I have a similar curiosity about his forthcoming introduction. Bernstein makes solid points about not drumming out people who overargue a thesis. My greatest curiosity involves how Bernstein will handle the non-existent San Francisco probate records. Will they fall under Bernstein's characterization as one of Bellesiles' quantification problems, or as an instance of overarguing. To my mind the San Francisco problem fits neither of Bernstein's concessions. What say you?
Don Williams - 10/8/2003
Mr Morgan, you may perhaps recall the Chronicle of Higher Education's Colloquy on Arming America??
See his post at http://chronicle.com/colloquy/2002/guns/137.htm and
my reply at
http://chronicle.com/colloquy/2002/guns/142.htm
Mr Bernstein subsequently responded to my H-OIEAHC posts with some ..er..vigor. (hee hee) One of the subscribers called him on
it --see http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list;=H-oieahc&month;=0208&week;=a&msg;=AvK14BbubKoaArw9MvRmhQ&user;=&pw;=
I mention all this not so much to put forth my arguments on H-OIEAHC --which were largely pointing out the obvious -- as to
show my view of Mr Bernstein, based on my experiences with him.
I do consider Mr Bernstein a scholar ,although my respect for his
arguments in defense of Bellesiles had obvious limits. I have always been curious why Bernstein defended Bellesiles.
For that reason, I'm more interested ,in some ways, in seeing Bernstein's introduction to the new Arming America -- his depiction of the malign effects of the sinister NRA -- than I am in seeing what new card tricks Mr Bellesiles has developed.
Ralph E. Luker - 10/7/2003
Richard, If your daughter married into a family of lawyers, you wouldn't _tell_ anyone would you? I happen to sleep in a bed that came out of the Mark Twain Inn, I think in Jamestown, NY, maybe Conneaut, PA, and the scheister who sold it to me assured me that Mark Twain had slept in it. I don't care. It's a great bed, even if Mark Twain _did_ sleep in it. Have you ever read Mark's short essay about the statistic that reported that more people died in bed each year than in railroad accidents. He vowed that he was never going to sleep in a bed again, which is one of the reasons that I'm skeptical about my bed's authenticity.
Richard Henry Morgan - 10/7/2003
Let's not be too rough on Cornell. There is more than enough sloppiness to go around without making him out a mouthpiece. For instance, Cornell cites Robert Spitzer. Here's an example of Spitzer's (and by implication, his editor, Carl Bogus') attention to detail. On p. 290 of The Second Amendment in Law and History, Spitzer provides the following quote of Patrick Henry, from Elliot's debates:
"May we not discipline and arm them [the states], as well as Congress ..."
In the above quote, which I chopped (the ellipsis is mine, as Spitzer's quote of Henry is longer), the bracketed insert is Spitzer's. It is perfectly obvious to even the casual reader of the entire quote that 'them' refers to the militia, and not the states. This same quote is given bracketed insertions, though of a different sort, by Garry Wills in his NYRB article -- after complaining of chopped-up quotes by individualists. It seems to me that when quoting a crucial piece of text the entire relevant text should be quoted, free of ellipses and bracketed insertions (I plead guilty, on this occasion, to hypocrisy). Spitzer even favorably quotes Garry Wills snarky comments from Wills' breathtakingly bad NYRB article.
Sloppiness or worse abounds. Wills has, in his NYRB article, Madison's original Second Amendment-related proposal as three clauses, all related by semi-colons. But the conscientious objector clause, in the original, is linked to the rest of the proposal by a colon -- it is a mere elaboration of the militia clause, and not directly or equally related to the rights clause. Interestingly, this rewriting seems to dovetail with Wills' thesis. This rewriting of history, sadly, went undetected and therefore without comment in Saul Cornell's reader Whose Right to Bear Arms Did the Second Amendment Protect?, which faithfully reproduces Wills' article. Neither writing nor editing seems to have attained the standards one might wish for.
Richard Henry Morgan - 10/7/2003
Ralph, I applaud the good news, implied by your post, that "sivilization" has reached eastern Tennessee -- assuming, of course, you weren't being flippant (as I am). I once spent a year in Gatlinburg one weekend. I brought up Possum Trot not because I have any problem with that lovely ... uh ... burg, but because I once had a college classmate from there, who did very well for himself by marrying into a distinguished Virginia family of lawyers. As I understand it, the museum at Possum Trot now features a cabin once occupied by Mark Twain's family, though before he was born -- a tenuous claim to historical significance, but perhaps the only one available.
Richard Henry Morgan - 10/7/2003
Don, you have been much too kind to Prof. Bernstein -- he does insist on the 'Professor' moniker. To borrow your quote from Bernstein:
"* Second, I note once more the touching -- and sadly misplaced -- faith
that Don Williams seems to have that federal judges, even justices of the U.S.
Supreme Court, will meekly lap up whatever historical arguments are placed
before them by members of the academic history profession."
I note the touching, indeed sad fact, that Judge Reinhardt of the Ninth Circuit did precisely that -- featuring a butchered quote from John Adams, fed Reinhardt in a brief, that eliminated the fact that Adams thought that private ownership of weapons for self-defense was not a threat to civil order. We are left with a problem. According to Bernstein, judges much of the time don't do their own historical research to great depth. Too true. And they don't meekly lap up history, bad or otherwise. Too often not true, I'm afraid, though one could defend Bernstein's remark on the grounds that the lapping up is not done meekly, but energetically. That's precisely why so much bad history ends up making bad law.
Richard Henry Morgan - 10/7/2003
PS
I see, Benny, that you've taken the Bernstein route -- characterizing "the table question" as a problem of "calculations and graphs". Actually, as would be obvious to a non-partisan, my question goes to a conceptual problem, not Bellesiles problems with elementary arithmetic. To state the conceptual problem again (in Garrett Morris style, for the hard of hearing) HOW DO STATE ARMS SHOW UP IN PROBATE RECORDS OF INDIVIDUALS AS PRIVATE PROPERTY, THUS AS A POSSIBLE SOURCE OF BIAS THAT WOULD JUSTIFY ELIMINATING THOSE YEARS FROM BELLESILES' CALCULATIONS?
Richard Henry Morgan - 10/7/2003
Am I the only one here who finds it passing strange that Bernstein's expertise in constitutional hstory and law is put to use in the service of a cultural history of American gun ownership and use? And we were told that Arming America didn't really have anything to do with the Second Amendment (that despite Rakove's later admission that he read it primarily for its Second Amendment implications). Now if Bellesiles can produce a recognized authority in those fields most centrally relevant to his subject, or even a recognized authority on the Second Amendment to plump his work, then I would be surprised but not impressed.
The appeal to credentials is nothing more than an appeal to authority, a disguised form of argumentum ad verecundium. Were Bernstein's credentials even relevant, the argument would still not be dispositive, as it would merely shift the burden of argument to the other party. Since his credentials aren't relevant, the ball is still in Bellesiles court. Nice try though, Benny. Perhaps you can recruit a Nobel laureate in economics next?
I am looking forward to seeing how Bellesiles finesses the question of his table. I'm also curious as to how he addresses another problem. Bellesiles has written, and Rakove endorsed the view, that problematic passages in constitutional text can be given meaning (or have their meaning revealed) by subsequent legislation (Rakove calls this the behavioural approach in his William & Mary essay, and in his Chicago-Kent contribution). Here's the rub. Bellesiles wrongly (as I've demonstrated elsewhere on this board) characterizes the Knox Plan for the militia as a select militia. The collectivists have gone to great pains to characterize all militia as select. Yet the Militia Act of 1792 applies to all men. By Bellesiles' own constitutional interpretive principles the matter can be settled thus only two ways: either the 1792 act reveals the meaning of the constitutional militia to be universal militia, or it puts the characterization of the militia squarely within the purview of the legislature. If the latter, then "organizing" the militia is a constitutive act, and the national legislature can make one as small or as large as it wants. Rakove quotes Rufus King as dispositive on the meaning of "arming" when he spoke for the committee at the Philadelphia Convention (in Rakove's Chicago-Kent contribution). Not surprisingly, Rakove nowhere mentions that in the next breath King restricts "organizing" to a non-constitutive meaning -- it extends only to deciding which portion are officers, and which are enlisted. Thus the meaning of militia coming out of Philadelphia implies a universal militia, as was subsequently implied by the Militia Act of 1792. How exactly does Bellesiles plan to finesse that? Using Rakove's technique of silence?
Don Williams - 10/7/2003
The header in Mr Bernstein's H-OIEAHC posts describe him as follows:
"R. B. Bernstein
* Adjunct Professor of Law, New York Law School, 57 Worth Street, New York, NY
10013-2960
* Co-Editor of Book Reviews, H-LAW http://www.h-net.msu.edu/~law/
* Senior Research Fellow and Director of Historical Research, Council on
Citizenship Education, Russell Sage College
* Director of Online Operations, Heights Books, Inc., 109 Montague Street,
Brooklyn, NY 11201-3420 [718-624-4876] heightsbooks@aol.com
* rbernstein@nyls.edu, richard_b_bernstein@hotmail.com "
Don Williams - 10/7/2003
1) Throughout much of 2002, I had numerous exchanges with Richard B Bernstein re Bellesiles on H-OIEAHC. He remained steadfast in his defense of Bellesiles but his defense seemed largely "history is a process without end " etc etc. I don't recall him ever addressing the specific errors I pointed to in Arming America.
2) I actually enjoyed my exchanges with Mr Bernstein --he was unfailing courteous while being very critical of my comments.
Based on reading one of his books and scanning another, I have a favorable impression of his scholarship and of his objectivity when he is writing history (vice trying to defend Bellesiles). He and Joan Gundersen were Bellesiles' primary defenders on H-OIEAHC.
3) On occasion, our exchanges became hilarious. On May 22, 2002 the H-OIEAHC moderator put up a Bernstein response to one of my earlier posts. Bernstein went into a long raging stemwinder against my overall view of history, my view of how history should be used by developers of Constitutional law, and the malign effects I saw resulting from Bellesiles' sophistry.
At one point, Bernstein scoffed:
" Nonetheless, Mr. Williams's touching faith in the power of historians to uncloud Justices' minds (or,conversely, to cloud them) is the occasion for lighthearted mirth by this grizzled constitutional historian...
..So, too, Mr. Williams is offering us all sorts of wild testimonials to the power of historians to make constitutional law. I'd like to see the newspaper he is reading. Mine offers no such paeans to the power of historians"
4) The H-OIEAHC moderator then put up a post of mine pointing to a newly published HNN article in which I documented in detail how a group of prominent historians were making a strong concerted effort to influence the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Second Amendment in US vs Emerson. I also documented how Bellesiles was deeply involved in that effort.
Mr Bernstein declined to explain why historians like Jack Rakove would be making such a strong effort if Bernstein's assertions re their powerlessness was true.
5) Bernstein himself explained some of the reasons for his defense of Bellesiles in a January 31, 2003 H-OIEAHC post. An excerpt:
"I applaud John Saillant's comment as H-OIEAHC moderator, and I have only a
few things to add:
* First, I reaffirm what lawyers would call my "character testimony" in
support of Michael Bellesiles as a scholar and a colleague. I note in
particular that, during the worst of his recent ordeal, he gave me
extraordinarily generous aid as I was finishing a book of my own. That
ARMING AMERICA was characterized by flawed quantitative scholarship is
true. That Michael Bellesiles may have overargued his thesis in the book
is also true. I note, however, that in legal academia, if we were to drum
out of the ranks every law professor who overargued his or her thesis, who
accentuated the positive and eliminated the negative in his or her use of
evidence, then the law schools would be nearly empty. Readers of H-OIEAHC
may well have a range of views on the benefits or drawbacks of such a
result. I'll leave those unexplored."
6) Still unbowed, Mr Bernstein goes on to say:
----------------------------------------
"* Second, I note once more the touching -- and sadly misplaced -- faith
that Don Williams seems to have that federal judges, even justices of the U.S.
Supreme Court, will meekly lap up whatever historical arguments are placed
before them by members of the academic history profession.
As a legal and constitutional historian who has studied this question --
and who once was asked to provide an expert-witness affidavit on the
original intent, meaning, and/or understanding of separation of church and
state -- I can attest that judges are skilled at using history to support
whatever present-day legal position they are seeking to substantiate. It
adds force (and deniability) for a judge to be able to say, "History
teaches..." or "History commands..." -- but we should never forget that the
judge is in charge of what his or her opinion says. To paraphrase Charles
Evans Hughes, "We live under a constitution, but its history is whatever
the judges say it is."
Prof. John Phillip Reid of New York University Law School has pointed out,
in a series of challenging books and articles, that one of the key themes
of legal and constitutional history is "forensic history" -- the deploying
of historical evidence and arguments chosen to make a forensic or debating
point.
I would only add that, given the rise of a profession devoted to the
research and writing and teaching of history, the practice of forensic
history has an unintended consequence. People unaware of forensic history
will assume that, when a judge declares "History commands X," the judge has
done the work of an academic historian and reached conclusions that are
sound academic or professional history. As the comedian Paul Reiser would
say, "Not so much." ..."
--------------------------------------
6) A month or so later, the Ninth Circuit Court --in its Silveira vs Lochyer decision that US citizens have no right to own firearms -- certainly gave ample evidence of creating "forensic history" as Bernstein described. However, the Ninth Circuit Court then hastily rushed to amend it's decision in order to delete citations it had made to Bellesiles -- an embarrassing display which made the gun rights community collapse in laughter.
7) The H-OIEAHC posts are available here:
http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=lm&list;=H-oieahc .
I posted under username "vze2t297@verizon.net". Bernstein posted under name ""R. B. Bernstein".
A text scan of this thread's text will also show several posts he has made here.
Don Williams - 10/7/2003
In his post above, Benny asks "Mr. Bernstein, is, I believe, a very distinguished voice in the field of constitutional law and American history. He has edited or authored a dozen books in his area of expertise and has contributed to mainstream history textbooks. Why is it that those vocal Arming America critics do not have such credentials? "
Answer: Some of us got off on the right foot when choosing our major in college.
Samuel Browning - 10/7/2003
I have to second Ralph's comment. Normally you have provided links to you sources of information. Why make an exception now Bennie?
Benny Smith - 10/7/2003
Since Professor Bellesiles has already said that his “Table One” needs clarification, then Mr. Morgan need not spend an exorbitant amount of time attempting to “redo the math.” Mr. Morgan will be happy to know that, from what I’ve read, fixing whatever may have been wrong with “Table One” is a priority in the revised edition of Arming America.
Instead of worrying himself over calculations and graphs, perhaps Mr. Morgan might be inclined to research Mr. Bernstein, who will be writing the new foreword to Arming America. Mr. Bernstein, is, I believe, a very distinguished voice in the field of constitutional law and American history. He has edited or authored a dozen books in his area of expertise and has contributed to mainstream history textbooks. Why is it that those vocal Arming America critics do not have such credentials?
Ralph E. Luker - 10/5/2003
Richard, You ask a good, legitimate question. I can't answer it, but I would like to know what your problem is with Possum Trot, Tennessee. We certainly are well enough armed there. My best scientific estimate (a la John Lott) is that Possum Trot's got 1.3 guns for every man, woman, and child in the holler, just in case the outliers need come to the settlement to defend God, country, and eastern Tennessee sivilization.
Richard Henry Morgan - 10/5/2003
Would that be the same Richard Bernstein who defended Bellesiles by saying that Bellesiles had admitted to mathematical errors? I'm still waiting for an explanation for Bellesiles' leaving out the probate records for two years (while claiming in the table description that the two years were included) on the grounds that the states were distributing arms to citizens -- how exactly do state arms show up in personal probate records? Funny how Weiner swallowed Bellesiles explanation whole on that question.
Richard Henry Morgan - 10/5/2003
Cornell's reply is less than it may appear at first glance. Indeed, the collectivist interpretation did dominate scholarship of the "last century" until the Standard Model made its appearance. However that's like saying that the local McDonald's dominates the skyline of Possum Trot, Tennessee, as there is very little 2nd Amendment scholarship of the last century before the advent of the Standard Model. Of course, this leaves one asking "What about the 19th century"? As in "Where are the sources for this supposed refutation of an individualist consensus in the 19th century"?
Ralph E. Luker - 10/3/2003
As far as I know, my favorite #2 daughter isn't responsible for Soft Skull's website. Are you backing off your claim to know what is on the jacket cover of the revised 2nd edition of _AA_? Why would you do that? Was it too revealing?
Benny Smith - 10/3/2003
I don't remember saying that I gleaned my information from the Soft Skull website. It may be just my opinion, but I don't believe the staff at Soft Skull does a good job keeping its own website updated. We should impose on Mr. Luker to see if has any influence over his daughter and her colleagues to do a better job in that respect.
As far as what I reported, I am sure you can find the information on the web if you keep digging, Mr. Browning. By the way, what I interpreted to be book jacket cover art could end up being an advertising graphic.
Don Williams - 10/3/2003
At the end of last year, I was curious why Bellesiles' one-time allies made no strong effort to defend him or Arming America.
When I posted a possible excuse for Bellesiles' probate errors on H-OIEAHC last January 24,
(See http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=lx&list;=H-oieahc&user;=&pw;=&month;=0301
)
Peter Hoffer (Georgia) responded as follows:
" Williams's defense of Bellesiles is admirable and on the period 1760-1790 convincing. We now know why Bellesiles may have inadvertently mistaken atypical low numbers for a general pattern. But a defense that explains why an argument is wrong, biased, and incorrectly documented is not entirely reassuring about the quality of the larger piece of scholarship of which the argument is a part."
Mr Hoffer, as some of you may recall, was one of those historians who joined Bellesiles in signing the pro-gun control Yassky brief in US vs Emerson.
I suspect Mr Bellesiles' one-time allies may not be as soft-skulled as Bellesiles hopes.
I also have the impression that the worst punishment imposed in academia is not to be attacked, but to be ignored.
But, hey, maybe the Joyce Foundation can give Saul Cornell another $400,000 and Mr Cornell can give it an ..er.. evenhanded review in the Journal of American History.
Samuel Browning - 10/3/2003
By the way I was just over on the Soft Skull website at 3 am on October 3rd and even they haven't yet posted pictures of this Bellesiles book or the graphics contained within said tome. How did you get an advance look? I mean besides handling the gallery proofs yourself.
Samuel Browning - 10/3/2003
Actually Bennie I believe that I had promised John that I would buy him a copy of this edition so we could read the text to answer a simple question, how much of the text of the second edition has Mr. Bellesiles actually changed? The only way to find out is to review this book page by page and compare the texts side by side. I'll buy you a copy if you want to join the fun but I you'll first have to reveal your real name, I hate anonymous scholarship. Such a comparison might do you good, if you are really not MB as you claim, it will be probably the first time you have read anything that Bellesiles has published on paper.
Benny Smith - 10/3/2003
Book distributors are beginning to pitch the highly anticipated second edition of Professor Michael Bellesiles’ Arming America, which is due out soon. The new book "answers his academic critics, providing updated research addressing their legitimate concerns, while finding that the underlying thesis of his book remains as solid as ever," according to the blurb. The book also has a new forward written by constitutional scholar and distinguished historian Richard B. Bernstein, who examines "the virulent power of the American Right to obliterate those voices which speak out in opposition to their own." Sounds like what I’ve been preaching here. If the NRA still has problems with the text, maybe they will find the accompanying book jacket photo less objectionable. The photo features a young girl with racks of guns behind her, a hauntingly poignant portrait of our gun culture today.
Perhaps the beneficent and deep-pocketed Mr. Fought will bulk purchase some advance copies for those here who have expressed an interest in studying and reporting on the new edition. Personally however, I am skeptical that ideologically biased lawyers, linguists and internet scholars can give an adequate critique of Arming America. It’s rather like Rush Limbaugh offering his opinion on football.
Josh Greenland - 10/2/2003
I think that "the Bellesiles-Burt prize" has a nice ring to it.
Bryan Haskins - 9/29/2003
Now Mr. Smith, since you have brought my name into this discussion again, let me make a request. Instead of wasting time talking ABOUT me, why not just talk TO me? After all, it has been your desire to do only the former that has brought us to where we are.
In keeping with that spirit, I do wish to point out one problem I gleaned from your posts with Mr. Lambert. In one of those posts you expressed your sympathetic understanding of how “chilling” it is to have someone “trying to savage my reputation in an effort to render my voice silent.” Please, Mr. Smith, go back and read the posts in your thread “Bellesiles critic struggles to rise from irrelevance” (beginning with http://hnn.us/comments/11626.html). Now honestly, Mr. Smith, would it surprise you if the subject of your attacks in that thread could just as easily accuse you of “trying to savage my reputation in an effort to render my voice silent.” This is not a defense of Mr. Cramer. Rather, I am merely trying to point out how your conduct here gives rise to the complaint of hypocrisy which has been leveled at you. (If you wish to further discuss Mr. Cramer, then I am willing to discuss him with you as part of a larger discussion of the issues which you have hitherto avoided.)
“I believe that diversity of opinion is healthy to an informed debate of the issues.”---I am glad to hear that even at this late date you harbor this conviction. As you recall, I started on this web page on 11/14/02 (http://hnn.us/comments/4809.html) with a request for amicable discussion. Although you did not choose to address my request, you quickly responded in a polite manner. Thereafter, I watched you to see if you would be someone willing to engage in amicable debate.
Unfortunately, you then set the tone for your remaining time here with your “Intellectual lynch mob mentality” thread. I then chose to expose to you my own world view and potential bias, and I asked you to do the same. I challenged you to discuss the issues. You again refused that opportunity for amicable debate by ignoring my questions. Instead, you chose to come after me personally by questioning my work ethic. I then made my analogy between the evasive behavior exhibited by Bellesiles with that of criminals I prosecute (http://hnn.us/comments/5375.html). (I still stand by that analysis.) I again challenged you to engage in a discussion of the issues. It was at this time we began to see the ascendancy of your tactic of aggressively seeking to take offense at what the critics were saying and in turn wielding it as a shield to avoid engaging in debate.
Nevertheless, Mr. Smith, I did not give up hope that one day we could engage in some form of amicable discussion of these issues. As winter deepened, I made many offers to discuss the “issues” with you:
http://hnn.us/comments/5412.html
http://hnn.us/comments/5967.html
http://hnn.us/comments/7445.html
http://hnn.us/comments/7794.html
http://hnn.us/comments/7177.html
http://hnn.us/comments/6430.html
http://hnn.us/comments/7809.html
I even took the dangerous step of exposing my private e-mail address to you and others in the hopes that an offer of private discussion would prevail where an offer to do so in public had failed. You refused to respond to any of my requests, however, and you continued to chose the path of talking about me rather than too me. You continued to take hyper-sensitive offense at what I had to say. I even apologized for this, saying in essence that you selected both the tune and the dance, and that I was sorry for stepping on your toes while trying to follow your lead. Predictably, my repeated requests for discussion failed, and you decided to refuse to speak to me anymore.
Yet I did not give up hope, Mr. Smith. I offered to start anew, and I proposed the fairest format for discussion that my poor intellect could devise: http://hnn.us/comments/8265.html. You chose to ignore the olive branch I offered. Thereafter I watched and I waited, and I restrained myself as you and Mr. Morgan subsequently had a lively exchange.
Finally, you decided to at least mention my name again, and (hoping that spring was come early and had driven away the frost on our relationship) I renewed my offer for discussion: http://hnn.us/comments/8625.html. This too was ignored.
Now you have mentioned my name again, Mr. Smith. Although it is painfully apparent that it was done merely to offer disingenuous criticism of me, it has nevertheless rekindled the flame of hope that we may yet talk to each other about the issues we each believe to be important. And so I offer again, Mr. Smith, to discuss the issues that surround Bellesiles and his work with you (your issues as well as mine). I see that you have started down the same path with Mr. Lambert that you have already traveled with me, and it is my sincere hope that you will turn from this path and finally accept my offers to discuss the issues surrounding AA. What do you say, Mr. Smith?
John G. Fought - 9/28/2003
That sounds about right to me. Have I mentioned that I spent a substantial part of my academic career in linguistics dealing with scholarship of the same caliber? I think that sometime in the past year my polarity finally reversed. I now feel that academic credentials should be valued at par with Confederate government bonds.
The key to what really matters is all those people holding out for peer-reviewed reviews of peer-reviewed publications before deciding what it was safe to say. Long live Sir Cyril Burt! Let us endow a prize in his name!
Josh Greenland - 9/28/2003
Don, what about Saul Cornell?
The more I read him, the more I think Cornell is a mouthpiece who tries to espouse the results of other gun control activists' work as effectively as possible, while trading on his own supposed learnedness to add weight to his words.
In other words, he may have little or nothing original to say on gun politics.
Thomas Gunn - 9/27/2003
IIRC, Bryan was one of the most polite posters here. That you criticize what you perceive as ad homs from him with ad homs of your own is very telling.
Bryan's criticisms of Bellesiles research is the meat of the reasoned debate which you claim to desire, yet instead of debating you seem to take as personal insult what Bryan says. Why is that?
Even odder than your ad homs at the pro gun side of this debate is the manner in which you lash out and attack those who can only be characterized as being against the standard model.
thomas
Tim Lambert - 9/27/2003
Benny, when someone sends me an email, that is a meesage for me, not something for me to post. If I want to post it, then I ask for permission. I have not treated Lindgren differently from other people who email me.
In any case, if you will not acccept my word that there was no "quid quo pro", then my posting a private email would not resolve the matter, since you would accuse me of editting it.
I object to your statement that I was claiming to be clairvoyant about the motives of others. It's not clairvoyance but my judgement about the motives of others
Josh Greenland - 9/27/2003
From Ralph Luker's current HNN article, Clio's Malpractice; or, What's A Fallen Girl To Do? http://hnn.us/articles/1696.html :
"Persistent rumors hold that one tough-minded female historian cast the only vote against Michael Bellesiles's promotion to full professor at Emory University and that another tough-minded female historian single-handedly prevented Arming America from winning the Pulitzer Prize."
Benny Smith - 9/27/2003
So what you’re telling me, Mr. Lambert, is that Professor Lindgren specifically prescribes what is on the record and what is off the record so far as publishing his remarks. That does sound like his familiar modus operandi. It still smells like a quid quo pro to me. What makes me suspicious is that on a prior occasion I posted an article concerning Lindgren to which he responded here at HNN--in a copyrighted response no less!? The editor at HNN picked up his response and wrote a little blurb on it, mentioning myself as well, which gave me and my post much more attention than it would have otherwise received. That led me to wonder if Lindgren wasn’t depending on you to defend him this time around. From what you have said, I guess we’ll never know for certain unless we are to trust your clairvoyance regarding the motives of others. And regarding your own curiosity, I have not received any materials directly from Professor Bellesiles.
Benny Smith - 9/27/2003
Since Mr. Haskins' posts have drawn parallels between Bellesiles' behavior and that of a rapist, Mr. Haskins demonstrates the antithesis of what I would call a "healthy and informed" debate. That gun huggers, apparently including Mr. Gunn himself here, see Mr. Haskins' contributions as something other than the crude ad hominems that they are shows how uncivil Bellesiles' critics have become in this matter.
Tim Lambert - 9/26/2003
Benny, I posted the part of Lindgren's email that was written for posting. All I can do to satisfy your curiosity about the rest is tell you that Lindgren considers your comments about his scholarship and his motives to be inaccurate.
Perhaps you can now satisify my curiosity? Your posts sometimes seem to display a great deal of knowlege about Bellesiles' doings. Does he send you comments and information to post?
Josh Greenland - 9/26/2003
"they do" in the message above should read "they do exist."
Josh Greenland - 9/25/2003
I have URLs to websites that demonstrate that they do, but I think our diligent editor wouldn't appreciate me posting them here.
Thomas Gunn - 9/25/2003
Benny Smith,
"I believe that diversity of opinion is healthy to an informed debate of the issues."
RIGHT!!
I can remember the 'healthy' and 'informed debate' you avoided with Bryan Haskins.
thomas
Benny Smith - 9/24/2003
Mr. Lambert said:
"So now Smith insinuates that Lindgren paid me off. For the record , I wrote my original response to Smith before Lindgren sent me his response for posting on my blog:
http://timlambert.org/2003/09#0919
"
Then why don't you share Lindgren's e-mail in its entirety right here, unless there is some reason you are only willing to share the portion that is damaging to John Lott's research. I would be curious to see what Professor Lindgren had to say about me and my article. Since I did not see anything on your blog where Lindgren mentioned myself or HNN, then I assume there is more than what you published.
And I thank you for contributing to my thread here, Mr. Lambert. Although we may not agree, I believe that diversity of opinion is healthy to an informed debate of the issues. I can imagine how chilling it would be to my freedom of speech if there were some academic gestapo or some powerful lobby trying to savage my reputation in an effort to render my voice silent.
Ralph E. Luker - 9/24/2003
Josh, Are there no such things as big tits and tats?
Josh Greenland - 9/24/2003
Ralph,
Tit for tat refers to an immature attempt to "get someone back" for a perceived slight or wrong.
Tim Lambert - 9/24/2003
So now Smith insinuates that Lindgren paid me off. For the record , I wrote my original response to Smith before Lindgren sent me his response for posting on my blog:
http://timlambert.org/2003/09#0919
Smith neglects to mention that Lindgren's response showed that Smith was wrong to suggest that Lindgren had dropped out of the Lott investigation and that Smith was wrong to suggest that Lindgren had tried to clear Lott.
My continued participation in this thread is because you keep making false claims that I want to correct.
I should thank you for one thing, however. Lindgren's response has prompted more pro-gunners to ditch Lott. For instance, Glenn Reynolds wrote:
"I trust Jim Lindgren as a neutral arbiter with expertise in the area, and it seems to me that this time Lott’s critics have him dead to rights, and he’s failed to mount a convincing response."
Benny Smith - 9/24/2003
Mr. Lambert said, "It takes a rare talent for detecting 'nuances in statements' to read Lindgren's report on Lott:
http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/lindgren.html
and see it as a defence of Lott . . .Your 'evidence' for investigative bias by Lindgren is nothing of the sort. Like Lindgren, I started out trying to find evidence that Lott had done a survey. Do you think I am biased in favour of Lott as well?"
Again, you take my statement out of its context, Mr. Lambert. I hope your habit of misquoting me is not carried over to your other scholarly endeavors. But to answer your question within the context of my statement, Mr. Lambert, if you professed that you were undertaking your study of John Lott to HELP him establish THAT he did such a pro-gun survey, then yes, I would say you were going in with an investigative bias, particularly if it stood in context with the other evidence.
Review again Lindgren's treatment of the Bellesiles case. Lindgren has spent what you have termed "lifetimes" in this endeavor. And Lindgren is still laying out his case here long after the official investigation has ended. Remember, the Chronicle of Higher Education described Lindgren's excessive preoccupation with the Bellesiles matter in an article that ran close to TWO YEARS AGO. In that piece, one academic said he heard from Lindgren more often than he heard from his own wife--this as Lindgren lobbied those who initially had positive things to say about "Arming America", urging them to retract their statements of support. One educator said he felt professionally threatened by Lindgren's tactics. Does this sound like an objective investigator to you, Mr. Lambert? Why then did the ad hoc Emory investigative committee say they did not find Lindgren's evidence in at least two cases to be as "damning" as he claimed? Were they as troubled by his peculiar brand of attack scholarship as I am? If Lindgren is the objective investigator that you, Mr. Lambert, believe he is, then did he find and report exculpating evidence for the sins allegedly committed by Bellesiles? Or was he only interested in the evidence he felt was "damning?" Perhaps, since Lindgren's background is in law rather than in history, he feels compelled to be an advocate, rather than an objective reporter of the facts. I believe he merely bears a heavy grudge.
Regarding Kellerman, I believe that the gun lobby has "gotten" him in ways you may not be aware of. Kellerman and other anti-gun researchers may annoy the gun rights activists, but what Bellesiles did was sacrilegious to the NRA. Pair the words "Bellesiles" and the "NRA" on Google and you get over 2,000 hits, whereas pairing "Kellerman" with the "NRA" gets you just under 640 hits. Bellesiles challenged the myths that provide the foundation for our gun culture, a far greater threat to the gun lobby.
It is curious how vigorously Mr. Lambert defends Lindgren here. Since Lindgren strangely appears to have originally responded to my article in a private e-mail to Mr. Lambert, and subsequently printed on Mr. Lambert's website, it is interesting to note that Lindgren also in that e-mail provided more ammunition for Mr. Lambert in his ongoing war of words against pro-gun researcher John Lott. Evidence of a quid pro quo?
Samuel Browning - 9/23/2003
Hi Benny:
If you choose to remember inconvenent facts, Lindgren originally set out to help Michael Bellesiles privately, even offering to let him borrow a CD rom disk containing probate data. They have since become bitter enemies, however existing facts as provided by Lindgren, and as never really refuted by Bellesiles (I'm skipping over Michael's bizzare claims that he never wrote a certain e-mail)indicate that the latter was initially extended the presumption of good faith that Lott also later received from Lindgren.
Your attempt to show bias therefore collapses under its own weight. But since you were probably there perhaps you'll like to tell your side of the story about your interactions with Mr. Lindgren in the first person. Right Michael?
Tim Lambert - 9/23/2003
It takes a rare talent for detecting "nuances in statements" to read Lindgren's report on Lott:
http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/lindgren.html
and see it as a defence of Lott.
Your "evidence" for investigative bias by Lindgren is nothing of the sort. Like Lindgren, I started out trying to find evidence that Lott had done a survey. Do you think I am biased in favour of Lott as well?
What happened to Bellesiles had everything to do with academic policing. The evidence against him is compelling and however much the gun lobby wanted to get him they could not have manufactured such evidence. The gun lobby would like to get Kellermann just as much as Bellesiles and there are numerous attacks on Kellermann available on the web. Half of the pro-gun posters here seem to believe that Kellermann is somehow guilty of fraud. Trouble is, of course, that no-one who actually understands the relevant statistics takes the attacks on Kellermann seriously since the people making them don't know what they are talking about.
If the gun lobby had the power you describe they would have gotten Kellermann. But they didn't, because there was no case against him.
Josh Greenland - 9/23/2003
"And evidence of Lindgren’s bias is even more extant in his investigation of Bellesiles."
Come off it, Belle Siles. Lindgren is pro-gun control and by his own admission at first found Arming America "convincing".
Ronald Best - 9/22/2003
"The resurrection of activity here may foreshadow more gun lobby harrassment directed against Michael Bellesiles whose second edition of Arming America is due out soon. "
Michael Bellesiles "harrassment" was deserved--he lied, the lies can be found on almost every page of his book.
"Lindgren's scholarship has borrowed liberally from gun rights propagandist and right wing extremist Clayton Cramer, whose own vendetta against Bellesiles rivals Lindgren's own."
I suppose I can also be known as a gun rights propagandist and right wing extremist. But then along with Clayton Cramer, I respect the truth.
An Endowment Member of the National Rifle Association.
Benny Smith - 9/22/2003
Mr. Lambert will have to forgive me if I am skeptical of those who claim to be central repositories for the truth, whether it is Professor Lindgren in his translation of centuries old documents and events, or Mr. Lambert himself in his assessment of Mr. Lindgren’s motives. Mr. Lambert has done nothing to convince me of Lindgren’s objectivity in his investigation of Bellesiles and Lott. Mr. Lambert need only read from the first paragraph of Lindgren’s own report of John Lott: “I thought that offering such help to Lott and to the profession was the responsible thing to do when serious questions were raised, and I thought it would be exceedingly simple to establish that a survey of 2,424 people had been done.”
It is clear that, unlike in the Bellesiles affair, Lindgren went it with a notion to help Lott. Note that his statement regarding Lott’s work showed that his goal was to “establish that a survey . . . had been done.” Not establish WHETHER a survey had been done, or IF a survey had been done, but THAT a survey had been done. That sounds like clear investigative bias to me, even if nuances in statements like that escape Mr. Lambert. When it became clear that there were major problems in establishing the existence of Lott’s pro-gun survey, and when Lott’s reputation and honesty began to unravel rather publicly, Lindgren high-tailed it out of that mess more quickly than a loser in court. Lindgren may be biased, but he’s not stupid. And evidence of Lindgren’s bias is even more extant in his investigation of Bellesiles.
Regarding Bellesiles, his fate had nothing to do with academic policing and everything to do with the gun lobby and right wing power politics. If Mr. Lambert’s teaching venue were here in the United States, he might suffer the same fate as Bellesiles if the president of the NRA decreed that he too had too much time on his hands. As it is, he can be merely ignored where he is.
Thomas Gunn - 9/20/2003
Mr. Lambert,
As previously stated, I agree with this:
http://hnn.us/comments/18530.html
My purpose in requesting a cross link was to establish that the post actually came from you. It would be easy for a poser to hijack your name here but not so easy to do so on your blog.
Thank you for the authentification.
I apologize if I've upset you, it was not my intention.
thomas
Ralph E. Luker - 9/20/2003
Perhaps so, Josh. But don't you think the real tit for tat would be for Lott apologists to go on the wagon as Bellesiles apologists, except for Benny, did?
Josh Greenland - 9/19/2003
"Lott's critics have tended to be more gracious about people with whom they may disagree than Bellesiles's critics have tended to be."
Ah yes, Tim Lambert's tit for tat response to me in your blog's comment area is truly evidence of that.
Tim Lambert - 9/19/2003
You are turning the truth on its head when you question Lindgren's objectivity because he chooses to spend more time on the investigation of Bellesiles than of Lott. Of all the people involved in both investigations he is the one with the strongest claim for objectivity because he was involved in both investigations.
Yes, the end result of academic policing is that sometimes reputations are ruined, but that is the whole point of the exercise. When you publish something, you are putting your reputation on the line and if that publication is found to be fraudulent or incompetent then you should suffer the consequences. Can you imagine what it would be like if folks could publish papers anonymously?
I did not say you had done nothing here, I said that you had done nothing to further the investigation into Lott. It is really easy to contribute, since Lott's work is a target-rich environment. Just open his new book at a random page and compare what Lott says with what his sources say.
Tim Lambert - 9/19/2003
OK,
http://timlambert.org/2003/09#0919
Does everyone else have to provide a cross link too?
Benny Smith - 9/19/2003
Perhaps part of my message was mistranslated down under since I never accused Lindgren of "not doing enough to investigate John Lott’s claims" as Mr. Lambert indicates. I did, and do, question Professor Lindgren’s investigative objectivity, partly because he seems to pick and choose which battles he will spend "lifetimes" fighting. Long after the Emory investigation has concluded, and long after he had overplayed his hand with the Emory investigative committee, Lindgren continues to pour blood in the water, trying to incite the gun lobby and others who have campaigned relentlessly for Bellesiles’ intellectual assassination. Just this past week Bellesiles characterized his situation in a report, saying: "It destroyed my life. I had dedicated myself to teaching, not writing, and it's been devastating to me not being able to teach. It shattered my family. It was devastating in every way, shape, and form. I can barely give it words."
If this end result of ‘academic policing’ is what you advocate Mr. Lambert, then shame on you. Personally, I am proud of the courage shown by Professor Bellesiles in this matter. In a nation awash with guns, gun huggers and right wing politicos who worship both, I’ll certainly stand up for the honor of an author who dares to exercise his academic and literary freedoms by questioning NRA dogma. And maybe you believe I have "done nothing" here, Mr. Lambert, but even with my limited time I believe that my past contributions here have been substantive. I’m sure I could contribute much more in your eyes if I had a university position with tenure, and all the free time to do what I please that apparently goes with it. Until then, however, I hope you will tolerate my contributions here without feeling the need to insult me.
Ralph Lambert - 9/18/2003
This is really Thomas Gunn
Ralph,
You probably know better than me. It wasn't so much what was said but how it was said.
Like I said, I agree with the sentiment and analysis of Benny's single point addressed.
thomas
Ralph E. Luker - 9/18/2003
Sounds like Tim to me, Thomas. Lott's critics have tended to be more gracious about people with whom they may disagree than Bellesiles's critics have tended to be.
Thomas Gunn - 9/18/2003
Tim?
Issat You?
A cross link would be nice. Just to establish bona fides. I agree with your analysis, I just wonder is that really you.
thomas
Tim Lambert - 9/18/2003
I'm only going to comment on one of "Benny Smith"'s points. That should not be construed as an agreement with any of his other statements since I don't agree with any of them.
"Smith" accuses Jim Lindgren of not doing enough to investigate John Lott's claims. This is an outrageous charge. Lindgren has done more that almost any other person to investigate Lott. What has "Smith" done? Nothing. Lindgren has done way more than could reasonably be expected of him in investigating Lott. I believe that part of the duties of being an academic is policing our own, but Lindgren has already done enough of that for several lifetimes in the Bellesiles affair, so more than anyone else there was no obligation for him to get involved in the Lott affair. I am most grateful for the assistance that Lindgren has provided to the investigation, and it irritates me when people like "Smith", who have done nothing, dare to criticize Lindgren for not doing enough.
Don Williams - 9/18/2003
When I saw some shortlived spam posted here a week ago --advertising medical remedies for erectile disorders -- I assumed that you had finally found gainful employment.
You , of course, are not intellectually qualified to wipe Mr Lindgren's behind--much less discuss his scholarship. My suggestions that he should shore up his data a little was meant in the spirit of urging him to pound the stake in a little deeper.
My discussion of the probate study is hardly recent -- I posted
"In defense of Bellesiles" on H-OIEAHC back on January 24 of this year. Admittedly, I had several motivations. Partly I was intrigue by Jack Rakove's comment in the Chicago Tribune. As I noted:
**********
" On December 14 2002, the New York Times announced that Columbia University had rescinded the Bancroft award given to Michael Bellesiles.
In the previous weeks, even Bellesiles' former allies --prominent historians who had cited Bellesiles' work to support their gun control arguments in the Chicago Kent Law Review, the Constitutional Commentary, and the US vs Emerson Yassky brief -- had either seemed silent or had thrown in the towel.
A Nov 20 Chicago Tribune article quoted Jack Rakove of Stanford as follows:
"It's clear now that his [Bellesiles] scholarship is less than
acceptable," Rakove said. "There are cautionary lessons for historians here."
(I blinked when I read this, given that page 583 of Arming America has the following acknowledgment: "Jack Rakove kindly went through the second draft with a keen eye and improved every page he read.")"
************
By way of reply, Mr Rakove admitted on H-OIEAHC that he had recommended Bellesiles for the Stanford Fellowship to write Arming America.
My understanding is that in 1995, Michael Bellesiles was an untenured associate professor approaching middle age. In my opinion, Bellesiles wrote Arming America --and not Jack Rakove --for the same reason that suicide bombs are carried into Israel by impressionable young men and not by Yassar Arafat.
Plus, I was interested in truth, justice, and fairness. That too.
Samuel Browning - 9/18/2003
Err Benny;
If you read Lindgren's report closely you would have discovered it was hardly a defense of Lott since it pointed out multiple inconsistancies in Lott's version of events which he communicated to Lindgren. I don't think that even Tim Lambert, Lott's chief nemesis, would call the Lindgren report a defense of Lott though since further exculpatory evidence has not appeared since January, I have personally concluded that Lindgren was probably mistaken when he concluded Lott had actually conducted his 1997 survey. By the way Lambert says that what Bellisiles did went 'beyond the pale' proving that just because you think one of these gentlemen lied one does not have to argue on behalf of the other. Such distinctions however seem lost upon you.
Benny Smith - 9/18/2003
Curiouser and curiouser this little corner of cyberspace becomes. The resurrection of activity here may foreshadow more gun lobby harrassment directed against Michael Bellesiles whose second edition of Arming America is due out soon. Although I can understand the never-say-enough attitude of the gun rights activists, I am surprised that they are joined by Bellesiles' chief persecutor Professor James (Jim) Lindgren. Afterall, the beginning of the academic year usually portends preparatory coursework, a host of introductions, and the usual committee assignments. What makes Lindgren drag his soapbox in here now to pursue his peculiar brand of attack scholarship? Maybe after getting his reputation stung while trying to defend gun rights activist John Lott this past winter, he feels he might be better off preaching to the choir. But even here, he ends up defending his work to Mr. Williams, a fellow Bellesiles critic. How low can you go?
Maybe Mr. Williams is joining others who have begun to question Professor Lindgren's investigative abilities. I found it telling that in Emory University's Investigative Committee Report on Michael Bellesiles, the committee not once but TWICE characterized evidence against Bellesiles to be not so "damning" as Lindgren claimed. If one is to believe that the committee chose their words carefully, which is logical considering the extreme interest in this case, then their redundancy in characterizing Lindgren's attacks is significant. They essentially referred to Lindgren's claims in the same manner as one might refer to charges brought forward by a grand inquisitor in a witch hunt. Coincidence?
Then there's Professor Lindgren's ill-fated attempt to defend gun rights propagandist John Lott. After serious questions arose regarding a survey that Lott claimed to have done, Lindgren interviewed "at length" a man who claimed to have been interviewed by Lott for the survey. Lindgren pronounced him credible and the Washington Times in a follow-up article credited Lindgren when it said the matter of whether Lott had actually done such a survey was partly resolved. Yet others investigated further and found that the man who claimed to have been interviewed by Lott had extensive connections to the gun lobby, and was himself a former NRA board member. Apparently, this was not significant enough for Professor Lindgren to investigate himself. That Lindgren should naively trust hard core gun rights activists at their word is not at all surprising, however. Lindgren's scholarship has borrowed liberally from gun rights propagandist and right wing extremist Clayton Cramer, whose own vendetta against Bellesiles rivals Lindgren's own. It was up to another investigator to discover that Lott himself was masquerading on the internet as "Mary Rosh", alternately praising and defending himself in various forums. No wonder that Lindgren excused himself from investigating further, claiming ironically enough that "this project detracts from my other scholarly efforts."
So I guess these scholarly efforts include chatting with the members of the NRA who lurk here at this site. Maybe scholarship to some is whatever they happen to be interested in doing at the moment.
Josh Greenland - 9/17/2003
Bellesiles and related subjects we've discussed here are now being discussed in the reader response area of Ralph Luker's blog:
http://hnn.us/articles/1558.html
Don Williams - 9/15/2003
I hope to explain it in a few days -- I'm trying to work something out at the moment. When I do, I hope you will find Mr Cornell's comments as comical as I do.
John G. Fought - 9/15/2003
I've replied in the comments section of Ralph's blog.
Josh Greenland - 9/15/2003
Please ignore the message above this one. I accidentally saved it to the board before I was done writing and editing it.
Josh Greenland - 9/15/2003
This is Ralph Luker's most recent blog entry on the "Gun Wars," featuring mention of John Fought's most recent article and Saul Cornell's attempted rebuttal ( http://hnn.us/articles/1368.html ) :
THE GUN WARS ... 09-12-03
Those who followed the discussion of Michael Bellesiles's Arming America on History News Network will know that John Fought and I often, well, fought. In my lesser moments, I even referred to him as "Professor Past Tense." Sorry about that, John. Well, he has put his talents to more deconstructive work and posted the results on his website. It is, to my knowledge, the first extended examination of problems in Bellesiles's article, "The Origins of American Gun Culture in the United States, 1760-1865," which won the Organization of American Historian's Binkley-Stephenson Award for "best article of the year" in its Journal of American History.* Forewarning: do not expect John to mince any words about the professional depravity of any historian, living or dead, who may have failed to see it all in 1996.
*Update (10: a.m.): Before my gun-loving friends send a posse after me, I hasten to add that the first part of this sentence is wrong. Clayton Cramer's "Gun Scarcity in the Early Republic?" which the Journal of American History might have published and from which it should have taken warning five years ago is posted here. [ http://www.claytoncramer.com/GunScarcity.pdf ]
Saul Cornell speaks his mind, again: After seeing this post about Fought's essay, Saul Cornell writes:
In a quick glance at the essay by Fought I noted that it contains a number of errors. Since some of these errors have been repeated on HNN since the start of the Arming America controversy it is time to set the record straight.
Perhaps the most glaring mistake would be the charge that the collective rights view of the Second Amendment is revisionist. Most courts in the 20th century have adopted it, and political scientist Robert Spitzer has shown that it dominated the scholarly literature for most of the last century until the rise of the so called "Standard Model" in the last two decades of the 20th century. While one might describe Bellesiles and others as part of a counter-revisionist wave, the term revisionist is simply wrong. (The Standard Model argues that the individual rights view dominated the 19th century, but this has also been challenged quite effectively.) While one might argue that the Chicago-Kent essays made use of the argument of Arming America, my Constitutional Commentary forum appeared before Arming America. The work of other supporters of the militia based view of the Amendment, including Don Higginbotham, Lawrence Cress, and Richard Morris all pre-date Arming America.
It is true that I did use some of Michael's flawed work on gun laws in my essay. I no longer cite that article and have had to go out and do the research from scratch. Actually, I found that if Michael had been less thesis driven, he might have made a more robust argument in favor of weapons regulation in early American history. (One of many ironies in this mess.) If one analyzed individual rights scholarship with the same level of scrutiny applied to Arming America one would detect a host of errors at least as bad as those made by Arming America. The probate material is obviously in a separate category-- but the selective use of evidence and distortion of the historical record is quite common in individual rights scholarship.
Here is a link to a very lively debate on the Second Amendment and guns which touches on some of these issues.
[ http://www.abanet.org/publiced/focus/spring_03.pdf ]
Posted by Ralph 2:00 a.m. EDT
Josh Greenland - 9/15/2003
As Ralph notes on his blog, Saul Cornell was kind enough to correct the errors in John Fought's essay:
Don Williams - 9/13/2003
1) Re the probate studies used by Mr Lindgren, here are the details I noted in my H-OIEAHC post:
" The wartime effect I speak of, if it existed, would have hit records
from 1776 to 1790. The prepondence of records Bellesiles checked would
probably have been in that timeframe, both because of greater population in
1780s vice 1760s and because of a greater number of deaths due to the war,
wartime smallpox epidemic, etc.
By contrast, the probate studies which Mr Lindgren used in his William
and Mary Law Review Article on Arming America were as follows: A) Alice
Hanson Jones /1774 period /919 inventories B) Providence, Rhode Island /
1679-1726 period / 149 inventories C) Gunston Hall sample of
Virginia-Maryland /1740-1810 period /325 inventories D) Essex , Mass /
1636-1650 period / 59 inventories E) Gloria Main'study of Maryland Estates
/1657-1719 period / 604 inventories F) Anna Hawley's study of Surry County
VA estates/ 1690-1715 /221 inventories G) Male inventories from Vermont /
1773-1790 /289 inventories H) Judith McGaw's study of New
Jersey/Pennsylvania /1714-1789 /250 estates
Of the above probate samples, note that A,B, D,E,F would NOT have
shown the wartime effect I describe. Sample G would not have shown it
because it was not in a coastal area. Samples C and H may have shown the
wartime effect to a SLIGHT degree (because a small percentage of sample
period falls within 1776-1790 timeframe and because part of the samples
fall within coastal areas.)
The difference between pre-1776 conditions and conditions in 1776-1790
might explain how Bellesiles got results different from those of other
researchers. “
2) Note that the Gunston Hall sample of 325 inventories was spread over a long
period (1740-1810) and only part of them would date after 1776. Besides, as I noted
earlier, Thomas Jefferson’s statement re arms scarcity in Tidewater and Piedmont Virginia
circa 1781-82 has far more authority than small samples of whatever material has survived to
the present day—i.e., it trumps the Alice Hanson Jones, Gunston Hall, and Anna Hawley
studies.
3) Firearms ownership in Vermont in 1773-1790 is irrelevant to the context of the Constitution’s
creation and the meaning of the Second Amendment. Vermont was not admitted to the Union until
February 1791, she was an independent nation prior to that, she had no delegates to the Constitutional Convention or to the First Congress, and her Experience with citizens possessing (or not possessing firearms) would not have informed the counsels Of the Founders. See http://www.victorianvermont.com/celebrate/celebfact_right.html . One exception
To this judgment is that Vermonters helped clean Burgoyne’s clock at Bennington –thereby inducing the French King to throw his support to the US and declare war on Britain. The prowness of
Vermont’s militias (Ethan Allen and Green Mountain Boys,etc) was probably known to some. You may
Recall that Bellesiles wrote a book on the subject.
4) Re Charleston,SC probate results, note the material on Bellesiles site here: http://www.bellesiles.com/Charleston.html He indicates that there are
“435 inventories for the three years 1783, 1784, and 1785” and lists the ones with firearms.
By my count, there are 103 gun owners and 5 records of potential gun owners. Splitting the
Difference on the uncertain records, we have 106 gun owners out of 435 cases , yielding an ownership rate in 1783-1785 of roughly 24%, well below the rate indicated by Mr Lindgren above (i.e, the statement “My student Gant McCloud counted the rate of gun ownership in male inventories in Charleston, SC in the late 1780s at between 39 and 49% (we are still rechecking some numbers)” )
Bellesiles notes that Charleston, SC was the most highly populated of
The South Carolina probate districts in that timeframe.
5) The Westmoreland PA county was a frontier county –perhaps Mr Lindgren
can tell us how it’s population compared with the coastal counties like Philadelphia.
6) If some new latebreaking study is published just before the Supreme Court rules on the
Second Amendment, Mr Lindgren may not have the time to leisurely check the data behind the
Study. Several years ago, the Joyce Foundation gave roughly $85,000 to create the Chicage Kent law review articles cited by the Ninth Circuit Court recently (in the Silveira v Lochyer ruling that US citizens have No right to own firearms.) It also gave the Violence Policy Institute roughly $1 million – and VPI
Put out news releases touting the Chicago Kent articles as leading edge scholarship.
I’m glad that Mr Lindgren is trying to remedy the weaknesses in his data.
Does Mr Lindgren think that the Joyce Foundation gave Saul Cornell money in order to develop data supporting the “Individual right” interpretation?
7) My primary concern, as a NRA member, is that the NRA leadership and lobbyists get $millions per year from members
to protect the Second Amendment and the NRA leadership seems to
be asleep at the switch on this matter.
James Lindgren - 9/13/2003
Mr. Williams mischaracterizes the years of sources I used ("the 1600s and 1700-1774 timeframes of Mr Lindgren's sources"). In my Yale and (co-authored) William & Mary articles, I discussed 1780s cases from several sources. First, I discussed many cases of guns in Vermont in the 1780s, particulary the 1786-90 period, where Bellesiles missed most of Vermont's guns in the very counties he reported data from (Yale Appendix). I also discussed 1780s cases in the Gunston Hall database, as Mr. Williams himself previously noted.
Mr. Williams says that the later 1780s is the most important period for the Constitution, but he never provides any evidence for his hypothesis that guns might be listed rarely enough in inventories in the 1780s to offset large numbers of guns in the 1765-1774 period. In other words, Mr. Williams never tests his hypothesis by looking at probate inventories to see whether his speculations are in fact true.
Leaving aside the impossibility of Bellesiles's data, I looked at what data I had available for the late 1780s. My student Gant McCloud counted the rate of gun ownership in male inventories in Charleston, SC in the late 1780s at between 39 and 49% (we are still rechecking some numbers), just below the proportion of estates listing clothes and above the proportion listing books. In the Rutland, VT probate district in the same period, we get about 29-35% of male inventories with guns, again more than list books.
In Westmoreland County, PA, about 2/3rds of male inventories in the 1786-90 period list guns. The Gunston Hall database (parts of MD & VA), show over 75% of inventories listing guns in the 1786-89 period.
All but the last of these four sources were supposedly in Bellesiles's sample in his Table 1, though the actual numbers of guns in these late 1780s inventories are high enough (when combined with other counts) to reject Table 1 for the 1765-90 period.
These data are far from conclusive, but so far there are no data to support Mr. Williams's hypothesis about very low levels of guns in post-war 1780s inventories in Bellesiles's sample counties, and I have provided enough contrary data that Mr. Williams's argument--always highly speculative--looks even more so.
John G. Fought - 9/11/2003
I have just posted the unpublished article I wrote on Bellesiles' Origins paper of 1996, its context, and its consequences. It runs about 10,000 words. Access it at
http://users.adelphia.net/~jgfought
Don Williams - 9/11/2003
firearms ownership rates in the 1785-1790 will probably play a bigger role in interpreting the context of the Second Amendment (proposed with the other Bill of Rights in late Sept 1789) than
ownership rates in the 1600s and 1700-1774 timeframes of Mr Lindgren's sources. This will be especially likely if someone makes a case to the Supreme Court --however contrived or false -- that the 1785-1790 rates of PRIVATE firearms ownership were low.
Ralph E. Luker - 9/11/2003
Glad to know Don sees me acting in some role or other. He can be counted on to act as himself.
Don Williams - 9/11/2003
however, his blog post re JAH is charming -- although, it reminds me for some reason of Louis Renault (police inspector in "Casablanca" )
Don Williams - 9/11/2003
1) When I looked at Bellesiles' 1996 article last year, I could only find it online via JSTOR. However, JSTOR is not hard to use and many colleges/universities have JSTOR access open to public visitors. The nearest JSTOR location can be found here:
http://www.jstor.org/about/participants_na.html
James Lindgren - 9/10/2003
I gave 2 links in the preceding post, neither of which appeared. I will try again, leaving off the http://
Michael Bellesiles's current website on probate data:
http://www.bellesiles.com
My Yale review of AA:
http://www.law.northwestern.edu/faculty/fulltime/Lindgren/LindgrenFINAL.pdf
James Lindgren - 9/10/2003
Thanks for your kind words.
As to issues other than the probate evidence, those concerns are addressed in Randolph Roth's Wm & Mary Quarterly piece, in most of Clayton Cramer's comments and evidence on his website, in most of Robert Churchill's writing on this matter, and in most of Joyce Malcolm's comments. I address many of these in my Yale LJ review of Arming America, which focuses mainly on problems other than in the discussions of probate.
I also spend considerable time in my Yale review on what parts of the thesis tend to stand or fall on the probate evidence. I also describe what the thesis would look like without the probate discussion entirely, and how the thesis on the existence or non-existence of a "gun culture" should be viewed after the work of the other various scholars has been evaluated.
One can read my Yale review here:
As to what Bellesiles might say about probate records, one might get some clues by visiting his website:
James Lindgren
Professor of Law
Northwestern University
Bryan Haskins - 9/10/2003
Thank you, Mr. Lindgren.
Your response was very informative. I remain curious about the methodology being used in and the eventual results which will arise from this “correcting” process Mr. Weiner referenced in his February 03 article. The announced October 03 release date for the revised AA is fast approaching, and it’s said that anticipation breeds speculation. I know that many of us are wondering what the revised probate data will look like.
Will Bellesiles continue to try and justify his original findings? Does the process of “correcting” his errors involve an attempt to replicate his original research to determine what errors were made? Does he even possess the necessary information to do so (or the time, for that matter)? Will he accept your advice, Mr. Lindgren, and address the contrary evidence that you, Mrs. Main, and others have found?
Mr. Weiner suggests that even if we discard the probate data, AA’s thesis is still supported by other sufficient evidence. That sounds a little too much like the wizard telling Dorothy to ignore that man behind the curtain. I don’t believe that Bellesiles can safely abandon his probate data now that others have discovered compelling probate evidence which contradicts his thesis. In any event we can safely assume from Mr. Weiner’s comments that Bellesiles has not yet abandoned the attempt to have probate data validate his thesis. I cannot pretend to know his reasoning for this. It could arise from fear that dropping the probate issue entirely will appear as an admission of prior fraud; or it could arise from some sense of insecurity about the ability of his remaining evidence to support his thesis absent being shorn up by probate data; or it could arise from any number of other motives.
Regardless of why Bellesiles chooses to continue the use of probate data, I do believe that he must address the contrary evidence that you and others have discovered. AA has already been assailed by those (myself included) who believe that it was written merely to provide justification for a preconceived thesis. I believe that at a minimum the revised version of AA should acknowledge these contrary findings and address how, if at all, they impact upon his probate research and his overall thesis. I doubt that he will do this, but only time will tell.
Ralph E. Luker - 9/10/2003
Sam, I stand to be corrected by others who know better, but the only on-line access to the article I'm aware of is through JSTOR which can be accessed only through participating libraries. Perhaps someone else knows how to access it on-line some other way.
Samuel Browning - 9/10/2003
Hi Ralph:
I wish to respond to JAH's response but I do not presently have a link to Bellesiles's 1996 JAH article though I remember seeing it available at one time on one of our threads. Can anyone help me here? I really should review this article again to refresh my memory before I engage my mouth. :)
Ralph E. Luker - 9/9/2003
For those of you who may not have seen it, this is posted on my blog today:
THE JOURNAL OF AMERICAN HISTORY "RESPONDS" ... 09-09-02
Ten months ago, after the outside reviewers' panel at Emory University released its report in the case of Michael Bellesiles, the Organization of American Historians announced that the "editorial board of the Journal of American History will consider a commissioned essay or a roundtable to address the ethical issues of this and other recent cases and how much historians rely on trust in practicing their craft."
According to JAH editor Joanne Meyerowitz, the Journal has commissioned "several authors to write short essays on issues of historical ethics, and we intend to publish them in March 2004." The names of the authors have not been released and their essays are still in revision, but Meyerowitz says that the commissioned essays "do not directly address the Bellesiles case." Rather, they "deal more generally with questions of ethics in historical practice."
With respect to the Journal's responsibility for the publication of Bellesiles's prize-winning article in 1996, Meyerowitz says:
The key clue (and perhaps the only clue) to the questionable research in Bellesiles's 1996 JAH essay was in his Table 1. All of our editorial staff (editors, copyeditors, and editorial assistants)--most of whom did not work here in 1996--have reviewed Table 1 and used it as a refresher course of sorts on how to approach, scrutinize, question, and edit quantitative data.
We do, by the way, check footnotes. But no journal can send assistants to archives to check the accuracy of authors' primary research.
Thus, while Bellesiles lost his position in the history department at Emory University, the Bancroft Prize for his book, Arming America,was revoked, and the book was withdraw from sale by his publisher, he continues to hold the Binkley-Stephenson Prize for having published the Journal of American History's "best article of the year" for 1996 and the Journal will apparently take no action to acknowledge the flaws in the article that launched the book.
James Lindgren - 9/8/2003
Mr. Haskins raises the size of the differences between Arming America and the existing work. One of the largest was pointed out by Gloria Main in the William & Mary Quarterly, speaking about Bellesiles's probate counts:
"Are his results credible? Bellesiles bases his case against the presence of a "gun culture" in early white America on the very low percentages of guns in his sample of inventories, fewer than one out of five. Indeed, he found only 7 percent in Maryland with guns (p. 109). My own work in the probate records of six Maryland counties from the years 1650 to 1720, ignored by Bellesiles, shows an average of 76 percent of young fathers owning arms of some sort. Even the poorest of these men had them, although only half did so as compared to the richest, of whom 96 percent were gun owners.2 "Arms" was my short-hand code for the presence in the inventory of any weapons or armor, but in practice it usually meant a firearm of some sort rather than a sword, which was quite rare, or a pike, which was rarer still. Even if not all inventories coded for "arms" in this study included a gun, the sheer contrast in scale of its findings with Bellesiles's--76 to 7--boggles the mind."
This claim by Gloria Main is one of the most striking discrepancies--Bellesiles's claim that in MD in the colonial period only 7% of inventories listed guns. The Maryland inventories are the most studied set, with continuous work on them stretching back over 30 years. For one of Bellesiles's two MD counties (Anne Arundel), the MD probate group did itemize the exact weapon and they kindly offered me their data from 1657-1776.
Although I don't have the data in front of me as I am writing this, my recollection is that these MD data show that about 60% of the over 1800 inventories had guns (not just "arms"), with even a higher percentage of guns if you exclude the female estates, which Bellesiles once told a reporter that he did.
It is not enough just to drop such apparently grossly false claims from the next edition of the book. Even if Bellesiles chooses to pretend that he never made such an error and chooses not to explain how he found 7% guns in colonial MD when the MD group found about 9 times that number, one must deal with the contrary evidence. The data from MD show very high gun ownership quite early, as do the data from Massachusetts, 1636-50. To write a plausible history of the gun culture in America, one must deal with high gun ownership rates in inventories in the very areas where he found low gun ownership rates in inventories in the first edition.
I presented these MD data at the SHEAR history conference this summer at a panel moderated by Jack Rakove, including also Randy Roth, Robert Churchill, and Saul Cornell. Looking at some other probate records over time, I found some weak support for Mr. Williams's contentions that gun ownership was dropping into the early 1800s, but none for Arming America's contention that gun ownership was climbing, and none for the sorts of extremely low numbers that Arming America contains. Indeed, the pattern in probate inventories looked to be the opposite of what Arming America claimed, but my research on time trends is quite tentative and (I hope) still ongoing.
Bryan Haskins - 9/8/2003
It’s good to see people posting again. I went out and tried my hand at golf again while we were all away, and while I remain a poor player I may have returned with an analogy. The other day I was playing with a co-worker, and I duffed (as usual) my drive off the first tee, barely clearing the ladies tee box. My friend then steps up and crushes a drive 280 yards or so. As we get back into the cart, he turned to me and asked in all seriousness if I had heard where they were going to be building the new Wal-Mart superstore. I hadn’t heard a word about it, so I said “no.” He then said, “yeah, you know, the one between your ball and my ball.”
After reading Mr. Lindgren’s post, I decided to compare it to Mr. Weiner’s defense of Bellesiles in the February OAH newsletter. In my opinion, Mr. Weiner’s comment that “Bellesiles had conceded serious problems in his probate data, and was working on correcting those errors” is about as far from Mr. Lindgren’s “mathematically impossible” declaration as the distance “between your ball and my ball.” (by the way, I subscribe to the “mathematically impossible”/”he hit a ‘worm burner’ that dribbled just beyond the tee box” theory)
My questions now are: Can anyone show us how they believe Bellesiles can bridge this gap in opinion? It is claimed that his new edition will contain a corrected “Table 1.” But is it possible for him to create a new “Table 1” that is consistent with reality while still relying upon his original research, or should he start over from scratch? If we assume that starting over again is not what he will do because of the time/effort/money involved, then does anyone think it possible for him to sufficiently replicate his original research to find the sources of and corrections for the “serious errors” that arose before? If he claims the ability to do so, then shouldn’t he help himself by explaining how he corrected the errors to allow independent verification of his corrected statistics?
Ralph E. Luker - 9/8/2003
Let's see now: we have Lindgren indicating that Don Williams' critique of Michael Bellesiles's _Arming America_ has strangely morphed into a defense of it; we have Don Williams arguing that Lindgren's critique of the book misplaces emphases such that its real flaws go unidentified; and we have Don Williams suggesting that academics, I suppose Lindgren, Paul Finkelman and I, are in cahoots, determined to resurrect _Arming America_ as a basis for sound legal judgments in the Supreme Court. Who's on third and why does Don Williams keep placing himself at the center of these mysteries?
Don Williams - 9/8/2003
From the Tao-te Ching:
"Therefore in the government of the sage,
He keeps their hearts peaceful,
Fills their bellies,
weakens their ambitions,
and strengthens their bones,
He always causes his people to be without cunning or desire,
and the crafty to be afraid to act "
Don Williams - 9/8/2003
Mr Lindgren may think that he put several holes below Arming America's waterline --that Bellesiles' thesis now lies on the bottom with the Titanic. I think this is optimistic -- hence, my concern over any weaknesses in Mr Lindgren's indictment against Arming America. I presume that anything a lowly gun-nut like myself can see will be readily apparent to Jack Rakove and the academic signers of the Yassky Brief
I am not referring merely to the Amazon listing for Bellesiles' new edition -- see http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1932360077/ref=lpr_g_2/104-9418663-0463100?v=glance&s;=books
Rather, recent events lead me to think that Bellesiles' history-- and legal arguments based upon it -- will be strongly pushed by gun control proponents when the Supreme Court finally makes a ruling on the meaning of the Second Amendment --i.e., when the Court attempts to resolve the contradictory opinions issued by the Fifth Circuit Court of Federal Appeals (US vs Emerson) and the Ninth Circuit Court (Silverira v Lochyer)
Academia channeled, controlled, and diverted the storm of criticism over Arming America by focusing solely on Mr Lindgren's criticism of the probate study -- and ignoring large sections of questionable history in Arming America. Some historians on H-OIEAHC expressed bafflement over the direction taken the Emory Investigation --see, e.g.,
http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list;=H-oieahc&month;=0302&week;=a&msg;=v2qvDqvHMEOJ1mXHtnipzA&user;=&pw;=
and
http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list;=H-oieahc&month;=0301&week;=e&msg;=VShnlH8vfpyMhwH8K81HpQ&user;=&pw;=
Ralph E. Luker - 9/8/2003
Don Williams accusing James Lindgren of being "unnecessarily quarrelsome" is like, well, its a bit like, ah -- George Bush or Bill Clinton accusing George Washington of being a liar.
Don Williams - 9/8/2003
1) In his William and Mary Law Review article "Counting Guns in America" , Mr Lindgren indicates that Bellesiles used the same counties for sampling as were used by Alice Hanson Jones (plus Bellesiles added some counties in additional states --Vermont, Georgia,etc.) If that is the case , then the criticisms I leveled at Bellesiles' sampling would apply to Alice Hanson Jones's findings as well.
Specifically, Jones findings of gun ownership rates of 50%-70% based on sampling in several coastal counties in 1774 would no longer be valid in the 1775-1790 timeframes because the population system she sampled was disrupted by massive effects from political revolution, 8 years of warfare,occupation by the British Army, an economic depression, smallpox epidemic, etc.
2) Mr Lindgren evidently doesn't understand my H-OIEAHC post, so let me reiterate my points:
a) Ms Jones 1774 estimate of high firearms ownership in Virginia based on sampling in several Tidewater counties would not have been valid by 1781 because, as Thomas Jefferson noted, that section of Virginia had been stripped of firearms.
b) Ms Jones 1774 estimate of high firearms ownership in South Carolina, based on sampling in the coastal Charleston county, would not have been valid in the 1780-1790 timeframe because almost the entire Southern Department of the Continental Army, plus supporting militia, were trapped in Charleston in 1780 and captured. Given that British warships forced their way into Charleston Harbor, sailed upriver, and dropped landing parties in General Lincoln's rear area --cutting him off from the rest of South Carolina -- I think its reasonable to assume that almost all the firearms in Charleston County were captured by the British in 1780.
c) Ms Jones 1774 estimate of firearms ownership in Pennsylvania --to the extent it was influenced by sampling in the highly populated Philadelphia county -- would not have been valid in the 1779-1790 timeframe, given the British capture and occupation of Philadelphia.
d) Ms Jones 1774 estimate of high firearms ownership rate in Massachusetts --to the extent that it was influenced by sampling in the high population county of Suffolk (Boston) would not have been valid in the 1778-1790 timeframe, given that British General Gage seized all private firearms in Boston circa 1776? when the British occupied Boston. After Washington forced the British to leave Boston, his Quartermaster Thomas Mifflin had forward elements of the Continental Army entering Boston make a careful survey of military stores left in the city. Mifflin's report noted that the British made strong effects to destroy heavy assets that had to be left behind (trunnions knocked off cannon, ships scuttled and sunk in Boston harbor, cannon and shot dumped in the harbor, barrels of wheat flour dumped on the ground,etc. Mifflin survey makes no mention of finding the roughly 1500 private arms seized by Gage.
e) In judging Bellesiles results for 1765-1790, one would think that most probate samples would have been taken from records in the 1775-1790 timeframe, given the rapid growth in population , the deaths from wartime violence and the wartime smallpox epidemic,etc.
f) There were countervailing effects, of course. One was the smuggling of 100,000 muskets into America by a covert operation of the French king. (The muskets from Europe were transferred onto US ships in the Caribbean at St Eustatia island and then landed in obscure spots along the US coast chosen by the captains. See my H=OIEAHC post at
http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list;=H-oieahc&month;=0302&week;=a&msg;=LplYLWmW5XBVFb6B9aYkYw&user;=&pw;= )
Some of those muskets would have been transferred to Continental armories located in defensible areas of the US interior protected from British incursions (Carlisle , Pennsylvania; Springfield,Massachusetts ; Fishkill, New York,etc. ) However, George Washington complained repeatedly about militiamen temporarily attached to his Army stealing muskets. Given that Congress could barely feed and clothe 12,000 Continentals by 1780, it seems likely that many of the French muskets ended up in private hands. But, as I noted, many of those arms may have been carried to Tennessee, Kentucky, and Ohia by young militiamen emigrating westward for cheap land.
2) The primary point is that we do not get a better picture of Early America by discarding primary sources, sticking a hatpin in our frontal lobes, discarding all knowledge of the period, and focusing on hypotheses gained from sampling whatever paper rubbish from that time that has survived to the current day.
3) Mr Lindgren's repeated harping about Bellesiles's 14.7 national average for 1765-1790 being "mathematically impossible" is unnecessarily quarrelsome. As Mr Lindgren noted in his own paper, Bellesiles' national average would have fallen somewhere between the highs and lows of Bellesiles' regional averages -- i.e,. between the 14.2 percent for the frontier and the 18.3 percent for the South, with the primary influence being the total number of samples taken for each region. I really see little difference between a national average of 14.7 % (mathematically impossible) and a national average of ,say, 16.4 % (possible if Northern urban and rural samples greatly outnumbered the Southern samples).
Mr Lindgren's talk of X number of Southern samples "falsifing" Bellesiles results is not valid -- Mr Lindgren/Jones would probably have gotten different averages and results than Bellesiles if they sampled in a different manner and different timeframe than Bellesiles. Since we don't know how Bellesiles' collected his samples, the dispute is meaningless. I would agree that Bellesiles findings are worthless given that he cannot describe how he obtained the data on which he performed his calculations. But as I explained above, I don't think Hanson Jones' findings for 1774 can be extrapolated to the 1776-1790 period.
4) Mr Lindgren's arguments about confidence intervals,etc. are valid only for random samples. It is a basic axiom that "judgemental" sampling results --as opposed to random sampling -- cannot be extrapolated to the population as a whole. However, There is no evidence that firearms were evenly distributed across the geographical US in 1774, that they were evenly distributed across the US population, or that the boundaries of different ownership patterns were known.
To use an analogy, a political pollster knows that 10 voters expressing support for Mr Bush is bad news for the Democrats if the 10 voters are from downtown Chicago vice downtown Austin. By the same token, it would be a mistake to ignore political boundaries and assume, on the basis of opinions collected from the Republican precincts of outer Chicago, that millions of voters in a Democratic stronghold are about to vote Republican.
Alice Hanson Jones' sampling design is certainly defensible, but she did not sampled randomly across every county in the 13 states.
Political pollsters who use statistical models can check the results of their models again truth (e.g., predictions vs actual election results) and modify their models when major discrepancies are found.
The largest shortfall in Hanson Jones' sampling --and Mr Lindgren's use of it -- is that the truthfulness/accuracy of their statistical model cannot be validated against the reality of 225 years ago because much data from that time
frame either never was recorded or has been lost in the 225 years since.
Samuel Browning - 9/7/2003
Interesting debate, to the outsider like myself it looks like Bellesiles's results were unbelievable for both the different reasons Lindgren and Williams provide. Unfortunately for Bellesiles his failure to keep any real documentation of his efforts (which probably did not exist in the first place) nullifies his ability to use the Williams defense regardless of whether it could help him, since he can't really say, "yes that's of course how I was mistaken" and back up such a contention. I do have a couple questions for Mr. Lindgren.
Is there any way to effectively lobby JAH to do a postmortum on this particular failure of peer review. (strong words but look at the result)
How many graduate courses in statistics and research design does he suggest would be appropriate for a History P.D.? When I reviewed some of the catalogues for Ph.d programs in criminal justice the magic number appeared to be five courses. It should bee less for someone who doesn't crunch numbers but what do you think should be a minimun? Say one course in statistics and a course in research design?
Sincerely
Samuel Browning
James Lindgren - 9/5/2003
I will respond to only a few of Mr. Williams's points.
1. The data in Table 1 of Arming America are mathematically impossible. Mr. Williams postulates that if the numbers were changed to numbers that are not impossible, then the numbers would not be impossible. Well, of course.
But Williams’s new suggested mean of 16.4% could be falsified by finding about 900 southern inventories with guns in Bellesiles's sample of 16 Southern counties 1765-90. A rough guess is that it would take only about the first 6 years of that period to locate 900 Southern inventories in Table 1’s sample, enough to falsify Williams’s new suggested mean. I, the MD probate scholars (L. Green et al.), and another history professor have located and counted perhaps half of these 900 Southern gun inventories already in just four of Bellesiles’s 16 southern counties for just a small portion of the years in his 1765-90 sample. A solid week counting guns in Charleston inventories would probably suffice to raise the number of gun estates high enough to falsify Mr. Williams’s new 16.4% number.
2. Mr. Williams says that my samples are so small that the range of an estimate would be between 1% and 99%, and he even implies that engineers would know this. This debate about the SIZE of a sample needed for reliable estimation was debated about 80 years ago in statistics and resolved so thoroughly that I have never heard of anyone trained in statistics doubting it.
It may seem counter-intuitive that a sample of 900 or even 300 is almost as good as a sample of one million, but it is true. The sampling error for a sample of 919 cases (the size of the Hanson Jones collection) and a mean of 50% inventories with guns, is +/- 3.2%. That means that a randomly drawn sample of 919 cases would have a confidence interval of 46.8% to 53.2%. By the way, this general point is discussed in Randy Roth’s William & Mary Quarterly piece in the Bellesiles forum.
If you increased the sample size to 10,000 cases, the 95% confidence interval closes only slightly to 49.0 to 51.0%. At 100,000 cases, it becomes 49.7% to 50.3%. At a million cases, 95% interval closes to 49.97 to 50.03%. It hardly matters for our purposes whether the percentage is 47% or 53%, given the other sources of error in this analysis. A sample of 919 is much larger than is needed to get reliable estimates, if the sample is representative.
How representative is the Hanson Jones sample? It was a carefully drawn probability sample selected so that each county had a chance of being selected exactly proportional to its population in 1774. Thus this sample is equivalent to a random sample of inventories once a design effect and weighting for the different number of inventories drawn from different counties are applied. My guess is that the clustering might lead to a design effect under 1.5, but let’s be pessimistic and assume a huge design effect of 3. Applying the design effect of 3 means dividing the sample size by 3, yielding 306.17 cases. Even with an effective sample of just over 300 cases, the sample would still be large enough to yield a 95% confidence range of only 44.4% to 55.6% (+/-5.6%).
What if there were a random sample of only 30 cases and a mean of 50% of inventories with guns? Would that be large enough to reject Bellesiles’s mean of 14.7% with confidence? Absolutely, the 95% confidence interval for a sample of just 30 cases would be 31% to 69%, and the 99% confidence interval would be 24% to 76%, well above his mean. The samples used in my paper are plenty large enough, indeed much larger than needed to get the rough estimates we are looking for.
The problems with the samples in this area are not their size, but their representativeness. Only the Hanson Jones sample is a representative sample of the number of guns listed in probate inventories (in her case for 1774, with some cases from 1773 and a few from early in 1775). By the way, I have looked at several databases and there is no evidence at all of a spike in guns in inventories in the 1774-75 period. The only statistically significant results I got were in one database, which showed that guns were LESS likely to be listed in probate estates in 1774-75 than in immediately prior years.
As for Mr. Williams’s point about the incompleteness of probate inventories and the biases in what they list, that was perhaps the primary motivation for my starting my study of Arming America; I knew that Bellesiles’s was mistaken in his many claims that “all” inventories in the period “reported each and every object, piece of property, debt, and credit belonging to the deceased.” Robert Churchill (Univ. of Hartford) has discovered and analyzed some New England gun censuses that were actually done door-to-door and they show slightly higher percentages of guns than the New England probate inventories of the same period. Thus, my best guess is that male gun ownership in the late colonial period was slightly higher than is revealed in probate inventories in the Hanson Jones probability sample.
3. Last, as to Mr. Williams’s speculations about age being an important determinant of listing a gun, there are no significant age effects in the Hanson Jones sample.
Don Williams - 9/5/2003
1) Mr Lindgren's repeated cries that Bellesiles' 14.7% national average (Table One, p.445, Arming America) is "mathematically impossible" might sound impressive in a courtroom --or to the mathematically ignorant. In reality, it is a minor observation that distracted attention from Clayton Cramer’s far more significant criticisms.
If Bellesiles had instead given a national average of, say, 16.4%,then it would have been consistent with his other figures for 1765-1790. The difference of 1% seems to me minor and easily explained as an error in computation caused by confusion due to the shifting nature of the sampled counties (i.e, the counties designated as “frontier” in the 1765-1790 timeframe moved into the Northern or Southern settled categories in later time periods --as the frontier moved westward.
Bellesiles' primary shortcoming was that he could provide no real information on his data sources, sampling technique,etc.
2) Speaking as an engineer, I was taught that a quantitative value is worthless without an indication of it’s accuracy. A temperature reading is expressed as “32 deg C plus or minus 1 deg”, for example.
In that regard, Bellesiles’ national average value for gun ownership of 14.7 percent is worthless -- because information about his sampling technique gives us no assurance that his measurement reflects reality with any accuracy. The implied accuracy of .7 percent is grossly misleading -- I don’t see how he argue an accuracy better than plus 80% or minus 14 % -- i.e., that his sampling indicates that gun ownership rates were somewhere between 1% and 99% with his small sample happening to give 14.7%.
But in my opinion, Mr Lindgren’s averages (50% -79% ) are worthless as well. In other words, the small sample set used by Mr Lindgren tells us little more than that gun ownership rate prior to 1776 was somewhere in the range of 1% to 99%, with the average for his small samples showing a range of 50% to 79%. All the impressive handwaving about “multivariate analysis” and “possible correlation with other household items” simply makes an engineer smirk.
If , instead of guns, Bellesiles and Lindgren had taken a few temperature readings recorded in several 1775 diaries and from that data engaged in a bitter quarrel about the detailed weather pattern across the 13 colonies in July 1777, then the technically challenged historical community might have gotten the joke as well.
Given the huge uncertainly in their values, the difference between Mr Lindgren’s 50% and Bellesiles’ 14.7% are of little significance.
3) It is true that political pollsters today argue that their sampling can yield an accuracy of +- 4 percent.
However, their sampling design/model is based on extremely detailed demographic data and voting data from elections held within the past two years. Even then, they consistently have to develop contorted explanations for why election results don’t match their predictions.
4) Mr Bellesiles and Mr Lindgren , by contrast, have nowhere near the detailed demographic information they would need to design a statistical sampling for events happening 225 years ago -- at least, no design yielding information in which we could place any confidence.
Mr Lindgren himself noted some of the problems introducing uncertainty into probate sampling: (a) records have been lost, (b) the original records only covered part of the population, and (c) they do not indicate gun ownership where the owner gave his guns away to relatives prior to his death.
To those uncertainty factors I added the following in my H-OIEAHC posts: (a) that sampling from high population coastal counties in the 1776-1790 timeframe would probably give an unrealistically low indicator for gun ownership because guns in those areas were either seized during British occupation or were moved out of the area (e.g., given to the Continental Army) to prevent seizure by the British and
(b) sampling in those coastal areas would have greatly skewed regional and national averages because those coastal areas were high-population areas. See http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list;=H-oieahc&month;=0301&week;=d&msg;=lhUfZFG4qIR8iBfMk8aoDg&user;=&pw;=
5) I noted in my H-OIEAHC post that my hypothesis was unproven --it was provided more to illustrate the superficial nature of the Emory Investigation than to state a historical truth. Unlike Bellesiles and Lindgren’s findings,however, there is more support for my hypothesis than mere speculation. In my post I cited a primary source -- Thomas Jefferson’s “Notes on the State of Virginia” , written 1781-82, which states:
“ The law requires every militia-man to provide himself with the arms usual in the regular service. But thisinjunction was always indifferently complied with, and the arms they had have been so frequently called for to arm the regulars, that in the lower parts of the country they are entirely disarmed. In the middle country a fourth or fifth part of them may have such firelocks as they had providedto destroy the noxious animals which infest their farms; and on the western side of the Blue ridge they are generally armed with rifles. "
As wartime governor responsible for the defense of Virginia, Jefferson’s knowledge on the arms inventory in Virginia circa 1781 certainly has more value than opinions extrapolated from whatever random rubbish is
still available 200 years later.
6) I also noted the significance of Jefferson’s observation -- the Virginia counties sampled by Bellesiles were clustered together and in/near the Tidewater region which Jefferson said had been denuded of firearms. Artifically low findings here could have distorted Bellesiles’ national average,
due to the huge population of Virginia relative to the other colonies in 1781.
7) The larger point is that the above factors introducing uncertainty and distorting samples are only a few of the possible factors distorting Bellesiles’ and Lindgren’s findings. There are probably many other factors -- factors apparent only to someone with a detailed,broad understanding of the history of 1765-1790--as opposed to a professor of law.
For example, did the estate inventories of old men dying in 1776-1790 really reflect the arms ownership of young men 20-35 in the the militias? Did estates samples of coastal regions really capture arms ownership of young militiamen during the Revolution, given that many of those men emigrated (and later died in ) Kentucky and Ohio -- the massive migration being driven by land grants, politically driven land speculation,etc. What effect did wartime deaths due to battle , the smallpox epidemic which hit civilians vice inoculated Continental soldiers,etc have on the distribution of probate records post 1776?
8) It seems to me that Bellesiles’ and Lindgren’s firearm ownership averages are not so much scientific findings as they are very subjective judgments --akin to theological convictions or opinions re who should be President in 2005.
Ralph E. Luker - 9/5/2003
Don, Since I was there for the discussion and you were not, I _might_ be in a better position than you are to say whether Finkelman's presence added balance to a session co-chaired with him by Jon Weiner. Suspend you obnoxious self momentarily and accept the fact that Finkelman was excellent. You are in _no_ position to say otherwise. If I don't answer your comments about that, it is because I really don't find discussing any of these matters with you very constructive.
James Lindgren - 9/5/2003
I have spoken to two people whom I believe were among the original outside peer reviewers on the 1996 JAH article, both of whom were originally positive in 1996. One was Don Hickey, who was the first academic in any field that I am aware of to say publicly and unequivocably that whatever Bellesiles did was "academic fraud." That came about nearly a year and a half after the public debate began in September 2000.
The other peer reviewer who spoke to me reread his original (quite positive) peer review. He had actually asked for more information on the probate sample, including details that would have been impossible if Bellesiles had just used tick marks on yellow pads, as he claimed.
As to Don Williams' comments on another thread, I think he needs to reread the discussions of the impossibility of Bellesiles's data, which I describe in both my Yale review and at more length in my William & Mary article with Justin Heather.
In short, Williams’s thesis is that Bellesiles's counts in probate records for 1765-90 could have been the result of having more cases after 1783 from the coastal regions where the British might have confiscated guns or caused Americans to move them inland.
There is absolutely no chance that the sampling issues Williams raises could account for the probate discrepancies, because (as is explained in my Yale & Wm. & Mary papers), Bellesiles's overall mean is mathematically impossible. There is only one region below the national mean in Table 1 for 1765-90. He says there are 1200 cases in those frontier counties. With that being the only region below the national mean, it would take only a few hundred inventories with or without guns in the other regions to bring the mean above the national mean Bellesiles reports in Table 1.
His overall mean is impossible if there are more than 37 Southern estates with guns in the 16 Southern counties in his sample or more than 201 Southern estates with or without guns throughout the entire 1765-90 period.
One reaches the first threshhold in just the first six months of 1765 in Charleston, SC. One reaches the second threshhold in his two MD counties in 1765-67, or in a combination of MD and Charleston in 1765-66. One could falsify Bellesiles's overall mean in several of the other Southern counties as well (and it was privately falsified in one other Southern county by one of Bellesiles's fellow historians). I have also falsified Bellesiles's overall mean for Table 1 in Philadelphia alone in the beginning, middle, and late middle of the 1765-90 period.
What Mr. Williams appears not to realize is that the British could have confiscated nearly every gun on the North American continent in the Revolutionary War and the years after and Bellesiles's mean would still be false because any number of Southern estates over 201 (whether they have guns or not) or any number of Northern coast inventories over 611 (whether they have guns or not) renders his counts impossible. There are thousands of each. Indeed, Williams's own claim of lots of post-1783 coastal inventories is all that would be needed to falsify Table 1, whether they listed guns or not.
Also, Bellesiles's frontier data from Vermont are falsified in my Yale review . As I wrote there in Appendix section L:
"Overall, Bellesiles finds only 45 Vermont estates with guns, when there were 115 such surviving gun estates in Vermont (or 110 if you exclude Orange County, which Bellesiles did in Arming America). Thus, besides misdescribing guns and omitting some guns in gun estates he identifies, he misses all guns in at least 65 Vermont estates."
Since then, I have found more Vermont inventories that Bellesiles missed (and more guns).
One must remember that early on Bellesiles made exactly the opposite argument from Don Williams’s when he thought that might work. Bellesiles claimed that his counts were low because he drew his sample from the beginning of the 1765-90 period, not the end as Williams speculates. In a taped interview on the night of the Bancroft Prize, Bellesiles asserted, "The sample set I used for that period was from 1765 and 1766. That was the period when arms had been turned in. So my figures were probably relatively low."
That is the reason that we falsified his data in both Charleston and MD from those years at the beginning of the period. We also falsified his data using years in the middle of the 1765-90 period (Jones) and toward the end of the 1765-90 period (e.g., VT & PA). It doesn’t matter whether you look at the beginning of the period (as Bellesiles claimed he did), the middle of the period (as he claimed he did, but then changed his story), or at the end of the period (where Williams claims that Bellesiles sampled). One can falsify Bellesiles’s Table 1 using any one of those subsets of the 1765-90 period (and we did just that).
If Bellesiles's data were not absolutely false, and if we had not shown them to be false using the same records that he claimed to have read, then Mr. Williams's explanation might be a plausible explanation.
Mr. Williams' account, which he first raised as an (unfair) criticism of Bellesiles for skewing his selection of counties, has somehow morphed into a defense of Bellesiles. It is as if someone has come up with an ingenious explanation for why Germany won World War I, the only problem being the false premise that Germany won World War I.
Josh Greenland - 9/4/2003
Ralph,
I won't bother to harangue OAH or JAH, or make pleasant inquiries of them. They would have no interest in my input since I'm not a degreed historian. I'm hoping that you all will let them know that their promises of action on l'affaire Bellesiles have not been forgotten within the field.
Don Williams - 9/4/2003
Ref: http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list;=H-oieahc&month;=0301&week;=d&msg;=FaCnw5zZm1EyRsuYsD6X5A&user;=&pw;=
Of course my poor findings cannot compare to the many compelling
insights Mr Luker has posted here over the past 18 months --e.g., his idea that adding Paul Finkelman (of the Chicago Kent 11) to Jon Wiener's Bellesiles panel as co-chair would add objectivity and balance.
(giggle)
Ralph E. Luker - 9/4/2003
And g-n DW never did. Must not have had any.
Don Williams - 9/4/2003
-- in fact, I believe you ultimately were driven to argue that
"Don Williams really owes it to the world to reveal to all of us the special wisdom he's been claiming in the Bellesiles case for the past three months".
Ref:
http://hnn.us/comments/3171.html
http://hnn.us/comments/3173.html
http://hnn.us/comments/3177.html
http://hnn.us/comments/3178.html
http://hnn.us/comments/3404.html
http://hnn.us/comments/3420.html
http://hnn.us/comments/4228.html
http://hnn.us/comments/4994.html
http://hnn.us/comments/5005.html
http://hnn.us/comments/5721.html
http://hnn.us/comments/5734.html
http://hnn.us/comments/5743.html
http://hnn.us/comments/5869.html
Ralph E. Luker - 9/4/2003
whatever ...
Don Williams - 9/4/2003
eom
Ralph E. Luker - 9/4/2003
Sam, You're a gentleman and a scholar, Sam, but don't even mention Bennie's name. He might come back here and spoil our quiet meditations.
Ralph E. Luker - 9/4/2003
Don, You're quite out of your league trying to argue with Dresner and me. The points that you thought countered Dresner's argument were already assumed by him. You didn't even bother to read and understand what he had said before you started running off at the keyboard. Quit blustering. Read and learn.
Samuel Browning - 9/3/2003
Aw Ralph, don't you know that I only harangue Benny Smith, otherwise my postings here have been quite polite. I would be happy if they would simply set up a concrete timetable saying when they would complete such a task. when I write them I will of course post notice on this site.
Don Williams - 9/3/2003
Ralph E. Luker - 9/3/2003
Josh and Sam,
The list of the editorial staff and editorial board of the _JAH_ can be found here: http://www.indiana.edu/~jah/staff.shtml. Pleasant inquiries are more likely to be effective than harangues. I sent copies of the post on my blog to both the OAH and the JAH offices and have had no response from either office. Do keep in mind that both the editor of the _JAH_ and the director of the OAH are busy people who do have other things to keep them busy.
Samuel Browning - 9/3/2003
Hello fellow writers;
Its good to see many of our usual suspects writing again after a vacation of sorts. I have been very disappointed that the JAH has never published an inquiry into how exactly its peer review system hit the skids when it published Bellisles 1996 article, without detecting its statistical problems. The failure of peer review has a larger importance to society then simply an argument concerning gun ownership as I will argue below.
Since the 1993 case Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceutical Inc, 113 S.Ct. 2786 (1993)the United States Supreme Court has required scientific evidence in federal courts be evaluated according to a five prong standard which includes whether a particular technique or theory has been subject to peer review and publication. Later in Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 119 S.Ct. 1167 (1999) this court opined that all expert testimony, even non-scientific evidence, should be evaluated using the Daubert standard. Since 1999, the Kumho ruling is gradually being adopted by state courts though its complete adoption may take several decades.
Historical research has been previously allowed into court evidence in such important cases as Brown v. Board of Eeducation, and Sheff v. O'Neill, a 1990's Connecticut desegregation case. Generally speaking peer review and publication of a historical argument by a recognized body like the JAH serve as a powerful argument for admissibility of a particular piece of research. Its only one fifth of the Daubert standard but I would argue that it may be the most important, especially since such research is also evaluated on the basis of whether it has obtained widespread acceptance in its scholarly community, and peer reviewed publication is generally necessary to support such a development.
Daubert however does not discuss what actually constitutes effective peer review. Is its goal to review every footnote in an article like students running a law review would? (this would have probably prevented publication of Bellesiles article in 1996) Does the panel itself need to have a certain threshold competancy in the field being reviewed ? Or can peer reviews be done like book reviews in the New York Times in which Gerry Wills ended up very badly out of his depth when reviewing Arming America? Is there a certain minimum amount of time and effort that must go into this enterprise including actual research? I do not know and I would supect that neither does the reader. Given an important and controversal thesis, I believe a publication should be willing to perform a review that digs into some of an article's source material to double check its accuracy.
Perhaps this is not what the JAH considers peer review to be. In the absence of their voice, people like myself default tto questions like, "Were you sloppy because of your political preferences, or because historical peer review normally does not dig below the surface of the articles it supposedly examines." Did the JAH conduct a typical peer review for its profession or did it take shortcuts? In the absance of their comment we will not know. It should be pointed out that in the aftermath of many great misfortunes involving potential malfeasance, from 911 to the Church Comittee it is normal for governing bodies to invstigate their mistakes and publish some sort of public account of what happened. dispite the historical nature of such an inquiry this is something that the JAH seems to have no interest in doing.
Eveentually the JAH will print another article useful in some existing legal battle, and this article may end up being submitted to some court as evidence supporting aa friend of the court brief. What confidence can we have in the JAH if we do not know what went wrong? Daubert was written to prevent the submission of 'junk science' into evidence, do we have any assurance that historical peer review will prevent the submission of 'junk history'? If Ralph could tell us if there is anything that would encourage the JAH to reveal what when astray in its 1996 peer review process I would be happy to write a few letters. Their continued avoidance of this issue has provided the opposite of a learning experience.
Samuel Browning
Josh Greenland - 9/3/2003
Okay, but then who do you think people should contact at OAH if they are unhappy with the lack of action on the other items in their press release?
Ralph E. Luker - 9/3/2003
Josh, Lee Formwalt has little to do with the establishment of the program for the 2004 convention, so it can only irritate his office and not do anything positive to jam his e-mail address and his telephone line with calls. The program for the convention will be agreed upon by a program committee. Its membership list can be found here: http://www.oah.org/about/cmte/cmte.html (scroll down).
Josh Greenland - 9/2/2003
It seems the OAH also committed itself to a least one session on l'affaire Bellesiles at next year's convention:
http://www.oah.org/reports/pr-bellesiles-112102.html
"In addition, sessions on the subject will be planned at upcoming annual meetings in Memphis and Boston in 2003 and 2004."
When does planning start for the 2004 convention?
BTW, the press release URLed above has a link to OAH Exec Director Lee Formwalt's email address, as well as his phone number. I'm sure he'd welcome input from fellow historians.
Thomas Gunn - 9/2/2003
I'll be looking forward to it John.
thomas
John G. Fought - 9/2/2003
Yes, I'm still alive and snarling. Ralph is to be congratulated for dispensing justice (or whatever it turns out to be) so evenhandedly. As for JAH, I'm about to decide between ISPs, finally, and then I'll put up a website which will display my 10,000 word essay on Bellesiles 1996 and related matters, as well as my earlier stuff about him and eventually some linguistics, of all things. I'm hoping to have this up by my birthday, which is, by the way, 9/11. See you all then. I estimate that my website will have about 8 hits a year, or maybe monthly, if I get busy.
Thomas Gunn - 9/2/2003
I haven't been missing you Ralph. I read your blog frequently. There just doesn't seem to be an *issue* as contentious as gun control except maybe abortion. It is also near impossible to respond to your blog; I understand why it is set up that way.
An article by a lib extolling the virtue of abortion might get a sea of response similar to the waves generated by Michael's refuted and invalid fantasy. (I almost uesd the "T" word. Whew caught myself just in time.)
Hunting won't start in earnest for another month. Right now fishing is the thing and the catfish are going nuts. Some of the boys ate work were pulling them in one after another, flatheads and channels mostly. The only thing I'm shooting now is targets. My daughter bought her first handgun the other day. She was like a kid in a candy store. She has a 9mm auto with a pair of preban mags. Much too big to carry concealed though. She was at the house shooting targets and can hit a 4" circle near every shot. Pappa's proud.
A reunion would be fun.
Maybe you could do a short on the sunsetting AWB and the *history* of assault rifles and their prominence in the civilian market. It is obvious that Bush has little intention of upsetting the masses with continuing unnecessary regulation. I'll keep an eye out.
I'm sad to say I haven't spoken with Henry Morgan in several months. I've watched for his 'Wills' article to appear at HNN. There was a question about that elsewhere too as I recall.
Your daughter still at Soft Skull? Hope everything is going well for you and yours.
thomas
Ralph E. Luker - 9/2/2003
Thomas, You son of a Gunn, you, where in the heck have you been? I've been missing you. I had to write that bloody post to see if I couldn't drag you out of whatever woods you were hunting in and make yourself known. Dragged Fought out of the woods, too, via e-mail. I just had to denounce Don Williams for a characteristically blustery post elsewhere. Where's Richard Morgan? When's the class re-union?
No, I'm not getting any work done. It takes me too much time trying to get you hard-headed gun nuts educated about history. I'm up against a deadline on two articles and here I am reminiscing with you. When's the class re-union?
Josh Greenland - 9/2/2003
From Ralph Luker's weblog here on HNN:
TEN MONTHS LATER ... 09-01-03
Ten months ago, responding to the report of Emory University's panel of outside reviewers in the case of Michael Bellesiles, the Organization of American Historians announced that: "The editorial board of the Journal of American History will consider a commissioned essay or a roundtable to address the ethical issues of this and other recent cases and how much historians rely on trust in practicing their craft." As of this date, the editorial board of the JAH has given no indication, to borrow the language of Watergate, of what it intends to do or when it intends to do it.
Sure, the JAH is a big, lumbering elephant which intends to publish for the ages, not for the moment, but after publishing Bellesiles's article on guns in early America in 1996, it has been embarrassed by the more aggressive inquiries of amateurs, of gun enthusiasts, of legal scholars, of journalists, of historians working outside OAH frameworks, and of the William and Mary Quarterly. Can our lumbering elephant finally assume some responsibility or tell us how it will assume some responsibility for what it hath wrought?
Thomas Gunn - 9/2/2003
Just read your blog, thanks for the thoughts re OAH and Bellesiles.
I'm torn between being happy with your insight and sad that it took you so long.
Then again you may be rushing to judgment much too soon, it is after all only ten months, or much too late, the original deception started in 1996. ;-)
Anyway I am happy you got your blog going on HNN. Are you getting any *work* done?
thomas
Josh Greenland - 8/22/2003
"I was surprised too, and also angered by the gross rhetorical manipulation and the underlying self-satisfaction."
On the part of Bellesiles, or his academic and/or news media supporters?
"Since then, however, I've realized that it isn't that unusual for scholars to believe and support what they want to believe even in the face of clear evidence of error."
There is a greater tendency toward "ideological immunity" among the highly educated (the ability to justify or rationalize what one wants to believe in the face of strong contradicting claims or evidence.
This site talks about ideological immunity (at the bottom of the page). Also the Overreliance on Authorities section talks about PhDs and their ability to admit that they don't know about something or are wrong about it:
http://www.psychology.psych.ndsu.nodak.edu/mccourt/website/htdocs/HomePage/Psy351/Why%20we%20believe%20weird%20things/Why%20we%20believe%20weird%20things.html
John G. Fought - 8/21/2003
I was surprised too, and also angered by the gross rhetorical manipulation and the underlying self-satisfaction. Since then, however, I've realized that it isn't that unusual for scholars to believe and support what they want to believe even in the face of clear evidence of error. This isn't found just in history either. As I've mentioned before, I think the corrosive
effects of years spent in the classroom listening fondly to the sound of one's own voice, rarely interrupted by challenges from one's audience, will overinflate almost anyone's sense of worth. That's the only way I can account for some of the experiences I've had in the academy. From there, it's only a short step to "If I believe it, it must be true."
Josh Greenland - 8/20/2003
I've gotten hold of and started reading Arming America only recently. I found that even with the few bits of relevant history that I know and my knowledge of modern gun rights politics, the book starts off with dubious, cleverly worded and obviously false statements.
The first 6 pages of the book are devoted to pure gun control propaganda about the current parlous state of the nation. It should have been impossible for anyone to believe Michael Bellesiles' often repeated lie that his book was not a political document.
The only explanation for its being swallowed wholesale by the historical establishment and the mainstream media is its manipulativeness. It seems to have been written to manipulate the feelings of gun control supporters. It makes the kinds of statements in those first six pages that would cause gun control advocates to angrily defend them even where they are clearly untrue.
I spotted the falsehoods and clever misstatements easily, but then the book wasn't written to influence gun rights supporters like myself. (I can't say what kind of effect this book would have had on those who want "some" gun control but who also seriously believe in the right to own and use firearms. That large middle ground of Americans seems to have been completely missing from the debate over Arming America.)
What surprises me, finally, is the degree to which the academic historical realm and the mainstream media are controlled by gun control supporters. The two milieux dug in and supported Arming America much longer than was wise for their credibility, given the obviousness of its falsehoods even without historical research. I can only conclude that he "played" these two groups consummately, and caused them to act ultimately against their own best interests. I think that media and historical defensiveness and stonewalling over past support of Arming America is motivated almost as much by the need to salvage their credibility as it is by their need to support the gun prohibitionist agenda.
Frank A. Baldridge - 8/18/2003
Testing
Josh Greenland - 7/10/2003
Is there any way a private citizen could see who attended a particular lawschool for a year? Or are there organizations that some nationwide organizations some law students might be a member of?
Bellesiles seems to mostly be in the Orange County area of southern California on his CV. Would it be realistic to think that he would have attended law school down there, or would the difficulties of getting admitted to a school of his choice have made this unlikely?
John G. Fought - 7/8/2003
Bellesiles' dissertation (UC Irvine 1986) contains a "CV" section. It lists his undergraduate degree as UC Santa Cruz 1975, and the following additional items: TA at UC Irvine, 1981-83, Instructor, West Coast University, 1981-83, Humanities Assoc. at UCI, 1983-86, Instructor, UCI, summer 1984, Instructor, Emeritus Program, Saddleback College 1985-86. Visiting Lecturer, UCLA Fall 1986. The gap between 1975 and 1981 is not filled in.
Frank A. Baldridge - 7/8/2003
I have a fuzzy recollection from a couple years back that both Bellesiles and Patricia Limerick were both from southern Calif and did time together at UC Santa Cruz (birds of ......). You might inquire of her.
Josh Greenland - 7/7/2003
I look every so often and haven't found anything yet. I think he had a resume up on Emory U's site when he worked there that said what schools he graduated from and when. (It isn't there anymore, I just checked.) If he isn't lying about having attended law school, he presumably would have gone after he finished his bachelors degree. Does anyone know when that was?
Ralph E. Luker - 7/6/2003
Josh, Delinking Richard's question was accidental and has been corrected.
John G. Fought - 7/6/2003
I check here requently also. And yes, Richard's question has become inert for some reason. I'm also curious about the whereabouts of Richard's brief piece about Garry Wills and the etymological fallacy, which I understood was to have turned up here somewhere a couple of weeks ago.
Josh Greenland - 7/6/2003
Something odd has happened and I can no longer read Richard's question anymore. The title just shows up as text for me, not at a link I can click on to get his message.
I do recall that it was a question about Bellesiles having gone to law school for some short period of time.
Ralph E. Luker - 7/6/2003
Frank, I don't know that anything was deleted. Posts throughout HNN were revamped by a computer whiz to put the earliest at the top, most recent at the bottom, and get them into chronological order by thread.
If anything, posting stopped because no one seemed to be able to answer Richard's question.
Frank A. Baldridge - 7/6/2003
Josh:
It is good to hear you and the site still exist. Since everything was inverted and communications deleted, I assummed somebody pulled the plug.
Josh Greenland - 7/5/2003
I can't speak for anyone else, but I check this forum almost every day. I just haven't had anything to say for a while.
Frank A. Baldridge - 7/5/2003
Like what happened? My whole world got tuned upside down. Was it those rascally republicans or the looney left?
Don Williams - 6/22/2003
I think Socrates and Plato would be embarrassed. Wasn't it Socrates (according to Plato) who argued that "the unexamined life is not worth living"? And did Plato not found the first academy?
Sounds like some people in universities are examining their lives and are feeling sick. However, maybe that increase in funding that Bush has proposed for historians will improve morale -- although there is a price for everything, Faustus.
But then Sophists are infinitely adaptable --I expect someone to publish a defense of the divine right of kings any day now.
Frank A. Baldridge - 6/22/2003
Ralph:
As far as I'm concerned, you can be anything you want to be. Obviously I have been too confrontational, but your argument is not valid. But there seems to be some kind of disconnect, so I give up.
But just for my edification, would you define "gun control" and "anti-gun," or explain the difference between them from your, or academia's, perspective. Are not they really synonymous?
And, based on your education and experience, what specific examples or methods of "gun control" do you feel would be most useful in curtailing the tragedies and traumas associated with the inappropriate or unsafe use of firearms.
Regards,
Frank
Richard Henry Morgan - 6/21/2003
This might be an old question to those most familiar with the issues, but here goes. I was just reading Bellesiles' contribution to the HCI symposium. Therein he lets it be known that he attended law school. He doesn't say he graduated. Does anybody out there know what law school he attended? When?
Ralph E. Luker - 6/21/2003
Sorry, Frank. Ya got it all wrong. I'm a Republican.
Ralph E. Luker - 6/21/2003
"Are you claiming your interest in Southern Cross was an erudite exercise with no meaning but your refusal to engage on Arming Americawas, 'beyond your expertice', even though you now admit an anti-gun bias? Tsk tsk tsk."
Get a grip, Thomas! What's to "tsk"? Whether it was erudite or not, if you think the discussion of _Southern Cross_ has "no meaning," fair enough. You're welcome to your judgment. I never hid the fact that I am inclined to be in favor of gun control and, yes, I wouldn't argue the details of evidence because I have no expertise in the relevant fields. Unlike some people who seem to have an opinion about everything, I have some sense of my limitations. There were already people discussing the evidence who were a whole lot better informed about such matters than I am.
Frank A. Baldridge - 6/20/2003
Sorry John, I meant Ralph.
Thomas Gunn - 6/20/2003
06.20.03 ~1830
Ralph,
Are you claiming your interest in Southern Cross was an erudite exercise with no meaning but your refusal to engage on Arming Americawas, 'beyond your expertice', even though you now admit an anti-gun bias? Tsk tsk tsk.
thomas
Frank A. Baldridge - 6/20/2003
John:
It was an ivory tower, not ivy. The main thing I was trying to say is that some element of logic seems to be missing from your arguments. On two separate occasions you have illogically inferred that bad things are more likely to occur as "guns" become more common in the environment - an argument that is reminiscent of the introduction of Bellesiles JAH article.
If your inferences were true, the wives, children, neighbors, and pets of mine and my fellow collectors and skeet shooters would all be dead. But they are not, so there must be factors relative to "firearms abuse" other than just many guns in the proximal environment. Academicians might call that the "social context."
Seems like in most cases of "firearms abuse" one hears about only one gun is involved, plus the failure to follow basic firearms safety, or more commonly a violation of law - such as having or using a firearm illegally or failure to secure it as required by law. Quite often it involves repeated violations of the law.
I personally believe that any responsible, and halfway politically conscious, firearm owner believes that some degree of gun control is essential to preserve public safety, and our firearms heritage. The problem is that most folks who use the words "gun control," apparently like yourself, really want to eliminate guns from the environment. So they incrementally inhibit the legitimate use and responsible ownership of firearms, and try to drive manufactures out of business through frivolous lawsuits. And some in academia use their positions to disseminate false information to the public and judges.
It seems that in reality the compassionate "gun control" crowd wants the trauma to continue, so they can continue to advance their agenda. Otherwise they would advocate the enforcement of existing laws and firearms safety in the schools, for the same reason sex ed is taught.
Benny:
Glad to see your back. Hope your trip to New York on behalf of Jason Blair was fruitful.
Don:
Interesting questions, are you going to post the answers somewhere?
Regards to all
Ralph E. Luker - 6/20/2003
Give me an F or an I or just leave it blank, Don. I didn't pay tuition for your course.
Ralph E. Luker - 6/20/2003
Thomas, There go your "fat fingers" again. I don't think my "scared cow" has been gored. I don't have a stake in Heyrman's claims and Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson don't seem to care. Did I ever pretend to be pro-gun? What's to be "embarrassed," according to you, or "ashamed," according to Stephen Warner, about?
Don Williams - 6/20/2003
I believe he's off doing some frantic research.
Hee hee
I wonder if I should give him a B or a C?
I would submit the same questions to you but remedial therapy --excuse me, "special education" , is not
in my charter.
Thomas Gunn - 6/20/2003
06.20.03 ~1400
Ralph,
Are you embarrassed for Frank, or yourself?
Although I have been aware of your anti-gun (remember I accused you of being anti-rights) proclivities since early in our relationship, it wasn't until the flap over Southern Cross that I became aware of your interest in historical dishonesty, vis-a-vis Arming America.
You may recall I've made some speculation that folks seem uninterested in the truth until it is their scared cow being gored, particulary when the lie supports their political purpose.
thomas
Clayton E. Cramer - 6/20/2003
"I have no particular animous, nor disrespect, for any individual just because he happens to be a socialist or an elite."
Most of the gun control advocates in this country aren't socialists. They are closer to fascists than anything else. They believe in private property, and are often members of the superrich. They don't particularly believe in free enterprise, however, because that would require them to compete in the marketplace. For example, Sen. Metzenbaum's fortune was made in airport parking lot franchises. Bill Clinton has never worked in the private sector in his entire life, and his economic alliances have been with fabulously wealthy "leftists" (in scare quotes because most of them are more fascist than socialist).
Academics tend to be out of the left end of the political spectrum, but their motivations for gun control are more out of ignorance of the subject than any fascist tendencies.
"The elites have chosen a different path for this country. As Americans, they should have the right to have at it. I personally think socialism is inevitable, and the Constitution a dying institution. I don't presume that elites are misguided, but rather very well guided."
You are giving too much credit to academics if you are including them among the elite. The elite are people that fly on their own jets. Professors don't have that kind of money or influence on the political process.
Ralph E. Luker - 6/20/2003
Good Lord, I'm so embarrassed. Frank Baldridge has discovered that I am in favor of gun control.
johnhorst - 6/20/2003
"Oh, and John, how did the equation of "elite" and "socialist" slip into the conversation. Karl Marx would be surprised."
Dear Ralph:
It wasn't my intention to "slip" it into the conversation. I was just attempting to identify the players here. Someone on an earlier post suggested that those of your ilk were misguided or misinformed, but I give you and your compatriots more credit than that. Isn't bringing Karl Marx into this like wondering what Plato would think of our use of the term "Republic" in this day and age? Why are elites so afraid of calling themselves socialists anyway? Every time a liberal is called a liberal or a socialist, they get red (no pun intended) in the face and cry foul. Don't be ashamed of your roots and convictions, by gum! Go for it, and may the best elitist win.
Benny Smith - 6/20/2003
Not to pick on Mr. Luker, as I feel he is honest and sincere in whatever it is he is trying to prove here, but I believe it should be abundantly obvious to him now why this forum is a poor venue for debate, particularly on issues such as gun control. One only need to see the strained, fractured syntax of the messages here. Yet I believe this discussion is fruitful for a number of reasons. It demonstrates what I’ve said all along--that the gun lobby has been the driving force in the Bellesiles witch hunt. And the responses from the gun rights extremists show that there is no statistic they can’t manipulate, no fact that they won’t distort in order to promote their agenda. Finally, it shows that pro-gun forces will collectively shout down and denigrate anyone who interferes with that agenda.
Don Williams - 6/20/2003
See http://www.erinoconnor.org/archives/000419.html .
A short excerpt:
****************
"Will dying-a-painful-academic-death historian Michael Bellesiles take the gun control movement down with him? Considering how heavily the gun control lobby relies on Arming America's highly dubious information about early American piece-packing practices, it looks like the answer could be a resounding yes. Don Williams explains in detail on the History News Network. So much for peer review."
**********
hee hee
Don Williams - 6/20/2003
You have spent a year conversing with us and have several times skirted dangerously close to the edge of making a factual assertion. Each time however, you pull back from the abyss with the disclaimer that the area is not in your area of expertise.
Bellesiles , conversely, rendered assertions in a wide variety of areas --with the unfortunate results we have seen.
May I suggest an experiment? Go to the recent "Liberal Arts" graduates from Emory and ask them the following elementary questions about the primary forces in our world:
a) Who are the major military powers in the world and what is the relative power of each? Who can project significant power beyond their borders? What are the primary goals and constraints on each?
b) Who are the major economic powers of the world and what is the total GDP and GDP per capita of each? What is their foreign direct investment and where is it located?
c) What are the major trade flows in the world, the products, volume ($), sources, and destinations. What is the size of US imports/exports as % GDP, who are the major trading partners, and what is the account balance with the major partners.
d) What is the size of the US defense budget and how does it compare with the other major military powers?
e) What are the major components of the US GDP and their rough size ($)? What is the total US national wealth and how is ownership distributed? What is size of the US total debt and it major components? How does the Feb 2003 federal debt forecast for 2008 compare with the forecast that Bush made two years ago. What part of the debt will have to be paid off starting in 2010 and how will the debt be paid?
f) What was odd about Ronald Reagan's defense budget?
g) Currently, What is your share of the federal debt? What has been the trend?
h) Who are the 10 wealthiest people in the US and what industries do they influence? What percentage of national wealth is owned by the 8% wealthiest households? What percentage of national income?
i) What business interests were helped by the Afghanistan war?
Would you like to answer the above questions, Mr Luker? They are
rather elementary --something that any educated person should know.
Ralph E. Luker - 6/20/2003
More D. W. B. S. Erin O'Connor isn't a graduate student. Whatever profession D. W. happens to profess, his felt need to denigrate academic people suggests its own deep insecurities and need for acceptance. A variety of things seem "hilarious" to D. W. -- probably even the human condition.
Don Williams - 6/20/2003
In fact, if you check Mr Luker's blog (from HNN front page) you will see a link to a grad students' recitation of a fairly miserable existence. When an intellectual feels that academia is a "fraud" and that his livelihood depends on publicly propagating politically correct sophistry, you are talking about a pretty sad situation. WHen the intellectual realizes that he spent $170,000 and seven years of his life putting himself in that deep hole, you have clinical depression.
Given the pay in universities, I don't think even full professors could be considered in the income elite.
As for them forming the "intellectual" elite, the idea is hilarious to anyone who's actually conversed with them. Well versed in their narrow specialty, yes. Well educated in the things that matter and highly knowledgeable in major important areas outside their narrow specialty --no. Reasonably intelligent people worth knowing --in general, yes. Deeply insecure --yes.
John G. Fought - 6/20/2003
Yes, Mr. Luker, that was a lot to be hit with all at once, wasn't it? I was actually getting ready to take up arms on your behalf, as we doctors of philosophy are wont to say. I'm glad you also spoke up on the issue of elite socialists too. I've had it with elites, actually, but I have to say, unless Mr. Horst is in on a secret, they aren't actually 'chosen' as the term would suggest. That's too bad, but in my experience they tend to just choose themselves at a certain point, and that's it: they never stand for re-election. Well, I guess some get picked by their daddies. Maybe that's what he meant.
Ralph E. Luker - 6/20/2003
Frank, I don't know where you make up all this stuff in your post about me. 1) I don't have a doctorate in philosophy. 2) I have to look up the word "enthymeme" every time you use it. 3)Doctorate or no, you are not obliged to agree with what I say. And 4) I don't hang out in some ivy tower somewhere. Now, what were you saying ... ?
Oh, and John, how did the equation of "elite" and "socialist" slip into the conversation. Karl Marx would be surprised.
Frank A. Baldridge - 6/20/2003
The interesting thing about many of these so called elites is their hypocritical nature. Luker, who holds a doctorate in philosophy, can't even string together a valid enthymeme, but us less intellectual folks are supposed to buy into it because he has a doctorate and hangs out in an ivory tower somewhere.
Here in California, where we have some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation, and locally high crime rates, virtually all the gun control political elites have concealed weapons permits, plus bodyguards. But a nurse who works nights in a hospital in a bad part of town can't get one. And if I read Luker right, he'd just as soon see that she didn't have access to a gun at all.
Speaking of the "oil elites," the most condescending letter I ever received, except the one from my department head pointing out that the on campus bookstore was the student's best friend, was from U.S. Senator Diane Fienstine regarding what was best for my gun collection. Probably dictated it while she was driving around Aspen, with her gun beside her, in one of her four SUVs. And I'm not supposed to have even one of those either.
Probably the most hypocritical thing about the elite "gun control" crowd is that they keep passing laws, to "protect the public," but fail to enforce them. One doesn't need to be among the "intellectual elite" to realize that they are just waiting for the day when, in a condescending manner, they can proclaim, "You kids don't play appropriately with the toys, no matter what, so we are going to take them all away (at least all the ones we can easily find because of the paper trail)."
And speaking of the intellectual elite, where's Benny?
Josh Greenland - 6/19/2003
""My experience is that most people who hold Dr. Luker's views do so because they have been misled."
"I don't think the intellectual elite are misled at all."
Some in the educated upper-middle class and others with post-graduate degrees may tend to fervently believe many falsehoods that maintain the gun control cause, but so do many people socioeconomically below the upper-middle class and without post-graduate degrees. However, many highly educated people seem to feel uncomfortable with the idea that the average joe without a post-graduate degree or great wealth can in most parts of the US readily get his hands on a gun and use it. And some I think are cynical about playing the crime and children cards, while they know the facts well enough and really want the rabble disarmed.
It says everything to me that (as far as I can tell) few gun control activists are not from the educated upper-middle class or the wealthy. The gun rights movement's activists are much more representative of the US population, including by income and education.
johnhorst - 6/19/2003
Dear Ralph:
I have no particular animous, nor disrespect, for any individual just because he happens to be a socialist or an elite. The elites have chosen a different path for this country. As Americans, they should have the right to have at it. I personally think socialism is inevitable, and the Constitution a dying institution. I don't presume that elites are misguided, but rather very well guided. Please don't take offence, as you have your agenda and I have mine. I am not, by the way, a neo-con or a republican, or a religious zealot, or a libertarian for that matter, but rather, (I hope) a free thinking individual who happens to believe we don't need someone else running our lives. I want to make my own way in the world.
Ralph E. Luker - 6/19/2003
John, I appreciate your relegating me and my predispositions to the class of "intellectual elites," tho I suspect from the rest of what you say that it is one for which you don't have much respect. Well, praise the Lord and pass the ammunition, we have the oil elites (hardly the Constitution) to save us from threats posed by the socialist intellectuals.
Thomas Gunn - 6/19/2003
06.18.03 ~2240
Clayton, Josh,
Thanks for your responses. I am in complete agreement. Now if only we could get Ralph to see the light.
Clayton, since your words are indisputable why is it some refuse to see the light? Can it be just the emotional response to the power of the gun, or is it the responsibility attendant? Metaphorically speaking of course.
thomas
Frank A. Baldridge - 6/19/2003
Mr. Haskins:
THANK YOU! If you want, I'll gladly swap my graduate degree in history for your law degree - just kidding, I think I'll get my own rather than a PhD.
Frank A. Baldridge - 6/19/2003
Ah!! The real Luker reveals himself:
http://hnn.us/comments/13547.html
http://hnn.us/comments/13663.html
http://hnn.us/comments/13684.html
In regards to "the thousands of Americans killed and wounded annually in the most over-armed national in the world." How many of those interactions involved a "gun" acting on its own? How many involved the inappropriate use of a "gun"?
Essentially Luker has demonstrated that he has bought into the Charles A. Beard rap that it is okay to use history, even if its made up as in Bellesiles case, as propaganda, has long as the cause is just. Such as nullifying the Second Amendment (13547, 13663).
I can not speak for Mr. Clayton, but I personally have a real problem with people who: 1) lie to advance their personal agendas, and 2) believe academia or the state, rather than personal responsibility, should prevent all "bad things" from happening (13684).
So we get guys like Dr. Dix, who never taught his son firearms safety, though he probably showed him how to use a condom, suing a "gun" manufacturer because its product didn't inform the unknowing user that it was loaded. And we get legislators and academicians, like Luker, hopping on the bandwagon.
My lowly MA brain tells me that Mr. Clayton has advanced a much more meaningful argument regarding violence in society. Our society feeds on it. Watched TV lately?
Josh Greenland - 6/18/2003
"However, it is of course common knowledge and stands to reason that if we take the guns away, gun violence will be reduced, the unspoken lie being that VIOLENCE will be reduced similarly. No need to control for any variables here."
I assume you mean if we imagine the guns away. Since in the real world it would take armed government people to take all guns away from citizens, all guns couldn't go away. And the level of armed government violence against civilians would increase.
Clayton E. Cramer - 6/18/2003
"I don't think you can make this claim, 'Perhaps the high prison population is a function of a high violent crime rate', without controlling for every possible variable."
That's why I said, "Perhaps." It is very clear that America is a very violent country, regardless of weapon type. That violence is heavily concentrated in a relatively small number of subcultures. A detailed examination of what makes those subcultures so violent is probably a more productive way to solve the violence problem than to look at what is common to the society as a whole. Courtwright's _Violent Land: Single Men and Social Disorder from the Frontier to the Inner City_ is a good start. (The subtitle gives away part of the problem.)
"However, it is of course common knowledge and stands to reason that if we take the guns away, gun violence will be reduced, the unspoken lie being that VIOLENCE will be reduced similarly. No need to control for any variables here."
The other problem is that taking away the guns is, without house to house searches and police state tactics, simply not possible. There are enough guns in the U.S. to keep both career criminals and the violent misfits supplied for centuries, even if there were no resupply through illegal manufacturing and smuggling. The net effect of less severe gun control tactics is to disproportionately disarm the people that are neither career criminals nor social misfits--and who commit very, very little violent crime.
It is fashionable in some circles to assert that gun ownership makes every into a dangerous misfit, in order to distract attention from the shockingly high murder rates (with and without guns) common in some American subcultures. The evidence is very clear that this is NOT true. In most recent years, 40% or more of murders are committed by convicted felons; about 1/3 are committed by minors; about 5% of murders in 1992 were by mental patients who were not taking their medicine. There's some overlap between these groups, but you quickly find that murder in America is highly concentrated; an American adult without a felony conviction is very, very unlikely to commit murder.
Of course, we have done some experiments with strict gun control in the U.S. Washington DC passed a very strict handgun measure in 1976. There was a very dramatic reduction in both homicides and suicides with guns; there was also a nearly equivalent increase in homicides and suicides with non-guns. The net gain was a 1.5% reduction in the suicide rate, and a 5.4% reduction in overall homicide rate (which includes a reduction in defensive homicides also, so this may mean less than it seems).
Solve the violence problem, and the guns don't matter. If you don't solve the violence problem, nearly all the gun homicides and suicides turn into non-gun homicides and suicides.
Thomas Gunn - 6/18/2003
06.18.03 ~1320
Clayton,
I don't think you can make this claim, "Perhaps the high prison population is a function of a high violent crime rate", without controlling for every possible variable.
However, it is of course common knowledge and stands to reason that if we take the guns away, gun violence will be reduced, the unspoken lie being that VIOLENCE will be reduced similarly. No need to control for any variables here.
thomas
Clayton E. Cramer - 6/18/2003
"Clayton, This is _such_ nonsense. The United States has already a higher percentage of its population in prisons than any other major nation on earth."
Quite a number are there for victimless crimes, too. On the other hand, we have a very serious violent crime rate (with all sorts of weapons) compared to most other industrialized nations. Perhaps the high prison population is a function of a high violent crime rate?
Clayton E. Cramer - 6/18/2003
"Those promises often turn out to be a con game when the economy turns bad."
Murder rates often FALL during recessions. I'm ignoring the drop in murder rates during the Great Depression--the repeal of Prohibition in 1933 probably played the larger part.
Murder rates fell during the Reagan recession of the early 1980s. I've even seen sociologists try to defend the "unemployment causes murder" argument by asserting that there is a delay of 3-4 years between becoming unemployed and becoming a killer. Of course, with a 3-4 delay, what you do you know! Murder rates often rise with improving economies.
About 40% of U.S. murders are done under the influence of alcohol or alcohol combined with some other intoxicant. Unemployment tends to reduce the amount of money available for alcohol. That's probably why unemployment often reduces murder rates.
Josh Greenland - 6/18/2003
"Clayton, This is _such_ nonsense. The United States has already a higher percentage of its population in prisons than any other major nation on earth. Yet, you want more people in prison as a way of solving our gun violence."
I don't have a problem with certain very specific types of enforcement, but I agree with you generally on the prison-craziness of the US.
However, I think you are perpetrating a false dichotomy if you insist that the only alternative to imprisoning more people is severe restrictions on or mass confiscations of firearms. We may have a worse poverty problem in this country than do the other industrialized countries, and this could be ameliorated.
Also, I think you are conflating unlike things when you talk about "gun violence." What does that include? Suicides (violence against self)? Legitimate use of firearms in self-defense? Police use of firearms in the legitimate line of duty? If you mean "gun violence" rather than "gun crime," are you saying that "making firearms unavailable" (making them impossible to obtain and/or confiscating those already owned) would actually lower the suicide rate? Are you saying that the police should not use firearms in the course of their duties? And are you opposed to the use of firearms for civilian self-defense?
johnhorst - 6/18/2003
"Clayton, This is _such_ nonsense. The United States has already a higher percentage of its population in prisons than any other major nation on earth. Yet, you want more people in prison as a way of solving our gun violence."
So, Mr. Luker, your point is that we should turn criminals out because we just have too many criminals in jail, based upon what other "major" nations do? And that's not a nonsense statement? I thought criminals go to jail because they need to be separated from society, and they are either incarcerated or freed based upon the conviction, not whether or not they fit into the statistics of any other major nation on earth.
Josh Greenland - 6/18/2003
"Professor Volohk has greater confidence than I do that our criminal justice system is drawing clear lines of distinction between "law-abiding citizens" and "gun-owning criminals." I suspect that the system fairly effectively draws that line along class lines."
In what ways do you suspect this line is being drawn? Are you saying that lower income people are being unfairly pushed around by the police and prosecuted for owning and using guns, or are you saying that affluent people are getting away with gun crimes that poor people are not?
Samuel Browning - 6/18/2003
Personally I'd be happy to knock down some of the Federal drug sentence times to reasonable levels as a way of making room for felons caught with firearms. We have high incarceration rates but it is one of several factors which have helped decrease our present crime rate from the early 1990s. And yes it would be better if we could head off crime beforehand with better social programs and social change but I'm glad certain people in Connecticut are now serving 75-85% of their sentences behind bars rather than the 10-20% they were serving in the early 1980s. In that sense if we are going to use our prisons to handle social problems then the high rate of incarceration is a default solution that works to a certain extent.
Don Williams - 6/18/2003
Birmingham has belonged to US Steel for a long time. You all remember Birmingham? See http://www.post-gazette.com/books/reviews/20010429review763.asp
Birmingham also has a very high murder rate, as noted in my original post above, but the high number of murders take place over a much larger population. Fairfield's population is about 12,000.
Don Williams - 6/17/2003
Arming America has an interesting passage on page 210:
"The early national period witnessed a tension between federal efforts to arm white male Americans and elite fears that poor whites might put such weapons to an incorrect, class-based use"
I couldn't help wondering if a certain professor might also fear
"poor whites" with guns --especially poor whites with a "class-based" grudge.
I also can't help wondering if someone might have gotten his ass whipped in an Atlanta bar sometime in the past --especially if he voiced his "class consciousness" with a faux British accent.
To see what I mean, listen to Bellesiles lecture at the Second Amendment Symposium held on February 16, 2000, by the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence:
http://www.gunlawsuits.org/audio/symposium/clip5.mp3
(More is here: http://www.gunlawsuits.org/defend/second/symposium/audio.asp )
Ralph E. Luker - 6/17/2003
Clayton, This is _such_ nonsense. The United States has already a higher percentage of its population in prisons than any other major nation on earth. Yet, you want more people in prison as a way of solving our gun violence.
Don Williams - 6/17/2003
One interesting connection between the two murder capitals (Fairfield Alabama and Gary Indiana) is a common employer: US Steel.
See http://www.newsteel.com/2000/NS0007vp.htm .
Anyone remember the spat of killings by Postal Workers a few years ago -- coincident with work place changes the Post Office took to compete with FedEx,etc.? How do you guys think US Steel has been treating it's workers in the past few years?
Murder results from intense rage -- sometimes rage that's been caused by people other than the victim. Corporate managers preach a paternalistic culture and loyalty/hard work to encourage productivity --with the promise that that devotion will be rewarded. Those promises often turn out to be a con game when the economy turns bad.
What do you think happens when a man works hard for 10 years, is laid off, can't find work, and his wife starts complaining. Maybe he like to hit his boss with the claw hammer but his boss isn't the one standing next to him.
Would anyone be all that heartbroken if a bankrupt Enron employee whacked former Enron CEO Jeffery Skilling?
You were in Silicon Valley during the crash , Clayton. Any of this ring a bell -- not personally but with regard to people you've known?
Clayton E. Cramer - 6/17/2003
"You fellahs keep your guns where they are. Atlanta already has more than it needs."
I doubt that more guns would help very much--nor would reducing the number make much of a difference, either. The problems there (as with most big cities), are tied to social pathologies that have taken a generation to create.
What does work, in most communities, is locking up the relatively small percentage of violent criminals who commit 30-40% of the felonies. Since most of these violent criminals have felony convictions already, aggressive enforcement of the existing federal law against felons in possession would rapidly reduce your violent crime rates. This assumes, of course, that the city government has an interest in doing that.
Clayton E. Cramer - 6/17/2003
"Professor Volohk has greater confidence than I do that our criminal justice system is drawing clear lines of distinction between 'law-abiding citizens' and 'gun-owning criminals.' I suspect that the system fairly effectively draws that line along class lines."
This is nonsense. The distinctions are clear-cut. If you have been convicted of a felony, you may not own a gun. If you are subject to a domestic violence restraining order, you may not own a gun. In some states, if you have been convicted on a violent misdeameanor in the last 5 (sometimes 10) years, you may not own a gun. If a few states, if you have been locked up against your will in a mental hospital in the last 3 or 5 years, you may not own a gun.
There are some "class distinctions" with respect to felony convictions, and I would not dispute that at least some of the disparity in felony conviction rates has to do with racism and poverty. But victimization studies demonstrate that racial disparities in both convictions and imprisonment roughly match racial disparities in violent crime rates (both offenders and victims). If Dr. Luker wants to claim that poor people are more violent because they are victims of economic oppression, go right ahead. But this is not the same as his claim.
Now, there are laws that regulate gun ownership in ways that suffer from the class distinctions and vague rules that Dr. Luker is concerned about: New York City's pistol permit process, and concealed weapon permit issuance policies in places like California, New York State, and Massachusetts. In all three cases, there are clear cut problems with racial discrimination that, of course, liberal judges refuse to do anything about. Is Dr. Luker concerned about these abuses of power?
Ralph E. Luker - 6/17/2003
Professor Volohk has greater confidence than I do that our criminal justice system is drawing clear lines of distinction between "law-abiding citizens" and "gun-owning criminals." I suspect that the system fairly effectively draws that line along class lines.
Diane Nicholl - 6/17/2003
In an article published June 17, 2003, titled Domestic Disputes, Eugene Volokh examines recent studies regarding firearms in the home. He points out the studies do not control for the criminal background of those involved in homicides where guns were used.
"Curiously, the study starts by pointing out that an earlier study, which used a similar approach, "inspired a paper trail of challenges that continues to grow." The new study was partly a reaction to those challenges. But a key argument in those challenges was precisely that the earlier study didn't adequately control for the victim's criminal background — and yet the new study made the same mistake, and in fact control for fewer factors than the earlier study did. The new study didn't even try to deal with the possibility that law-abiding citizens aren't endangered by their own guns, but rather that gun-owning criminals are jeopardized by their gun-owning criminal associates or enemies."
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-volokh061703.asp
Bryan Haskins - 6/17/2003
As I read some of the posts Monday, the following thought hit me: Ah, now we come to a core gun control issue--Will a ban on firearms deter violent crime? You will forgive me if I now pretend to have some knowledge regarding this question. I am not a historian, but I am a prosecutor from a rural county in which guns are abundant. In Virginia, we refer to every non-lethal yet intentional infliction of “serious” bodily injury as a “malicious wounding.” The crime is defined as follows: The intentional infliction of a bodily injury to another, done with malice, and with the intent to maim, disfigure, disable, or kill. I have prosecuted many of these over the years, and these are my conclusions:
1. Never, ever, has a single one of these crimes been caused by the mere proximity of a firearm or other weapon. Although I have heard quite a few bizarre defenses of insanity, I have never yet heard anyone complain that they heard “voices from the gun cabinet” which made them do it.
2. The majority of these crimes arise from a defendant acting on a sudden impulse to lash out at his victim while motivated by anger, hatred, jealousy, or revenge. (this is particularly the case in domestic woundings) The remaining few of these crimes are the result of a pre-planned assault or a “lying in wait” ambush, and they also arise from the same personal motives.
3. The vast, vast majority of these woundings are committed with a weapon other than a firearm (bare hands, glass ashtrays, knives, brush axes, 2x4 lumber, cordless drills, rocks, hatchets, chairs, chain saws, baseball bats, iron pipes, barbells, beer/bourbon bottles, etc.).
4. Where firearms are used, the vast majority of these woundings has not resulted in the victim’s death.
5. Nevertheless, where a homicide actually occurs, a firearm was used about 70% of the time.
6. An “assault weapon” as currently defined by Congress has been used only once out of hundreds of woundings (in a drug-related drive-by fatality)
7. The vast majority of these crimes occur between a defendant and a victim who live near the poverty line and have some relationship with each other.
8. The majority of these crimes has occurred while the defendant (and frequently the victim as well) was under the influence of alcohol or some other self-administered intoxicant.
Everyone is free to spin these facts as they wish.
My comment upon them is this: Our society has a very unhealthy fascination with firearms (for example, go to your local Blockbuster, tour the new release titles, and count the number of new title covers which show someone brandishing a firearm) Yet, there are many people out there who refuse to acknowledge society’s responsibility for promoting violence in general and firearm violence in particular. Furthermore, firearm violence, while far less common than violence committed with other weapons, is frequently more sensational and as such garners an unrealistically disproportionate amount of media coverage. Finally, it is easier on us to blame a firearm for the violence someone causes with it than it is for us to look a fellow human in the eyes and tell him that he is responsible for his malicious acts committed with that firearm. These facts have led many people to believe that it is far easier to attempt to cure our nation of its violent tendencies by banning firearms. Yet, a ban on firearms will not act as a ban on the base motives which comprise malice or depravity of mind. Our violence problem will continue unabated until we are willing to confront the harder, underlying factors which cause a man to rationalize the taking of another man’s life (whether it is poverty, racism, substance abuse, or other issues). In short, reducing the number of firearms will do nothing to prevent the number of assaults, woundings, and homicides which our society otherwise chooses to tolerate, and I believe that the worst policy of all is to seek to stop a particular and unwanted brand of violence by punishing innocent, lawful firearms owners who had nothing to do with it.
Finally, let me say that this is an interesting topic, even if it walks us away from the issue of what problems exist with AA and what changes, if any, will be made in the second edition. I for one am also glad that Mr. Luker is here. I do not always agree with his observations, but he at least deserves credit for actually entering the arena, taking on the topics of discussion, considering our views, and in turn asking us to consider his. There is a lesson here for Mr. Smith, if he will only choose to accept it….
Richard Henry Morgan - 6/17/2003
Chuck, the allusion to G.H. Hardy is even more obvious in its intent than you suggest. Most professors will have, at some point in their careers, come across G.H. Hardy's famous statements, in A Mathematician's Apology, that pure mathematics had no applications, and elsewhere, that applied math was "repulsively ugly and intolerably dull". Hardy was a pacifist who felt the need to defend his mathematical work (including number theory, where he was among the greatest) by its utter uselessness. Thus, having Hardy defend number theory as a path to crytography is akin to having Einstein defend physics as a glorification of German nationalism. Any professor pretending to pass on the merits of Sokal's contribution should be aware of this -- it was intended as a red flag of immense proportions, though one still missed by the editorial collective of Social Text. It can't be said that Sokal didn't warn them -- they were just too ignorant to know it.
Ralph E. Luker - 6/17/2003
You fellahs keep your guns where they are. Atlanta already has more than it needs.
Samuel Browning - 6/17/2003
Hi Tim:
I've read Whitley's statement and my take is that he can only remember being in John Lott's office at some unspecified time with two students who may have been doing some sort of work for Lott, nothing more. If this is the best evidence Lott can put forward, it is my personal opinion that Lott never conducted a survey in 1997 as he has claimed. I would however invite people to review the evidence and draw their own conclusions.
Clayton E. Cramer - 6/17/2003
You are correct that there are white subcultures with significant violence problems in the U.S. See Nisbet and Cohen's _The Culture of Honor_ for a discussion of these issues--including experiments in which physiological responses to conflict were measured, and found to be different between Southern whites and Northern whites.
Clayton E. Cramer - 6/17/2003
"Clayton, don't you imagine that part of the reason for the focus is that some of us think that it is much more 'doable' to control the widespread proliferation of guns than it is to repair families."
You may imagine it, but that's all it is. If there is anything that alcohol and drug prohibition has demonstrated, it is that bans are not terribly effective methods of removing something from commerce--there are always people prepared to break the law supplied desired goods. Until you reduce the demand for a good, you can pass all the laws you want--it may reduce overall consumption of a good, but the people that you are most interested in disarming--violent felons--are the ones least likely to obey the laws. That's why they are criminals--they don't feel a need to obey laws.
Another poster has observed that good intentioned Great Society efforts aggravated the existing problems of the ghettos. They also aggravated those same problems outside of the ghettos. Out of wedlock pregnancies roughly tripled in the period 1960-1995, among both blacks and whites. The rate was already higher among blacks, and the Great Society turned a minor problem in black communities into a major one.
"It is, I think, indisputable that a family dispute with a gun at hand is more likely to yield wounds or death than a family dispute where a gun is not at hand."
You may think it indisputable; I don't. I've seen more than a few families going through difficult times. One in particular was a house awash in guns, most of them loaded. The wife was off engaged in adultery with, it seems, a cast of thousands, including a guy that was renting a room in the house. To my great surprise, no guns were drawn.
The fact is that violence-prone subcultures misuse not just guns, but also knives, fists, feet, and everything else known to man.
Don Williams - 6/17/2003
The FBI's database "Uniform Crime Reports" is here http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/01cius.htm . I pulled the table at the
bottom "Offenses known to Law Enforcement -By Cities 10,000
and over,2001 " into a spreadsheet and added a computed column to
computer the ratio "Murders/voluntary manslaughter per 100000".
What's surprising is the many places have ZERO deaths per 100000 people in 2001, and many more only had 1-5 deaths per 100000.
However, there are hot spots of homicides. Gary Indiana and Fairfield Alabama rated highest at 79 deaths per 100000 and 97 per 100000 respectively. (That's not low if continued over time. Gary's rate gives you 790 deaths over 10 years time--meaning almost 1 person per 120. Imagine your high school class of 240 student losing 2 people within 10 years after graduation.)
Some other high areas: Alabama: Birmingham (30 /100000), Fairfield
(97), Washington, DC (41), Compton-California (48), Opa Locka- Florida (65), New Orleans(44), Detroit (41), St Louis (42),
New York (43), Youngstown-Ohio (42), West Columbia-South Carolina (45),
Mr Luker's Atlanta,Georgia had a death rate of 34 per 100000.
By contrast, most states which did not have cities with deaths rates reaching 30 per 100000. Some states, like North Dakota , mostly have cities with death rates lower than Europes, i.e, in the 0 to 1 range.
The death rate in Clayton Cramer's Boise Idaho is 1.05 per 100000.
Most of the local townships around my home had Zero deaths per 100000 but Norristown (a small, poor, largely black town located about 5 miles away has roughly 15 per 100000) and Philadelphia (located about 17 miles away) has a death rate of about 20 per 100000.
Maybe Clayton and I should lend Mr Luker some of our firearms.
I also checked the other file " Table 8a, Offenses Known to Law Enforcment by City with populations less than 10,000". What is striking is that the vast majority of these 4660 small towns reported NO deaths by murder/voluntary manslaughter in 2001.
Here again, there are some towns with high rates but in most case we are talking about 2-3 deaths which give a high ratio because of the small population. I ignored cases of 1 death and checked on those towns with 2 or more deaths. Some examples: Clayton, Alabama (135 /100000), Irwindale Calif (135), Edgewood Florida (2 killed in population of 1950, giving ratio of 102 per 100000), Woodland Township (169- 2 out of 1180), Milan New Mexico 157 (3 out of 1901) , Selma NorthCarolina 67 (4 out of 6015), Burns Oregon 96 (3 out of 3100), Jamestown Tennessee 107 (2 out of 1855), Pound Virginia 181 (2 out of 1106 --small town in Appalachians on Kentucky border), South Boston Va 58 (5 out of 8622)
All of the above suggests that targeted job, education, and law enforcement assistance to the hot spots could reduce deaths greatly and that areas with high gun possession don't necessarily have high or even moderate homicide rates.
johnhorst - 6/17/2003
"Clayton, don't you imagine that part of the reason for the focus is that some of us think that it is much more "doable" to control the widespread proliferation of guns than it is to repair families. It is, I think, indisputable that a family dispute with a gun at hand is more likely to yield wounds or death than a family dispute where a gun is not at hand."
Could it be possible, Mr. Luker, that the meddling of the liberal elites' experiment, (e.g., The Great Society, "It Takes a Village") has so successfully disintegrated the family, and therefore caused the dreadful state of the underclass it had attempted to save? And now that things are so irreperably damaged, without at least a significant adjustment of the liberal agenda, you look at gun control as the answer to the problem? Isn't that like the Dutch blaming the sea for disintegrating poorly constructed dykes? Of course the liberal elite want to point the finger at guns, a finger pointed in that direction keeps it pointing away from them.
Normal families resolve disputes all the time without ANY violence. I have firearms all over my house, I also have two fists and an excellent vocabulary of very hurtful words, I have never laid a hand on my wife or child, told them I hate them, called them stupid or worthless, or purposefully subjected them to any kind of pain or anguish. How do you account for that, Mr. Luker? And by the way, I learned how to be a human being from my parents, not from Hillary or Gloria, or any of the Kennedys.
Tim Lambert - 6/17/2003
The statements from Whitley and others are available at
http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/lottreply10.html
The relevant portion of Whitley's statement is:
"Unfortunately, I can't directly corroborate the survey, but I do have one memory which may be related. I remember stopping by John's office one time I think during my first year and there were some undergraduates in the office. John was finishing up with them and my recollection is that he introduced me to them and then they left. I think he introduced their names (which I don't remember) and said that they had recently worked for him (although I don't remember if he said on what), they then left and I met with John to talk about working as an RA for him. I am pretty sure they were undergraduates because I seem to recall them being impressed when I said I was an econ graduate student (anything that inflates your ego during the first year of graduate school at the University of Chicago is a big deal at the time).
"In that situation, what I really remember most is the scene and not the words. I don't know when exactly it was, but I can remember the room. It was in John's old office, when he was in the middle of the back wall of the Chicago Law School library (before he moved over near the stairwell to the smaller office). I can remember him sitting at his desk and the students (I am pretty sure there were two students, but not 100% positive) were standing between me at the door and John at his desk against the far wall. I think one was taller than me (I am 5'6") and had lighter hair while the other was shorter and had darker hair (the heights I am pretty sure of, the hair color I am less sure of). The taller one was closer to me and seemed to be more of the leader. For some reason, that image sticks in my head.
"Unfortunately it is possible that I am mixing this scene up in my head with other events, but it is fairly clear in my head so I am at least reasonably confident in it. If my recollection is correct, it is entirely possible (very likely, in fact) that these were some of the students who had worked on the survey (I do have some vague recollection that they had coordinated something and that others may have been involved, but this recollection is so fuzzy that even though it would be definite corroborating evidence I don't want to make a big deal out of it). Unfortunately that is all I can really remember on that one right now, sorry I can't be more specific."
I don't think I need to comment on this.
You asked about the weighted percentage. I calculate the answer here:
http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/lott98update3.html#2003-04-25
I explain how to calculate the weighted percentage, give the details of the calculation and have a spreadsheet of the calculations that you can download. I couldn't include Lott's raw data -- he requires you to get that directly from his website.
Tim Lambert - 6/17/2003
The statements from Whitley and others are available at
http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/lottreply10.html
The relevant portion of Whitley's statement is:
"Unfortunately, I can't directly corroborate the survey, but I do have one memory which may be related. I remember stopping by John's office one time I think during my first year and there were some undergraduates in the office. John was finishing up with them and my recollection is that he introduced me to them and then they left. I think he introduced their names (which I don't remember) and said that they had recently worked for him (although I don't remember if he said on what), they then left and I met with John to talk about working as an RA for him. I am pretty sure they were undergraduates because I seem to recall them being impressed when I said I was an econ graduate student (anything that inflates your ego during the first year of graduate school at the University of Chicago is a big deal at the time).
"In that situation, what I really remember most is the scene and not the words. I don't know when exactly it was, but I can remember the room. It was in John's old office, when he was in the middle of the back wall of the Chicago Law School library (before he moved over near the stairwell to the smaller office). I can remember him sitting at his desk and the students (I am pretty sure there were two students, but not 100% positive) were standing between me at the door and John at his desk against the far wall. I think one was taller than me (I am 5'6") and had lighter hair while the other was shorter and had darker hair (the heights I am pretty sure of, the hair color I am less sure of). The taller one was closer to me and seemed to be more of the leader. For some reason, that image sticks in my head.
"Unfortunately it is possible that I am mixing this scene up in my head with other events, but it is fairly clear in my head so I am at least reasonably confident in it. If my recollection is correct, it is entirely possible (very likely, in fact) that these were some of the students who had worked on the survey (I do have some vague recollection that they had coordinated something and that others may have been involved, but this recollection is so fuzzy that even though it would be definite corroborating evidence I don't want to make a big deal out of it). Unfortunately that is all I can really remember on that one right now, sorry I can't be more specific."
I don't think I need to comment on this.
You asked about the weighted percentage. I calculate the answer here:
http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/lott98update3.html#2003-04-25
I explain how to calculate the weighted percentage, give the details of the calculation and have a spreadsheet of the calculations that you can download. I couldn't include Lott's raw data -- he requires you to get that directly from his website.
Tim Lambert - 6/17/2003
The statements from Whitley and others are available at
http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/lottreply10.html
The relevant portion of Whitley's statement is:
"Unfortunately, I can't directly corroborate the survey, but I do have one memory which may be related. I remember stopping by John's office one time I think during my first year and there were some undergraduates in the office. John was finishing up with them and my recollection is that he introduced me to them and then they left. I think he introduced their names (which I don't remember) and said that they had recently worked for him (although I don't remember if he said on what), they then left and I met with John to talk about working as an RA for him. I am pretty sure they were undergraduates because I seem to recall them being impressed when I said I was an econ graduate student (anything that inflates your ego during the first year of graduate school at the University of Chicago is a big deal at the time).
"In that situation, what I really remember most is the scene and not the words. I don't know when exactly it was, but I can remember the room. It was in John's old office, when he was in the middle of the back wall of the Chicago Law School library (before he moved over near the stairwell to the smaller office). I can remember him sitting at his desk and the students (I am pretty sure there were two students, but not 100% positive) were standing between me at the door and John at his desk against the far wall. I think one was taller than me (I am 5'6") and had lighter hair while the other was shorter and had darker hair (the heights I am pretty sure of, the hair color I am less sure of). The taller one was closer to me and seemed to be more of the leader. For some reason, that image sticks in my head.
"Unfortunately it is possible that I am mixing this scene up in my head with other events, but it is fairly clear in my head so I am at least reasonably confident in it. If my recollection is correct, it is entirely possible (very likely, in fact) that these were some of the students who had worked on the survey (I do have some vague recollection that they had coordinated something and that others may have been involved, but this recollection is so fuzzy that even though it would be definite corroborating evidence I don't want to make a big deal out of it). Unfortunately that is all I can really remember on that one right now, sorry I can't be more specific."
I don't think I need to comment on this.
You asked about the weighted percentage. I calculate the answer here:
http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/lott98update3.html#2003-04-25
I explain how to calculate the weighted percentage, give the details of the calculation and have a spreadsheet of the calculations that you can download. I couldn't include Lott's raw data -- he requires you to get that directly from his website.
Samuel Browning - 6/17/2003
Hi Chuck:
Welcome to the board and funny piece. I hadn't realized that Bellesiles even screwed up his discussion of Little Big Horn. BTW I'm from Connecticut and if you tell me where the New Haven Grey microfilm is, I'll check it for you. Best regards.
Samuel Browning
Samuel Browning - 6/17/2003
Hi Tim:
Fair enough, the three months have indeed run. My comments on whether Lott made up his 1997 survey will depend on an affidavit posted on lott's website at http://www.johnlott.org/files/GenDisc97_02surveys.html Here Lott has "a statement by John Whitney, who at the time was a graduate student at the University of Chicago and is now at Adalaide University in Australia, saying that he met the students that conducted the survey."
I tried to access it and confirmed once again that I am a computer idiot since I am seemingly unable to teach myself how to uncompress a zip download :( But if you reproduce the entire text of the Whitley affidavit, here, or on your website, as verses just a summary, I will be willing to stick my neck out on this issue. Theoretically Whitley's statement might be credible and it is the only statement that Lott offers (other than that David Gross) which discusses observation of his survey as verses confirmation that his hard drive got wiped out. I agree that David Gross is a weak reed for Lott to rest his defense on, but I don't remember anyone on this site depending on Gross's word to try to bail Lott out three months ago. (I certainly didn't).
Out of curosity, what percentages do the 6 or 7 defensive gun uses actually amount to, in his 2002 survey. Please understand that most of us don't know how to calculate a weighted number. :)
Josh Greenland - 6/16/2003
"As I pointed out in detail, there are a lot of factors that are correlated with race, but not necessarily tied to race, that would explain the much higher murder rates within black and Hispanic populations of the U.S. Most of those factors, by the way, are matters that liberals would, I hope, agree should be fixed."
I would think that the #1 factor is poverty. I've read that violent crime rates for middle-class black people are about the same as for middle-class white people. My impression is that poor, overwhelming white communities also tend to have high violent crime rates.
Don Williams - 6/16/2003
Don Williams - 6/16/2003
a kitchen knife stuck in them. Anyone remember John Wayne Bobbit?
(no pun intended).
Don Williams - 6/16/2003
1) I think that the real measure of violence in a community is homicides PER CAPITA. I grew up in the southern Appalachian mountains --I have the impression that some Appalachian counties have high per capita homicide rates (or at least had such rates in the past)but the total number of homicides is low compared to urban areas because of a much lower population density.
2) Those counties also have boom and bust coal economies --largely bust in the past two decades. It might be interesting to check homicide rates in those areas in periods of past prosperity vice
periods of deep poverty. The partial correlation of homicides with the 20-30 year old age group is known, as is a linkage to heavy drug use. (The area is currently having a non-trivial problem with Oxycontin abuse --Oxycontin being an addictive opiate used for pain relief for cancer patients.)
Ralph E. Luker - 6/16/2003
Clayton, don't you imagine that part of the reason for the focus is that some of us think that it is much more "doable" to control the widespread proliferation of guns than it is to repair families. It is, I think, indisputable that a family dispute with a gun at hand is more likely to yield wounds or death than a family dispute where a gun is not at hand.
Clayton E. Cramer - 6/16/2003
"I'd be real careful how you explain matters referenced in this blurb. One would think that you believe that African American and Hispanics are garbage; gun violence is only the flies they attract; and, if one is smart enough to live where African Americans and Hispanics are few, you could have all the maggots you wanted without the garbage and the flies."
It is a matter of fact that murder rates within black and Hispanic communities in the U.S. are much higher than in the white, non-Hispanic population. Most murder is within race, typically about 90% of murder victims are the same race as their killers. As I pointed out in detail, there are a lot of factors that are correlated with race, but not necessarily tied to race, that would explain the much higher murder rates within black and Hispanic populations of the U.S. Most of those factors, by the way, are matters that liberals would, I hope, agree should be fixed.
As for your analogy about garbage, maggots and flies: there are parts of America where guns are widespread, and yet there isn't a big murder problem. That suggests that guns either aren't the cause, or they are, at worst, a minor contributing factor. Yet it seems as though you and many other academics are more focused on the item that is clearly NOT a primary causal factor, rather than the items that should be part of any liberal's concerns (broken families, crummy housing) and ARE likely to be a causal factor in the violence.
Ralph E. Luker - 6/16/2003
Clayton, I have never pretended that I did not favor gun control. You got a problem with that?
I'd be real careful how you explain matters referenced in this blurb. One would think that you believe that African American and Hispanics are garbage; gun violence is only the flies they attract; and, if one is smart enough to live where African Americans and Hispanics are few, you could have all the maggots you wanted without the garbage and the flies.
Clayton E. Cramer - 6/16/2003
Well, at least Dr. Luker is now admitting that it isn't an abstract concern about Dr. Bellesiles, or about history, but that he thinks we have a gun problem in the U.S.
We don't have a gun problem. We have a violence problem. Our murder rates with knives, blunt objects, hands, and feet, far exceed those of any Western European nation. Our murder rates of children under five years of age who are beaten to death are a profound embarrassment. This isn't about guns. It's about violence.
The problem of murder in America is concentrated in a relatively small number of communities, overwhelmingly black and Hispanic. The problem is complex: the large numbers of boys growing up without fathers is certainly a factor; the housing density is certainly a factor; the historic failure of the criminal justice systems in ghettos to protect people from criminals has created a perception that if you want to be safe, you need to be perceived as dangerous; and restrictive gun control laws in most of those communities have tended to disarm the victims more than the predators.
On the other hand, there are parts of America that have extraordinarily high levels of gun ownership--and murder rates that compare well to Britain. I live in Boise, Idaho. Our murder rate for the years 1999-2001 is about 0.9/100,000--about 80% that of England & Wales, and about 45% of that of Scotland. Why? The cultural values of our population encourage the notion that violence is not okay. Most kids are growing up in reasonably middle class values families. We have a reasonably effective criminal justice system, and this encourages the belief that you don't need to solve every violence problem yourself. Widespread carrying of handguns for self-defense also plays a small part in keeping murder rates low; our robbery rates are trivial compared to places like San Francisco.
Dr. Luker: the murder problem in America is no more caused by guns than flies cause garbage.
Richard Henry Morgan - 6/16/2003
The answer to that question is simply Justice Brennan's comment about the Supreme Court -- he'd hold up his open hand and declare, with a smile, that it only takes 5 votes to make law. of course, this is the same guy who later complained, when in the minority, that the majority had no respect for precedents.
It's easier to get five activists on the highest court than it is to pass an amendment.
johnhorst - 6/16/2003
Mr. Luker:
Why then don't you and your comrades work to repeal the 2nd amendment, rather than recreate history to dilute its meaning? If it is such a bad amendment, and open to interpretation, rally the citizenry and get rid of it.
John G. Fought - 6/16/2003
Some time ago I explained to you why I don't pay attention to surveys, regardless of their findings. You never responded to that part of my message, which pointed out that an unkowable but possibly very high percentage of people do not often reveal the truth of their beliefs or experience to a stranger on a telephone, and are still less likely to do so when the answer may reveal legal vulnerability. I see that you are still banging on this old pot, however. It's very much like your insistence that if enough changes are made in the statistical analyses that Lott et al. did for his books, the results will be different. I expect to hear from you soon showing that whenever 'shall carry' laws are enacted, the rate of gun violence immediately rises sharply and continues to rise until everyone in the jurisdiction is dead or wounded, more or less as your preferred authorities would like us to think. If I were you, I'd get right on that, before Kellerman publishes it. I don't know much statistics, but I know quite a few statisticians, and though I admire them, I notice that they are well aware of the contingency of results on assumptions. Are you? What would it take to convince you?
Tim Lambert - 6/16/2003
Over three months ago Samuel Browning wrote:
"I am in reluctant agreement with Mr Lambert that the question of whether Lott actually conducted the 1997 survey is still open, but I am not seeking blood. Lott's notice was published by an alumni publication in February. I think in another three full months if a participating student or professor who has contemporanous knowledge of this study does not come forward, we can conclude the study did not take place."
Since then, the only further information that has come to light has not been helpful for Lott. David Gross, whose statement that he had been surveyed by Lott originally persuaded me that Lott had done some sort of survey, has been revealed as one of the prime movers behind Minnesota's just-passed concealed carry law. It is just too much of a coincidence to have someone with such a stake in Lott's credibility just happened to have been surveyed.
Lott's claim to have "replicated" the survey has fallen apart. He claims that the 2002 survey found 95% brandishing, but his data shows he had seven defensive users, with six brandishing. 6/7 is not 95%. If you follow the weighting procedure he claims to have used, you don't get 95% either. Now that he has given more details about the weighting, we also know that it is impossible for the procedure he describes to yield a 98% brandishing number from his 1997 survey.
It remains possible that Lott did some sort of pilot survey in 1997, but we can conclude that he did not do a national survey of 2,424 people that yielded a 98% brandishing number.
Josh Greenland - 6/16/2003
"Get a grip. Where is _your_ compassion, not for some abstract group fifty years from now, but for thousands of Americans who are killed and wounded annually in the most over-armed nation in the history of the world."
Ralph, I figured that you were upset at the analogy between holocaust denying literature and Arming America because you thought gun owners didn't deserve to think of themselves as innocent victims like the European Jews. I hadn't even suspected that the analogy bugged you so much because you see American gun owners as closer to being the Nazis.
Don Williams - 6/15/2003
The US Army's Center of Military History puts out a reference book
titled "American Military History". It's account of George Washington's recommendation is consistent with yours. In addition, it notes that Washington made the observation that priority should be given to building a Navy, given our geographical position and the ability of the militia to defend the mainland. See
http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/AMH/AMH-05.htm .
You may recall that I cited products from the Army's independent history centers repeatedly last year in my critique of Bellesiles and his allies.
Oddly enough, I noticed an attempt about two months ago to break up the Army's Center of Military History and "privatize" it's research by contracting it's work out to the universities. I notified the NRA and others of this attempt. I do not know if my warning had any effect but the latest that I've heard is that the Center will continue to exist and be funded.
Don Williams - 6/15/2003
--they do not realize their ignorance, and they have an aversion to correcting their ignorance.
Glaring flaws that are obvious and laughable to one who has shot firearms are easily overlooked by many academicians. I believe Herman Kahn once referred to the peculiar form of ignorance seen in universities as "educated incapacity".
Over on Mr Luker's blog, I made the point that convincing a student to spend $180,000 and seven years of their life acquiring a worthless certificate (PhD) is an education of a sort, but that it would be more efficient to have the students read "The Big Con" by David Maurer or "The Confidence Man" by Herman Melville.
Chuck Jackson - 6/15/2003
Upon seeing that people are still discussing this topic, I thought that I would point out a short essay that I wrote regarding Arming America---offering an alternate view of that book.
See http://www.jacksons.net/AAHoax.pdf
Chuck Jackson
Don Williams - 6/14/2003
Except that they would die from knives, clubs, claw hammers,etc.
A gun is just a tool. Murders occur not because a particular tool is available but as a social pathology. Well, most of the time -- some people need killing.
In my bland suburbia, I do not fear my neighbors possessing firearms. They support the rule of law. They have been reared by parents who have taught them moral precepts. They actually know who their parents are.
More to the point, they have something to lose if they commit violence -- a home, savings, job.
Finally, they insist that the local government provide adequate police protection -- and they will throw that government out of office if it does not.
It seems to me that most murders occur in urban areas run by Democratic mayors. Many appear drug-related --people disputing turf over the only viable means of income. If the people in those areas were given decent jobs -- the chance to acquire homes and savings -- then much violence would abate. If the mayors took a small portion of the tax money wasted on patronage (I know-- stop laughing) and devoted it to neighborhood policing, then people in those neighborhoods could live without fear. I think the police should be recruited from the neighborhoods where they police so that residents will talk with them and report crime. It is absurd to argue that human societies cannot maintain peace among their members -- if they have the will to do so.
There's only one political party that cares whether poor people live or die. And that party has lost election after election because members of that party have let gun control morons like Chuck Schumer pull the party over a cliff. It's beyond belief that the Democratic leadership continually forces blue collar workers to vote Republican on order to preserve their freedom.
The NRA does not object to law enforcement. It objects to repeated and deceitful attempts to create a gun registry -- as a prelude to confiscation -- being done under the guise of law enforcement.
I surprised that you are a historian but learn nothing from history. Yes, we aa a nation have guns. We are also one of the few nations in 7000 years of human history to have a government which largely respects human rights. In most nations, today and throughout history, we have seen the vast majority of mankind kept in slavery by small minorities using brutal methods. Before you speak of the thousands of deaths in the US, recall the millions killed throughout the world by legal governments: Nazi Germany, the deliberate starvation of millions in the Ukranine by Stalin, the thousands who disappeared in Argentina about two decades ago.
Recall that the other places with freedom in the world, Western Europe and Japan, have freedom because we put it there. Even wealthy Britain let 100,000 Irish starve during the Potatoe famine.
Ralph E. Luker - 6/14/2003
John, I'm not sure most people who read these lines are particularly interested in how and why I became a historian, but you ask: I grew up in suburban Louisville, suffering from what a teacher described as "Buechelites," a profound case of lacking ambition. But admission to Duke and majoring in history plunged me into a big, exciting, and intimidating world of books and ideas. (Never, by the way, has there been a gun in the house of my parents, me, or my syblings) Oddly, I was not a strong student until I got involved in the civil rights movement and it became clear that the books and ideas vitally engaged current affairs. Briefly, I was run out of the South and studied church history and historical theology at Drew University in NJ. I returned to NC with a wife to go to graduate school in history and prepare for a life of teaching. Obviously, I've had my share of challenging established orders of things (see my Thoughts on Collegiality and Welcome to my World on my blog of the latter name). Most of what I've published has been about issues which I've been interested in since I was a teenager: religion and race. By instinct, I'd be pro-gun control and pro-abortion rights. Debate on both issues tends to nuance my instincts. I have little interest in writing about either issue, but challenging established orders cut short my teaching career and left me with nothing but my writing. I tend not to be impressed by arguments by people I don't agree with that I must: a) take their position in the debate; or b) assume positions on my side of the issue with which I don't agree.
John G. Fought - 6/14/2003
I will give you an answer that's more detailed than you want. In return, if you don't mind, I'd be interested to find out how and why you became a historian. I had a good chance to do so myself as a sophomore, and I sometimes still regret not having done it. The short answer to your question is that my understanding of the current 2d Amendment situation was rudimentary and mostly wrong, and my interest in it was close to zero until after I got involved with the Bellesiles affair. I took my rights for granted. I have owned one or more guns since I was 12, and I've enjoyed shooting since before that. I hunted a few times as a boy, and I still regret having done it. I joined the NRA in the early 60s for a personal reason: I wanted a Springfield M1903 rifle. I cancelled my membership in 1968 over their official reaction to the RFK assassination. I have never wanted anything to do with them since, though I am very concerned with the preservation of the Bill of Rights, all of it. I have always voted for Democrats, blue collar ones when I could find them. As I've grown older, I've grown more radical (and more cynical), not more conservative. My interest in history began in boyhood, and has always focused on military history, and on the history of particular conflicts involving the USA, with the history of technology (including but not limited to military technology) as a strong second. I began as a child of WWII (born 1938), and worked outward and backward in time in my readings as I grew older, but my main focus has long been on the period from the Mexican War to WWI. Any thoughts of publication were vague and focused on the Civil War. For about 15 years I worked (and published) also on the history of linguistics, because of disaffection with the direction the field took while I was still a graduate student. Until I moved to California in 1995 and began to experience the practical consequences of extreme gun control laws, I was not interested in or aware of current political struggles over these issues, and even then, I wasn't really involved. My interest in Bellesiles' work was aroused when I picked up the book in Vroman's in Pasadena and opened it to a page strewn with obvious falsehoods and technical errors about specific types of weapons and tactics. I found the smugly snide writing obnoxious as well, so I bought the book to see how bad the rest of it was. I had never posted to a website before I began reading HNN. I did have some early experience in swimming futilely against the tide of the Zeitgeist, dating back to the 70's when I began publishing articles arguing against Chomsky's theoretical stance, especially in phonology, where the issues could be posed most clearly. While I never received any positive response to those papers, I noticed over time that the worst elements of their position gradually fell away, without any admission of error, of course. It wasn't because of me, but because the position was untenable. But officially, nobody had been wrong; they were just even more right later. That is what I expected from the Bellesiles affair, and to some extent that is what has happened. But in all, I think some minds have changed, and in some other cases, some fingers have been burned. I'm glad to have played a part in this. I have no more patience or compassion now than I did earlier for scholars who build their personal success on deception or incompetence or just staying fashionable. And let's pause to note that Bellesiles is the only one of the bunch to have been tagged so far. That's not to say he's the worst. So, over to you, Ralph.
Ralph E. Luker - 6/14/2003
John, Tell me that your interest in the Bellesiles case had nothing to do with your interest in the protection of the right of individuals to own and use guns. Just an abstract interest in history, right?
John G. Fought - 6/14/2003
And all this time, I thought it was about history. I got that impression from you, didn't I? But no, it's been about gun control all along, as a way of saving all those lives, or maybe just one. How disappointing.
Ralph E. Luker - 6/14/2003
Get a grip. Where is _your_ compassion, not for some abstract group fifty years from now, but for thousands of Americans who are killed and wounded annually in the most over-armed nation in the history of the world.
Don Williams - 6/13/2003
Recall that if Timothy Emerson loses his appeal because of the uncorrected Bellesilesean history in the Chicago Kent articles, Mr Emerson will not face an academic slap on the wrist -- he will face several years in prison and loss of civil rights as a convicted felon.
The same fate will await anyone else who insists on their Second Amendment rights if false history and sophistry wins the days.
And if, 50 years from now, some American group faces the fate of the Jews at Dachau then that will be on historians hands as well -- because they remained silent.
Ralph E. Luker - 6/13/2003
Sorry, Josh. I'm not going to go through this line by line, but suffice it to say that I've done more than my own share of "negative research" as a professional historian. That being so, any critique of Bellesiles's critics is, by implication, a critique of my own work as well.
Ralph E. Luker - 6/13/2003
Touche, John. You are consistent, at least, in all lack of human compassion.
John G. Fought - 6/13/2003
Let us not forget, as Mr. Luker experiences phantom pain from his amputated fellow scholar, that the original body of negative research serving political ends that provoked all this posting was done by Bellesiles, not by his critics. In both the 1996 paper and in AA, the political motivation is explicit and the strategy is to discredit the opposing view using a wide range of propaganda techniques. What is unusual is not that an ambitious scholar would try to turn a political issue into cash and professional credit by taking the side most popular with his colleagues: that happens all the time. What's unusual here is that he would be so inept in this effort as to grossly misrepresent many sources that can easily be checked, and that the issue matters to enough outsiders so that a number of us did check them. It's on record after all that AA was received with honors by the academy. They didn't do the checking because they wanted to believe what he wrote.
I don't care if he's not ALL bad. He's bad enough for me. AA is by far the worst piece of published professional historical research I've ever read. Does anyone out there have a worse candidate for that honor to put forward? Perhaps we could start a book club.
Clayton E. Cramer - 6/13/2003
I could see why historians whose specialty was outside the colonial or early Republic periods might have read _Arming America_ and thought, "Wow! What an insightful and impressive piece of scholarship." But how did anyone else get taken? My respect for Rakove collapsed after realizing that he had "improved every page" of _Arming America_--and had it still turn out to be a pack of obvious lies.
The letter I wrote to the Journal of American History after Bellesiles's 1996 paper was published gave several examples of primary sources that suggested that gun ownership and hunting were common in early America. What a coincidence that these sources ended up in Bellesiles's list of "eighty travel accounts" that claimed that guns and violence were NOT common in early America. It's very clear that Bellesiles just cynically added them to his list, without bothering to read them, and relying on the fact that essentially no professional historian was going to embarrass Bellesiles by asking to explain his dishonesty.
Richard Henry Morgan - 6/13/2003
Thanks, Don, for the link to the H-Net discussions. It provided, as usual, the unintended hilarity so commonly associated with the site. There was Rakove admitting that he read Arming America for Second Amendment implications (no fooling? knock me over with a feather), along with his defense that he read Bellesiles' manuscript as much for style as for content (as a defense for all the bad content? doesn't that negatively reflect on his ability to read for style?). Then there was Bernstein's late admission that Bellesiles' problems extended beyond the math (some might remember the double-barrelled shotgun blast I got for pointing out the "problem" -- to be gentle on this occasion -- of defending Bellesiles on the basis of conceding math problems alone). Then there was Bernstein's assertion that judges don't just lap up historians' arguments. I thought I'd send him a copy of Reinhardt's decision, where he laps up the deliberately distorted quote from John Adams -- but I don't think it would change his mind.
As for learning something from Bellesiles, or even a bad book in general, the point is often repeated. True, we often learn from bad books, and from confronting bad books. Until I had read Bellesiles, I had not realized that Madison and Congress had authorized (mandated?) the states to arm the militia at the outset of the War of 1812 (assuming that Bellesiles' point is true). I continue to wonder how Congress can authorize something that some consider (based on their reading of the Second Amendment) a right, and if arming the militia is a power of the national government (as opposed to providing for arming), what federal power is invoked in mandating state arming of the militia?
Not to draw parallels, or analogies, but rather to bring out the logic of a reductio ad absurdum, would people defend the publishing of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion because of the discussions it provoked? Tuning back from that extreme, at what point do the manifest errors of a work swamp the silver lining of provoked discussion (to combine clanking metaphors)?
I've just now finished, after 37 iterations, a short piece on Wills. Here's an appetizer, demonstrating the devotion to "forensic history" -- well, even that would be unfair to forensic historians. On page 72 of "To Keep and Bear Arms" (http://www.potomac-inc.org/garwills.html) Wills offers that that the Knox Plan was "for a small but well-trained militia". The Knox Plan was actually formed in reaction against the notion of a select or volunteer militia (the notion that Wills identifies as the historical militia, and thus the militia of Article I and the Second Amendment). The Knox Plan was formed on the principle that "all men, of the military age, should be armed, enrolled and held responsible for different degrees of military service." (http://www.potomac-inc.org/washknox.html). How exactly one distills "small but well-trained militia" from "all men" is beyond my modest powers, but then I don't have a PhD from Yale, nor a chair in polymathy at the New York Review of Books.
Josh Greenland - 6/13/2003
"Josh, If the critics of _Arming America_ do not readily admit that their work has been limited to publicizing the errors in the book, then _they_ would simply be lying."
I thought James Lindgren first tried to communicate privately with Bellesiles, in order to give him a chance to explain or correct his work, before he went public with his criticism. Are you sure you want to make this blanket statement about ALL critics of Arming America?
I think you're demeaning those critics who've researched Bellesiles' claims. You say that _all_ they've done is _publicize_ MB's errors. Why don't you ask Don or Clayton how much time they spent researching Bellesiles' claims, versus the amount of time they've spent publicizing the errors they've found?
"It is called "negative research" -- isn't that what it is called when one does that on a potential opponent in politics?"
I don't know if that's what it's called, but I'd say you're implying that critics of AA are doing "negative research" on it to discredit it for political reasons. If that's what you're implying, the number of gun control supporters who've authoritatively discredited parts of AA suggests strongly that your implication isn't true.
"It is a legitimate enterprise, but it should not be mistaken for a disinterested or even-handed search for truth."
I don't why the motivation of the researcher should matter. Sure, one is bound to trust a person who has no partisan motivations, but it's been noted that "disinterested," "even-handed" researchers also tend to be
unmotivated researchers. I thought we were supposed to pay attention to the argument, and not to the person making it.
"Finding something that is accurate or true is not noted because it isn't grist for the mill."
Ralph, isn't there an assumption that academic historians will tell the truth? So why should a truthful statement be notable in a search for untruthful ones?
"There is a lot of grist in _AA_. No one bothered to keep a tally of non-findings of grist. You demand that I do that."
No, but I think you expect critics of AA to list things that aren't untrue in AA. Under the academic rules of engagement, they are expected to report all things that might mitigate, contradict or invalidate their criticisms. Isn't this enough?
Those who've critically researched Arming America have done a tougher job with more positive implications than you give them credit for. In the political world, all you have to do to cripple or destroy someone is dig up one hidden conviction or one college degree that the candidate didn't really get. In the legal world, cousin to the political one, one just needs to establish that a person lied once about something significant. Maybe one of the attorneys could help me here, but I understand there's a legal presumption that if a person lies about something, s/he is likely to lie about something else.
In the academic world, there's evidently a resistance to the presumption that an academic might be lying in his/her work. Proving that a person is lying, is incompetent, or for other reason is persistently skewing results, requires that multiple results be discredited, not just one. Critics of Arming America had to go through many of Bellesiles' claims and demonstrate that there was a pattern of incorrect results. In doing this, they had to understand a given claim by Bellesiles, had to research that claim to discover the truth, and had to understand the context around the claimed historical event well enough to establishment that he wasn't literally wrong but basically right. They had to clearly understand the truth, which might contain complexities or mitigating factors, before they could nail MB on a falsehood. And they had to do this repeatedly. And in publicly making their case for his pattern of error, they've had to describe the gun-owning and using milieu of America from colonial times to the late 19th century to show where Bellesiles' claims deviated from historical reality.
They've also published that truth, which has been helpful to our understanding of the times Bellesiles claims to have studied.
It's a big job, with many positive implications, and I think you're being unfair to AA's critics when you relate them to negative political researchers.
Josh Greenland - 6/13/2003
"No one bothered to keep a tally of non-findings of grist. You demand that I do that. I keep telling you that I have no expertise in the field and will not be told that I _must_ give you a list of things in the book that are true or accurate simply because you want to argue ad infinitum about it. Go look for yourself."
Ralph, I was requesting that you expand on your own statement that were enough elements of truth in AA that it could not legitimately called all lies, or that you confirm your later, contradicting statement that there hasn't been enough study of AA to be able to say that it's all lies. You've done the latter in the post to which I'm replying, and that's all I was seeking with those requests.
Josh Greenland - 6/13/2003
Mirror image can mean a perfect reproduction, or a complete reversal, depending on context. I thought Clayton's meaning was clear based on context, but that's just my perception.
Josh Greenland - 6/13/2003
I screwed up the title in my previous post. There was no cute, cryptic humor intended.
I have too - 6/13/2003
"Benny" clearly isn't the garden variety troll that he's been portraying. His writing ability fluxuates, and it has been quite good lately. There has been some recent change in the person behind the pen name, due either to a turn in our conversation or some external circumstance. And lately his emotional reactions have been wrong for the character he is trying to portray. I had been skeptical when some of you claimed that he might be Bellesiles. Now I think he may be Bellesiles or some other person whose real name we'd recognize.
Don Williams - 6/13/2003
It wasn't until your statement just now -- "I have expended no small effort to try to bring fresh, substantive and germane material to light here" -- that I finally got the joke.
I finally realize that your past comments have not been serious -- rather they were intended as irony, sarcasm, and acidic satire.
Viewed in that light they are hilariously funny -- as is your statement above.
Benny Smith - 6/13/2003
Ironic that you should accuse Mr. Greenland of cheap shot artistry, Mr Luker. I felt similarly wounded myself when you described my contributions here as being less than "fruitful." I have expended no small effort to try to bring fresh, substantive and germane material to light here. On the other hand, Professor Bellesiles' critics offer little beyond what can be found on the gun lobby websites that proliferate on the internet. Perhaps it is their fun-poking and nit-picking that you find so fruitful. If so, that is their world and you're welcome to it. It just surprises me that a serious academic would devote so much time and effort pontificating over the meaning of "mirror image."
Ralph E. Luker - 6/13/2003
Jon Weiner did. I don't think this conversation is going anywhere, Don.
Don Williams - 6/13/2003
how many of the 2500+ historians at OAH's meeting in Nashville bothered to walk down the hall to Mr Weiner's room in order to speak on Bellesiles' behalf?
Which is worse -- to have one's work honestly critiqued or to have it ignored? To be bluntly but honestly criticized with a right to reply or to be silently ostracized/shunned?
On page 583 of Arming America, Bellesiles states :"Jack Rakove kindly went through the second draft with a keen eye and improved every page he read." If Bellesiles had instead given the draft to Clayton Cramer or myself, would he have been better off or worst off?
Note that I do not claim any great skills or knowledge of history. Certainly I have neither Cramer's education nor his skills. It is not that I set myself high but that Rakove's standard, in my opinion, is so low. Certainly if I ever reviewed someone's draft, I would NOT, three years later, tell a national newspaper that
"It's clear now that his scholarship is less than
acceptable,"
Ralph E. Luker - 6/12/2003
Let me see if I have this right: Don Williams and Clayton Cramer have given Michael Bellesiles his best defence and "professional historians" have let him down. Is that what you are saying, Don? Was that what Clayton meant by "mirror image"?
Don Williams - 6/12/2003
Re your statement "Josh, If the critics of _Arming America_ do not readily admit that their work has been limited to publicizing the errors in the book, then _they_ would simply be lying.", you are wrong. Some examples:
1) I explained in a January 24 post on H-OIEAHC (and to you) how Bellesiles might have seen low gun ownership rates in probate records for the 1776-1790 timeframe in coastal areas occupied by the British -- see http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=lx&list;=h-oieahc&user;=&pw;=&month;=0301
Look at the response of Peter Hoffer on January 25 -- Mr Hoffer was one of the historians who joined Bellesiles in signing the Yassky Brief.
2) I have argued the Bellesiles' depiction of the militia at the Battles of Cowpens and New Orleans was false and misleading -- but I acknowledged that the militia performed badly on occasion --most notably at Camden SC. (Although I think performance in set piece battles is an immature way of judging military effects in the Revolutionary War -- the economic damage to Britain from the militias and (private sector) privateers was enormous and ,in my opinion, one reason why Dutch bankers cut off King George's line of credit circa 1781(?) )
Note that Clayton Cramer has repeatedly stated a less favorable view of the militias than my own and one more supportive of Bellesiles -- although he has noted some of the more blatant exaggerations of Bellesiles in this area.
I would argue that just those two examples provided a greater defense of Bellesiles than the embarrassed silence maintained by you and other professional historians. Look at the Jack Rakove quote I supplied at the beginning of the January 24 post I referenced above.
Ralph E. Luker - 6/12/2003
Clayton, This is helpful. It is good reason that suggestions that _AA_ be moved to the fiction shelves won't do and good reason why "lies, lies, lies" won't quite do in dismissing _AA_. If one reads _only_ the results of negative research on it, it creates an unbalanced perspective on it.
Clayton E. Cramer - 6/12/2003
I'm curious, Dr. Luker: What fraction of a history book needs to be accurate to be worth reading? If you know that a history book is 40% wrong, how much confidence do you have that the other 60% is right? I've seen a bit of neo-Nazi revisionist stuff over the years, and it often has significant bits of accurate history in it--along with stuff that I know is deceptive or wrong, and stuff that I really don't if it's accurate or not. Is it worth reading?
One of the reasons that I don't read historical fiction is because a book that is 40% accurate, 30% invented, and 30% wrong, starts to infiltrate my thinking a bit too much. It's too easy to confuse something that you read in a real history book, from something that you read in a work of historical fiction. When books marketed as history (such as _Arming America_) turn out to be more like historical fantasy (historical fiction has to have a bit more connection to the real world), that is a worrisome matter.
I will tell you that when I was checking footnotes in _Arming America_, I found very few that were accurate. I was, admittedly, checking the claims that smelled funny--but it still took many hours to find one that wasn't an altered quote, quoted out of context, or misleadingly used.
Of the big picture claims of _Arming America_, I have found three statements that are accurate:
1. Gun ownership was not universal (though it was much closer to it than Bellesiles admits).
2. Quite a bit of meat eaten by colonists was acquired by trading with the Indians.
3. Militias were often not very competent or willing to do their job (although this is hardly news to historians).
Even thoroughly documented, this is a job of about 100 pages--and the rest of Bellesiles's big claims (guns owned by a small minority of white men, no civilian market for handguns before 1848, strict regulation of gun ownership to keep guns locked up in the colonial period, few Americans hunted before 1840, almost no violence before 1840, almost no gunsmiths before 1840, no manufacturing capacity before the Revolution) turn out to be not just unproven, but clearly and unambiguously wrong.
Clayton E. Cramer - 6/12/2003
"Clayton, Your response is interesting, but I am not inclined to buy into analogies between North American slavery and the holocaust."
Neither am I, but you would agree that such a book, if it were published and widely accepted by historians, would almost certainly be an example of falsifying the past for a nefarious current political goal?
Clayton E. Cramer - 6/12/2003
Mirror image has two different connotations; one is perfect image; the other is an image that is exactly backward of the original.
johnhorst - 6/12/2003
enantiomorph
"An enantiomorph (pronounced en-ANT-i-o-morf) is a mirror image of something, an opposite reflection. The term, derived from the Greek enantios or "opposite," is used in a number of contexts, including architecture, molecular physics, and political theory. It is reported to also be used in computer system design."
This might shed some light on Mr. Cramer's use of the term, and Mr. Luker's dislike for its use in describing historically related documents. (I have way too much time on my hands...)
johnhorst - 6/12/2003
See, I said you were tenacious, or is that the mirror image of tenacious?
Ralph E. Luker - 6/12/2003
Sorry, John. Mirror image means a perfect reflection of ...
johnhorst - 6/12/2003
Dear Ralph:
You and poor Benny are the only ones who make this site so fun to visit. I give you credit for your tenacity, but I have to tell you, I knew exactly what Mr. Cramer was eluding to regarding the mirror image. I don't know anyone who relates mirror image to the idea that something is identical, but rather opposite.
Ralph E. Luker - 6/12/2003
Josh, If the critics of _Arming America_ do not readily admit that their work has been limited to publicizing the errors in the book, then _they_ would simply be lying. It hardly needs saying. It is called "negative research" -- isn't that what it is called when one does that on a potential opponent in politics? It is a legitimate enterprise, but it should not be mistaken for a disinterested or even-handed search for truth. It is a matter of high-lighting the flaws. Finding something that is accurate or true is not noted because it isn't grist for the mill. There is a lot of grist in _AA_. No one bothered to keep a tally of non-findings of grist. You demand that I do that. I keep telling you that I have no expertise in the field and will not be told that I _must_ give you a list of things in the book that are true or accurate simply because you want to argue ad infinitum about it. Go look for yourself.
Josh Greenland - 6/12/2003
I intended no rhetorical cheap shot. Since there seems to have been a great deal of misunderstanding in this most recent discussion, perhaps you could quote me and I'll tell you what I meant. I won't guess at what you're complaining about.
And by the way, what are the things you referred to recently that save Arming America from being all lies? You never did answer that question. Or are you now saying that there hasn't been enough study of Arming America to be able to say it's all lies? And I'm wondering how much of it has to be false before you would accept that it is an intentionally false history? And do critics of AA have a higher burden of proof than critics of other alleged falsifiers of history?
Ralph E. Luker - 6/12/2003
John, You are the linguistics professor among us and, normally, I am inclined to defer to expertise. But you have a way of antagonizing me that makes it unusually difficult. I tried your experiment and find that you are correct. Now, try mine. Say to someone, anyone: "He is the mirror image of his father." I do not believe that someone, anyone, will believe that you have said that "He is the opposite of his father."
Ralph E. Luker - 6/11/2003
Josh, Most of your comments have been better than this rhetorical cheap shot.
Josh Greenland - 6/11/2003
"Josh, In ways unintended, even, _Arming America_ has stimulated discussion of the issues at stake."
Ralph, if you can't determine whether or not Bellesiles was lying in the book, how can you determine whether or not he intended to cause the fuss that he did, precisely to stimulate such discussion?
"Many historians who would not condescend to participate in a discussion such as this have read _Arming America_, know that there are substantial problems with it, and will pursue research in the field and publish it in more dignified places than this."
And one who is involved in this discussion has been planning to publish on the subject. I don't see what point you're making here.
"Moreover, "lies, lies, lies" just doesn't cut it because, as much research as has gone on into errors in the book, I suspect that no one has yet succeeded in proving that everything in the book is false."
That's a less strong statement than your previous one:
"Despite extremist claims that _Arming America_ is "lies, lies, lies," there are obviously some things to be said for it"...
Which do you mean? If you still stand by your earlier one (the one in the paragraph above), what obviously good things are there to say about Arming America?
Josh Greenland - 6/11/2003
"Clayton, Your response is interesting, but I am not inclined to buy into analogies between North American slavery and the holocaust."
Clayton isn't making an analogy between North American slavery and the holocaust. He's making an analogy between falsification of the history of North American history and falsification of the history of the holocaust, and previously made an analogy not between gun owners and Jews, but between falsification of the history of gun ownership and use in the colonies and early US, and falsification of the history of the holocaust.
Or maybe you shouldn't be so quick to judge those holocaust deniers as politically motivated liars. After all, the history of the holocaust isn't your field, right?
John G. Fought - 6/11/2003
The image in a flat mirror is REVERSED laterally. That is what I understood Clayton to mean: it's a fairly common expression. Write 'oops' on a card and go look at yourself in a mirror. Then report back and tell us what you read. Never noticed that before, huh?
Ralph E. Luker - 6/11/2003
Clayton, You've just illustrated a point that I've been trying to make to you. You get carried away with excessive or inaccurate language and, in doing so, undermine whatever legitimate point you have to make. Look at what you just said: "in many areas, Bellesiles's book is a mirror image of not just reality, but of the documents he repeatedly cites." You do not mean that because "mirror image" implies that it is an accurate reflection of something. You mean something more like "his book stands reality and the documents he repeatedly cites on their head." A "mirror image" is not the opposite of something; it is its twin.
Ralph E. Luker - 6/11/2003
Josh, In ways unintended, even, _Arming America_ has stimulated discussion of the issues at stake. Many historians who would not condescend to participate in a discussion such as this have read _Arming America_, know that there are substantial problems with it, and will pursue research in the field and publish it in more dignified places than this. Moreover, "lies, lies, lies" just doesn't cut it because, as much research as has gone on into errors in the book, I suspect that no one has yet succeeded in proving that everything in the book is false.
Ralph E. Luker - 6/10/2003
Clayton, Your response is interesting, but I am not inclined to buy into analogies between North American slavery and the holocaust.
Clayton E. Cramer - 6/10/2003
"John, If you can't see the difference between Holocaust denying and whatever Michael may have done, I'm afraid I can't help you."
If you mean that Bellesiles's goals weren't to promote racial hatred, well, sure, that's different. But the similarities between the Holocaust deniers and Bellesiles in methodology (it has the form of scholarship, without the substance) and purpose (to change modern politics by falsifying the past) are really quite similar.
Imagine if someone wrote a book on American history that denied that there were many slaves here--that claimed that the vast majority of blacks were actually free, or indentured servants. Why, I believe that almost any competent historian could use the Bellesiles methodology to construct such a book without too much trouble. You would point to examples such as Mathias da Sousa, black legislator in 1641 Maryland, the presence of all blacks in the Virginia militia in the 1630s, and give examples of wealthy free blacks from works like Alice Hanson Jones _The Wealth of a Nation Yet To Be_. You would mention the many free blacks of wealth in Charleston and New Orleans--and make false assertions based on the 1830, 1840, and 1850 censuses, and hope that no one looked them up.
So, Dr. Luker, would such a book (which did for slavery what Bellesiles did for early American gun ownership) be comparable to Holocaust denial? Why or why not?
Clayton E. Cramer - 6/10/2003
You think I've been too harsh in comparing Bellesiles to a Holocaust denier? In what way? Bellesiles didn't just engage in selective reading, miss important contrary sources, or misinterpret ambiguous documents. He either falsified on a massive scale the documents that he did read, or suffers from the most incredible reading disability of any PhD in history. Arming America does not suffer from trivial problems; in many areas, Bellesiles's book is a mirror image of not just reality, but of the documents he repeatedly cites.
Like the Holocaust deniers, Bellesiles's goal was to alter the past for modern political advantage. In what way is this too strong of a comparison?
Ralph E. Luker - 6/10/2003
John, If you can't see the difference between Holocaust denying and whatever Michael may have done, I'm afraid I can't help you. As I've explained _many_ times, I haven't engaged the substantial issues at stake in the discussion of _Arming America_ because it is out of my areas of expertise. That doesn't inhibit some people, but hold your fire. I have a piece coming out on matters I do know something about. Judge me by that, if judge you must.
Josh Greenland - 6/10/2003
"Despite extremist claims that _Arming America_ is "lies, lies, lies," there are obviously some things to be said for it"...
At the risk of sounding "extremist" (to only you, Benny and Mr. Hayhow), it isn't obvious to me that there are any good things to be said about Arming America. Could you tell me what some of those are?
John G. Fought - 6/10/2003
This form of argument just won't do, Mr. Luker. As I recall, Cramer came upon Bellesiles's work while he was doing his own research into an overlapping topic, and detoured from it to look more closely into claims he found unlikely. I seem to recall also that Lindgren's involvement came about in a somewhat similar way. I was drawn in when I opened a copy of AA in a bookstore and was shocked by what I read on the first page I looked at. I suspect that many others who volunteered to work on this had similar reasons. I was not joking in an earlier piece when I referred to them as a militia. Your public message to Cramer, besides being insultingly and most unjustifiably patronizing, is very much like praising a virus for stimulating epidemiologists. You leave the victims out of account. Just what is it about this matter that leads you to rise again and again to Bellesiles' defense? I notice that unlike Cramer, you have never confronted any of the scholarly issues here or elsewhere. Is it Bellesiles in person that you are defending, or some dim fantasy of scholarly gentility? Or what? And again, why?
Ralph E. Luker - 6/10/2003
Clayton,
In the last 3 to 7 years, Michael has stimulated more work on the history of gun ownership and use, including your own, than anyone else. To compare him with Holocaust Deniers is the sort of excess that causes professional historians to read your own work with a critical eye. If you could contain that rhetorical overkill, you would win more readers of your work.
Clayton E. Cramer - 6/9/2003
"Despite extremist claims that _Arming America_ is 'lies, lies, lies,' there are obviously some things to be said for it, but it also obviously needs to be read with a critical eye."
What is to be said for _Arming America_? About what is to be said for Holocaust denial literature of the 1980s--it forced Holocaust historians to go start taking oral histories from the survivors, and correcting minor errors (i.e., bars of soap made from Jews). There are so many things wrong with _Arming America_--and not just errors of interpretation, but massive whoppers told about what is contained in various primary sources that Bellesiles cited (and some of which he may have actually read), that to say it should be read with a "critical eye" is like saying that one should read books "with a critical eye" that deny the Holocaust.
"In a second edition, Michael would be foolish not to correct every error highlighted in the debate about the book, but public relations may oblige him to deny that such corrections materially affect the weight of his argument at all."
Except that there won't be much of the book left. His claims about colonial gun regulation are not just a little wrong; they are exactly opposite what his OWN primary sources (and many others) say about the subject.
His claims about gun scarcity based on probate records are not just wrong--they convert a situation where guns were owned by majority of free white men into a small minority of free white men.
His claims about the rarity of hunting by the colonists? It is harder to prove the converse of his claims, but it is easy to demonstrate from primary sources that his position is, at best, unproven, and the vast majority of the available materials shows that hunting by the colonists was widespread.
His claims about the rarity of guns and violence in the early Republic, based on primary sources? His primary sources directly contradict him--and often on a massive scale. One of his "eighty travel accounts" that he uses to buttress this claim has references to guns, violence, and hunting on 13% of the pages of the book. A number of his other "eighty travel accounts" have whole chapters devoted to hunting, target shooting, and guns--that somehow Bellesiles missed.
Bellesiles's claims about the militia are overdrawn; they were often unimpressive, but his portrayal of the militias as drunken incompetents who couldn't hit the broad of a barn is a cariacture of real militias, whose actions and competence varied dramatically from region to region, and from decade to decade.
Bellesiles's claims about the low levels of murder in the U.S. before Colt started marketing handguns in 1848? Utterly wrong. Randy Roth and Eric Monkonnen are busily collecting data from their work and other scholars for a union database of violent deaths and crimes in the U.S., and one of the motivations for this seems to be to correct the grossly erroneous claims that Bellesiles made.
Bellesiles's claim that there was effectively no civilian market for handguns in the U.S. before 1848? Utterly wrong. Ads from pistols appear throughout the Pennsylvania Gazette and Boston Gazette from the colonial period. There's no shortage of crimes committed with pistols by civilians during this period, and they appear frequently in probate inventories.
What, pray tell, is there left in Bellesiles's book that is worth reading "with a critical eye"? In many respects, _Arming America_ is nearly antitruth--every significant new claim that Bellesiles makes is either demonstrably wrong, or so overstated in its certainty as to be false.
Ralph E. Luker - 6/9/2003
Sam,
Thanks for this. You have summarized the various exchanges quite well. I didn't reply to Benny because I've not found that discussions with him have been fruitful for anyone. Obviously, "deeply flawed" is a qualitative judgment. I suppose it could be interpreted differently by different people. Would every word need to be mis-spelled, every fact wrong, and every logical connection in a book a _non sequitor_ for it to be "deeply flawed"? Despite extremist claims that _Arming America_ is "lies, lies, lies," there are obviously some things to be said for it, but it also obviously needs to be read with a critical eye. In a second edition, Michael would be foolish not to correct every error highlighted in the debate about the book, but public relations may oblige him to deny that such corrections materially affect the weight of his argument at all.
Don Williams - 6/8/2003
The student newspaper, The Exonian, has a list of which colleges Exeter graduates are attending in the fall. Of the 316 students, none are listed as entering Haverford. Here are the schools (219 students from 316 -- I did not list all colleges ---New York University, Skidmore,etc.):
Amherst 6 (students), Bates 3, Bryn Mawr 1, Berkeley 3, Bowdoin 3, Brown 14, Cambridge 1, Carnegie Mellon 4, Cornell 9, Chicago 5, Columbia 6, Cornell 11, Dartmouth 7, Duke 7, Georgetown 11, Harvard 10, Harvey Mudd 3, John Hopkins 3, Middlebury 6, McGill 3, Michigan 3, MIT 10, Naval Academy 2, Northwestern 4, Oxford 2, University of Pennsylvania 12, Penn State 1, Princeton 7, Rice 2, Reed 1, Stanford 5, St Andrews 3, Swarthmore 5, Tufts 8, Trinty 6, University of Virginia 5, USC 3, Wesleyan 12, Williams 4, Yale 11, US Air Force Academy 1, Vanderbilt 3, Washington 4
Note that while Harvard, Yale, Princeton,Penn,Brown, etc. have their draw, the small highly rated liberal arts colleges (Amherst, Middlebury, Bowdoin,Williams,Swarthmore etc ) still attract some students. Which make Haverford's absence somewhat surprising.
Not that any of this necessarily matters. The most successful billionaries in the US -- Bill Gates, Larry Ellison, Michael Dell, etc. dropped out of college or sacrificed academics in favor of building their company. Moreover, I'm sure there are some unemployed Ivy League graduates out there.
Samuel Browning - 6/8/2003
Hi Ralph:
I've just finished reviewing some letters between you and Benny and I think I have finally realized what happened.
On May 3, 2003 at 11:42 pm speaking of Michael Bellesiles you wrote "His work was deeply flawed. even he acknowledges that. Benny Smith may be the only person in the universe who doesn't"
On May 4, 2003 at 1:29 pm Benny Smith responded: "I am not aware that Bellesiles ever characterized his own work as (sic) on Arming America as 'deeply flawed.' Do you have a source or cite for that?" and "I believe the evidence more than bears up the author's theses. And I believe Bellesiles believes this too. Otherwise, what would be the point of a second edition."
On May 4, 2003, at 5:07 pm you replied: "Let's, see Benny .... I own up to having had a conversation with Michael about his book after his resignation from the Emory faculty. Do you? Or would that be like talking to yourself? Among the things I said to him were that he would be a fool not to take advantage of the massive criticism of his book to correct it at every discrete point that he can see his mistake. The point of a second edition of_any_book is to correct mistakes found subsequent to the publication of a first editions. Scoffers here are likely to believe that Michael would have to start over from scratch. I doubt that."
Benny then replied on May 7, 2003 at 7:02 pm that :"Mr Luker ... Are you indicating that Professor Bellesiles told you in confidence that his book was 'deeply flawed?' Indeed, if so, you should perhaps inform the editor of this site as that would be news. Of course, I believe it was Mr. Haskins who stated to you that 'the surest way to destroy a relationship you have with someone is to betray their confidence.' Somehow I do not believe that Bellesiles used the phrase "deeply flawed" I believe it was your hyperbole along the same line as stating that I am the only person in the universe who does not believe that Arming America is deeply flawed. As you yourself have stated here, "Gross exaggeration never adds weight to your argument. It undermines it."
Since you never responded to Benny's question/accusation r.e. the source of the "deeply flawed" language when you posted next on May 9, 2003 I jumped to the conclusion that these words had passed between yourself and Bellesiles not connecting the dots in your May 4th letter. i.e. the purpose of a second edition is to correct mistakes in the first edition. So I admit based on your present letter of June 3rd, that I made an erronous assumption. Now as for your two questions.
1) Does the statement made by Bellesiles that he wasn't a good at mathematics and planned a second second edition suggest an acknowledgment that his data is flawed? Normally it would. My understanding from reading the Soft Skull press release is that Michael is seriously downplaying the magnitude of mistakes in his data to the point where he is not necessarly admitting that his work is "deeply flawed" as could normally be inferred.
2) Does he see errors in the first edition that need to be corrected in a second? Yes Michael sees some errors which he believes can be corrected with a few paragraphs. His publisher of Soft Skull however seems to believe that a right wing conspiracy is what lead to Michael's troubles though perhaps even Michael doesn't believe that one.
In conclusion I was wrong to assume that you betrayed Michael's confidence but I stick by my observation that such a possibility makes Benny VERY uncomfortable.
John G. Fought - 6/7/2003
This discussion is especially interesting to me: in my first years of teaching at Penn I lived first in Bryn Mawr (right next to Haverford) and then in Swarthmore. I taught one semester course at Swarthmore a bit later. Around Penn it was sometimes said that the strength of these schools was in their students, not their faculty. The intended conclusion of course was that at Penn it was the faculty. (Let's hope so ...) My first hand observation in those days suggested that there was something to it. What seems to me overriding, however, is the liberal arts culture, and the style and values it exhibits and constantly fosters in those who choose such schools as a workplace. To some degree, the style is the substance. There's a certain smile those students wear at times. Well, I guess you have to be there.
A propos, read the First Person piece by Thomas H. Benton (!?) in the current Chronicle of Higher Education: So You Want to Go to Grad School?
Don Williams - 6/7/2003
heh heh
Does anyone have any info on Haverford's rankings in the Gourman Report, by the way? Yes, I know some criticize it for an opaque methodology but those schools who receive a high ranking seem to note that fact on their web sites. Perhaps Mr Lindgren could analyze the internal consistency of the Gourman numbers?
I find the hard data in the Lombardi Report of more interest. In that regard, it's interesting that the small liberal arts schools like Middlebury, Swarthmore, Bowdoin, and yes, Haverford , have incoming student cohorts with some of the highest median SATs in the country. So a student's peers at those schools are some very bright people-- if one accepts the SATs. Middlebury and Haverford, for example, report that the median SATs of their students are 1410 and 1355 respectively. Emory ranks somewhere in between.
On the other hand, the faculty at the liberal arts schools do not seem to rank high when judged by the measures of major universities (research expenditures, federal research awards, number of faculty who are members of the National Academy,etc.)
See http://thecenter.ufl.edu/research2002.html .
Middlebury's faculty does seem to have PhDs from major universities, however.
James Lindgren - 6/7/2003
In the US News rankings of Liberal Arts Colleges, Haverford was ranked tied for 5th in 2001-2, and ranked 10th in 2002-3. It has often been ranked 5th or 6th in recent years. This year it ranks ahead of Wesleyan, Grinnell, Claremont McKenna, Smith, Vassar, Bryn Mawr, Mount Holyoke, Oberlin, Barnard, etc.
It is always hard to compare the faculty quality of liberal arts colleges to big universities, but the Haverford faculty is pretty highly regarded nationally.
Roger Lane was probably chosen to review Arming America because he had written a classic book on homicide in Philadelphia. Further, he had reviewed (favorably) an earlier book by Bellesiles on Ethan Allen.
Ralph E. Luker - 6/7/2003
Don,
I hardly know what to make of this, except to say that linking Jack Rakove to Haverford College as an alum and Roger Lane as a faculty member strikes me as more conspiracy theory. Play with it if you will. A-hah! Haverford is a Quaker founded institution and we know about those conspiratorial pacifists don't we?
Don Williams - 6/6/2003
1) I should note that the above excerpt from "The Papers of Thomas Jefferson" was obtained at Haverford's library, which is fairly decent.
The campus is rather pretty -- one drives several hundred yards through a wooded area with a pond to reach the main buildings. Along the way to the library, I passed a cricket ground where some jovial Pakistani students appeared to be beating the mortal crap out of some sullen WASPs. At cricket, that is.
I tiptoed with a slight trepidation into the library given a cynical speculation I made months ago re why Roger Lane was chosen to do peer review of Arming America in the OAH's Journal of American History. See paragraphs 4-5 of http://hnn.us/comments/3155.html . Recall my comment?
"In my opinion, Mr Lane's review would be an embarrassment to a middle-aged professor at a first or second tier university but neither Mr Lane nor his institution have that much to lose.
While Haverford School is a renowned prep school, Haverford College is of much more modest accomplishment. Being a Quaker school , his peers probably support gun control and the promotion of the world view espoused within Arming America. Finally, Mr Lane's web page at Haverford indicates that he received his BA in 1955. Assuming he was somewhere around 22 at the time, that would make his current age somewhere around 69 -- ready for retirement? Amazing how these things work out."
2)Your subsequent fervent defense of Haverford filled me with mirth -- I assume that you didn't realize that Haverford is Jack Rakove's alma mater? (see http://history.stanford.edu/faculty/rakove )
3)The Jack Rakove who sponsored Bellesiles for the Stanford fellowship to write Arming America and who had Bellesiles give the keynote address at Rakove's Symposium on the Second Amendment (thereby fulfilling one of the requirements of the fellowship) The Jack Rakove who wrote the Chicago Kent Law Review article and William and Mary Quarterly article explaining how Bellesiles' findings should affect interpretation of the Second Amendment. The Jack Rakove who Bellesiles thanked in Arming America (top of p.583.) The Jack Rakove who was frequently quoted by newspaper reporters writing on the Bellesiles matter -- reporters who presumably were not aware of the above.
Presumably, if Mr Rakove ever expressed his admiration of Arming America to Roger Lane, the comments were not coming from a stranger to Haverford.
John G. Fought - 6/6/2003
Nah -- your posting, like Jefferson's letter, is much too long. The Wills approach could be put on a T-shirt:
"Misconstruing History, One Word at a Time"
Don Williams - 6/6/2003
1) One of my low amusements in life is to watch the deceitful mental contortions of hardened sophists like the Ninth Circuit Court. The Court would have us believe that the Second Amendment was intended to preserve the right of state governments to own firearms , not the broad mass of citizens, so that the states could resist tyranny on the part of the federal government.
Yet Article I, Section 10 explicitly states that " No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay ".
The purpose of the Second Amendment was to arm the people, so that the people could protect the Congress. Possibly by fighting the state governments, as when Lincoln called out the militia after the attack on Fort Sumpter. Possibly by fighting the federal standing army, as when Congress fled to the protection of the Princeton militia after Independence Hall was surrounded by Continental troops in 1783. Article I, Section 8 makes clear that Congress controls who commands the militia.
I think that most historians would generally agree that Thomas Jefferson had the most intellectual influence on James Madison --
many of the Founders like Alexander Hamilton were simply maneuvering for financial advantage and power but Jefferson and Madison were building for the ages. The need for a Bill of Rights was asserted from the very beginning by Jefferson upon his receipt of the Constitution -- in his Dec 20 1787 letter to Madison, Jefferson stated:
"I will now add what I do not like. First, the omission of a bill of rights providing clearly and without the aid of sophisms [Mr Jefferson anticipated existence of the Ninth Circuit Court, you see] for freedom of religion, freedom of the press, PROTECTION AGAINST STANDING ARMIES, restriction against monopolies, the eternal and unremitting force of the habeas corpus laws, and trials by jury in all matters of fact triable by the laws of the land and not by the law of Nations."
Mr Jefferson then went on to explain why an explicit statement of rights was essential, to note that the federal government should be limited solely to powers expressly delegated and that a statement to that effect had been omitted from the Constitution, and to note that terms limits for the President was also necessary.
All in all, a remarkable letter.
We have strong cause to regret today that "sophisms" justify de facto monopolies in many industries --even in the news media business. Our right to habeas corpus/trial by jury also seems much less secure than what we thought only a few years ago. Plus, the federal government today recognizes no limit on its powers and the Supreme Court has let the Ninth and Tenth Amendments become dead letters.
Plus the Ninth Circuit Court seems to be using "sophisms" to undermine the people's "Protection against standing armies" proposed by Mr Jefferson and inserted by James Madison.
Samuel Browning - 6/5/2003
Hi Ralph;
I'm searching for the posts that I remember between you and Benny on this matter. I will be able to comment further once I refresh my recollection. If I am wrong about their existance then an extra big serving of crow for yours truly!
John G. Fought - 6/3/2003
I've been away, Mr. Luker, and I can see that you've missed me. To repeat briefly what I posted some time ago about Bellesiles and mathematics: in the introduction to his dissertation he thanks a couple of people for 'converting me from mathematics' (the actual quote and reference are in the earlier posting). His actual competence in it is not revealed by what seems to have been a plan at some time to major in it. After all, there was a time when I wanted to be a chemical engineer (a time when I didn't yet know what they did).
As for Wills and classical philology, I hope that Mr. Morgan will soon release his note on this. I can report with sadness that Wills' Classics degree is no guarantee that he knows how to make inferences about other languages. In a Classics Department he doubtless spent most of his time reading the classical texts that were once established and edited using philological methods. On the special technicalities of language change which are relevant here (as Plato and Cicero are not) I can speak as an expert: my training in linguistics in Yale's then-conservative department included lots of comparative Indo-European philology. For my sins I studied Greek (1 year intensive), Gothic (1 yr), and Sanskrit (1 yr); there were many courses in the theory and history of historical-comparative linguistics too. This field is essentially about the details of both patterned and sporadic changes in and the consequent relationships among the Indo-European languages. Of course, the method can be used on any family of languages. (This work made me the person I am today, so think twice before you study any of that stuff yourselves.) Wills' argument is a fine specimen of what is often called the etymological fallacy, namely that there is a true or deep 'original' meaning that somehow remains forever 'in' the later forms of a word or phrase. Another version of this kind of belief was a staple of old magic and religion, namely, that things have true names, god-given, and that knowing them confers power over those things upon the knower. These notions persist, but there is no foundation to them. The key fact is that like other cultural features, language CHANGES as it is used. All of it, all the time, slowly and unpredicably, not just the pronunciations and the morphology, but the meanings as well. To see the problem, look back at the Greek or Latin words and their meanings that are supposed to be inherent in our present use of the forms descended from them. Under this theory, did the Greeks themselves first infuse the forms with those meanings? Uh, no: they were already there, a result of earlier evolutionary and accidental changes leading from earlier stages of Indo-European usage. And before that? We can't tell. IE is not attested but is 'reconstructed', and is very incompletely known. Change is always going on: some innovations take; others fade away. After a certain point we can no longer reconstruct earlier stages, because the evidence runs out and the reconstructed 'regularities' can no longer be separated from background 'noise'. So there is no way to arrive at what in grad school we used to call Proto-Indo-Squirrel. Moreover, there is no point in the evolution of a language family where things settle down. So, what counts for this debate is not what 'arma' meant in Rome or Athens, but what 'arms' meant in Colonial America. You get the answers the same way, by studying the usage of the time, attempting to discern the elements of meaning which make each word the correct choice in each context where it is found.
Ralph E. Luker - 6/3/2003
Sam, You may or may not be correct that Benny is Michael. I don't know. But I did not betray Michael's confidence, as your note implies and an assumption on which your conjecture is based. I do not recall Michael having said to me that the first edition of _Arming America_ is deeply flawed. I _do_ recall the implication of some of his public statements (i.e., that he was not very good at mathematics -- a statement subsequently challenged, in part, by John Fought) and of his plan for a 2nd edition. Doesn't the first suggest an acknowledgement that his data are flawed? Doesn't the second suggest that he sees errors in the 1st edition which need to be corrected in a 2nd?
Samuel Browning - 6/1/2003
Yes Anon;
One of the reasons for my suspicion about the Benny/Belllesiles connection is that in my opinion Bennie's most vehement outburst came when Ralph Luker revealed one comment Bellesiles made to him late last year. Ralph had previously said that his conversations with Bellesiles were confidential, a condition we respected. Benny responded immediately and with anger and I think the quality of his writing really improved during that post. While it would be logical for Bellesiles if he was writing on this board to argue some of his favorite points, he would also be more likely to reveal his style if he discussed material we were all familar with.
But of course the question is why is this all relevent? And its because of the so called John Lott rule. it is intellectually dishonest to participate in an internet debate concerning oneself, or ones family while using a false internet name. Lott broke this rule and suffered a lose of crediability even among the gun crowd.
Richard Henry Morgan - 5/31/2003
Ralph, I'm probably misunderstanding your point, so I'll apologize in advance. Yes, I have trouble with Wills' philology, but even more so with his classical philology. It is precisely Wills' background in the classics that Wills and Bogus invoke in service of Wills' Second Amendment interpretation. If you like, I'll send you a copy of my MS, which is still missing a footnote or two.
I certainly expect Wills to make a mess of legal issues, and he always seems to deliver on my wishes (check out his summary of Miller in A Necessary Evil, versus, say, the works of Powe, Reynolds, and Kates, and you'll see that Wills has not the foggiest notion of what "judicial notice" encompasses -- in fact, he gets Miller exactly backwards on the question of a Supreme Court ruling vis-a-vis the militia status of a sawed-off shotgun). What does surprise me is that he makes a mess of classical philology too, his supposed strength (as he had previously published reviews in the American Journal of Philology). Passion makes fools of us all, and Wills is well-known as passionately anti-gun, which somehow didn't stop the NYTBR from giving him Bellesiles' work to review -- one suspects that not only was his anti-gun position not a disqualification, it was a requirement.
I include some links to Bogus. You can find Bogus' encomium to Wills in his Chicago-Kent contribution. That he would, with apparently no background in the classics, praise such a conceptual mess is less surprising when you consider the other link -- Bogus has hit the trifecta of what Benny would call "the anti-gun lobby": member of the National Advisory Panel of the Violence Policy Center; member of the Board of Directors of The Center to Prevent Handgun Violence; and member of the Board of Directors and Board of Governors of Handgun Control, Inc. Read the Bogus Chicago-Kent contribution, and tell me that is a balanced and fair treatment of the topic suggested by his title (the basis of which probably helped secure him a place for his symposium at Chicago-Kent).
http://law.rwu.edu/Faculty/ctb/cbogus.htm
http://lawreview.kentlaw.edu/articles/76-1/Bogus%20macro2.pdf
Anon - 5/31/2003
The Google search I offered was so that anyone could find it easily because the links seemed a tad odd and people might choose the HTML version.
I used a different search to find it a while ago; I don't remember which one, but I think it was simply "Bellesiles" and the name of a particular UK university. Someone else at the conference was from that University, so the Wales program popped up.
I apologize for using a post directed to you for making my general criticism about responses to trolls. You have have made a large number of sophisticated and interesting posts. I should have made the criticism in a separate, general post. You are obviously free to disagree with me (and you do, temperately I might add).
Actually, your suggestion of differing qualities and tones of writing in Benny's posts is quite interesting. You hint at the possibility that Bellesiles is trying to dumb down his remarks to fit his alter ego, Benny. Support for that speculation might come from what I think was Benny Smith's first appearance--the comments section of the Emory Wheel, when few knew that the Wheel was on the story. Further, Benny has not appeared on moderated sites where real registration is required.
On the other hand, I don't buy it because Benny fails to make obvious arguments that Bellesiles would make and refuses to give the (often false) details that characterize Bellesiles's style of argumentation. Benny just doesn't know much about the merits of the dispute.
Yet your argument about inconsistencies in writing would tend to support the idea that Bellesiles is in contact with Benny and is sometimes feeding him ideas and text to post on his behalf. That is a third possibility.
Samuel Browning - 5/31/2003
Hi Ralph;
Regardless of a previous request please be aware that I wouldn't want to ask your daughter to help out in a case like this. Her employer would probably take an exceedingly dim view of such assistance given the previous statements made by people like myself on this board. Better to make the request formally and honestly and see what happens. I would be willing to promise Soft Skull that if I could buy an advance copy from them I would embargo the results until they had formally published the book. Even with my views of Belliseles, if I make a formal promise like that I would abide by it.
Samuel Browning - 5/31/2003
Dear Anon:
If you have been following this board for any length of time you will notice that "Bennie Smith's" writing is inconsistent in qualitity but has a brittle unnaturalness that suggests (but does not prove) that the author is attempting to obscure their real writing style. For this reason it might easily be Bellesiles, and I will not rule out that possibility like you do. Certainly when Benny really wishes to write well his writing dramatically improves but if "he" wishes to put out his normal propaganda broadside when the facts don't support him, his skill declines more then one would expect from a natural range of variation in writing skill.
It is my choice how I deal with trolls and if that means that I and others respond to him rather then let his posts go unchallenged that is our decision. If you desire to see a high level of politeness, re your teenager remark, you may be on a board on which you will feel quite uncomfortable. But before you make such judgments how long have you been reading posts here and how far have you gone back? There is a lot of background here so if we are to debate these issues my response should be geared to your answer to that question.
Since aberystwyth is quite an unusual word I feel quite confident that Benny could not have done such a google search without having certain information beforehand. Assuming Belliseles is in the UK and remains in contact with friends in the states how many people would he have passed this information onto 10, 15? it suggests a close connection to say the least.
Anon - 5/31/2003
Do a Google search for these keywords:
bellesiles atlanta aberystwyth
The UK American Studies program will pop up.
Several days before Benny posted his fanciful interpretations in this thread, I heard a rumor that Bellesiles was hanging out at a particular respected UK university (No, I won't say which one), so I did a search and the program that Benny mentions popped up. I did not find any evidence on UK websites that Bellesiles was at the unnamed UK university. Indeed, the American Studies program listed his residence as Atlanta, GA.
Benny is guilty of many things, but on this one he's probably innocent.
I don't know why people keep wanting to draw Benny out. This is a rare post that had any real information in it, even with his usual nonsense sandwiched around it. Usually, with Benny it's just one slur after another, without even the minimal amount of fairness that people on both sides of this debate usually show.
Benny is just trying to get a rise out of you guys. Don't give him the satisfaction. I've never seen a "troll" get such consistent responses. You'd think you were teenagers.
As for Benny being Bellesiles, there is no possibility. Benny doesn't use Bellesiles' style at all; he lacks Bellesiles sophistication. It is, of course, possible that Bellesiles is feeding him information as he fed others in Bellesiles' very public campaign of attacks on critics.
Clayton E. Cramer - 5/30/2003
I share Mr. Morgan's reaction to the Bogus hypothesis. I haven't read it in some years, but I recall being surprised at there being only one real piece of evidence to support the claim--the rest was supposition.
There's no question that fear of slave revolt played a big part in the maintenance of the militia in some colonies in the eighteenth century, and the South's preservation of a viable militia much later into the nineteenth century is certainly associated with fear of slave revolt. But where do the requests for a Second Amendment come from? Largely from states where slavery was clearly not going to be around for long, such as New Hampshire, New York, and Pennsylvania.
Oh yeah, more reasons to suspect that Benny Smith is Bellesiles: what are the first and last letters of Bellesiles's last name? What are the initials of Benny Smith? And what do both spell? BS! :-)
Ralph E. Luker - 5/30/2003
Richard, Your skepticism of Garry Wills's philological skills may be justified, but his doctorate and early publications are in classics. It was only later that he began publishing so prolifically in American studies.
Richard Henry Morgan - 5/30/2003
English vista? English countryside? Bite your tongue!! Cymric!! If I remember correctly, 'Wales' stems from an Anglo-Saxon expression for 'stranger', or somesuch, so the locals quite naturally have not taken the name their breast.
Richard Henry Morgan - 5/30/2003
"Rather than risk infecting another institution with poisonous attacks from the gun lobby, Bellesiles is maintaining an inconspicuous profile."
How altruistic of Bellesiles. And BS's ability to channel Bellesiles' thought (with or without the aid of crystals?) is truly astounding. What a pity BS didn't put that ability to work for Bellesiles when he was reversing the meaning of the Militia Act of 1792.
The interesting thing about Bogus' original paper, which I have before me, is that it quite explicitly admits there really is no documentary evidence for his thesis -- you see, slavery, as he would have it, was such an outre topic that discussion of it wasn't committed to paper, even in the context of constitutional debate. The effect of this manoevre is to make the evidence for Bogus' proposition precisely the same as that for the lack of any such motive. I call this The Method of Must Have Been, since precisely that construction, or its equivalent, is offered by Bogus in the absence of evidence (you can find it at least a half-dozen times in his paper). Don Higginbottam, an enthusiastic collectivist on the Second Amendment issue, posivitely vibrated with giddiness at the appearance of the Bogus thesis, but could still only offer a bit of cautionary praise. I'm rather certain that slavery played some role, but I can't find the evidence for it as a prime mover. I heartily suggest that others read the Bogus piece, and make up their own minds. I would only add that Bogus gave an unqualified endorsement to Wills' philological gymnastics, the insufficiency of which suggests that Bogus has no Latin, and even less Greek, and quite literally doesn't know what he is talking about. But that's for another day.
Samuel Browning - 5/30/2003
Mr. Smith's last post does not seem to depend on any media sources only the program from this conference. (Bennie could always provide a link to prove otherwise) It therefore appears that Benny must have been in the UK or had a good friend such as Michael mail him a copy. You're e-mails Benny tie you closer and closer to Mr. Bellesiles on a personal level. When are you going to admit the obvious?
Frank A. Baldridge - 5/29/2003
"The collective chairs have amassed a wealth of fellowships, awards, and degrees. They have authored, co-authored and edited numerous academic texts, articles and reviews published both in Europe and in the United States." (By Soft Skull Press)
BFD!!!
And I thought you were going to tell us Bellesiles is currently driving a school bus in Guadalajara.
Clayton E. Cramer - 5/29/2003
"I've never understand what was 'liberal' or 'progressive' about giving the police and military a monopoly in armed force."
It depends whether the people giving orders to the police or military are progressive or not. :-)
Seriously, I agree with you. As late as the 1920s, gun control was usually a conservative cause in America, and liberals and leftists tended to be skeptical or outright hostile to gun control. In Britain, the Firearms Act of 1920 was passed to disarm the masses because the Cabinet believed that they were on the verge of a Bolshevik Revolution. Don Kates argues that part of the change in America in the 1920s was FDR's attempt to distract liberals and progressives from their support for the Noble Experiment with another Noble Experiment--gun control.
Ralph E. Luker - 5/29/2003
Josh, I think you make a very good point. I suspect that the crude generalization arises from the tendency of the NRA to support political candidates which tend to support its positions and many of them happen to be Republicans. Many people believe that Al Gore failed to carry West Virginia, for example, largely because of his position on gun control and ownership. In the crude construction of our national politics that seems to identify gun ownership support with the right wing, but I can think of many contributors to discussions on this site, even, who can't be categorized that way.
Josh Greenland - 5/29/2003
What's "right wing" about being pro-gun rights? I've never understand what was liberal" or "progressive" about giving the police and military a monopoly in armed force.
Thomas Gunn - 5/28/2003
05-27-03 ~1720
Ralph, Ralph, Ralph,
The 'nickle' you spent responding to me could have been better spent e-mailing your daughter for assistance in a worthwhile endeavor. ;-) I assume you feel facts are more valuable, especially to historians, than propaganda. I could be wrong however, it won't be the first time.
I wouldn't comment on the 'vast right wing conspiracy' slur, funding its own research, for it is only a matter of time till liberals are weaned from the peoples teat, (Can I say that word?) and are forced to fund their own research. :-)
thomas
Bryan Haskins - 5/28/2003
OK, sorry for the Python pun, but all I could think of while reading about the glorious English vista referenced in Mr. Smith's post was the warning from the Knights who say NIT to King Arthur that unless he brought back a shrubbery he would never pass "through these woods alive."
Well, I for one have never assumed that Bellesiles’ problems have reduced him to hiding in a secret underground bunker like some fearful troglodyte. Therefore, I really don’t mind it if Mr. Smith chooses to give us periodic updates on changes to Bellesiles’ event calendar.
Still, while it may entertain Mr. Smith to make these generalized “you see, you can’t keep a good man down” posts, they are ultimately meaningless unless we can learn what actually happened at the events he references. In short, Mr. Smith, this is not a horticultural web site, and I could care less whether Bellesiles spent his conference breaks strolling amongst the “glorious” English countryside. I would rather know what went on inside the conference.
With this in mind, let me pose a few questions to our general audience: Is there anyone out there who did more than merely read an internet-posted flier advertising this conference? Can anyone out there tell us what actually happened at the conference? Were any of the issues raised in AA discussed at the session Bellesiles chaired? If AA was discussed, then can anyone tell us who was involved in the discussion and/or tell us what was said? Did Bellesiles himself make any comments about the content of either the 1st or 2nd edition of AA at this event? Did Bellesiles respond to or comment upon either the nature or the specifics of the criticism he has received regarding AA? Did Bellesiles participate in the subsequent “Militia” session? If so, then what did he say or do at that session? I may be wrong, but I believe that answering these questions would provide us with far more relevant information than wistful speculation about the springtime beauty of the English countryside.
Ralph E. Luker - 5/28/2003
Thomas, Thomas, Thomas,
I appreciate your volunteering my nickel in this enterprize, but I prefer that the vast right wing conspiracy fund its own research. All my research dollars have been committed to President II's unfruitful search for WMD in Iraq.
Thomas Gunn - 5/28/2003
05-28-03 ~0840
Maybe the header should read "Bellesiles takes low profile though prominent leadership role"!
Thanks for my chuckle of the day Benny!
Aside for John Fought: You've hit the nail on the head. The only question remaining is this; Has Michael made himself superfluous, or just embarrassing?
thomas
Josh Greenland - 5/28/2003
"Regarding the question of the Second Amendment and the militia, I should clarify that the full topic of the paper presented was "Carl Bogus Reconsidered: Was the Second Amendment Designed to Protect Slave Patrols Against the Abolitionists?" "
I found the paper's full title here, but no mention of Bellesiles:
http://www.baas.ac.uk/resources/asib/asibdets.asp?ordernum=8802&head;=8802&range1;=8803&range2;=8805
Benny Smith - 5/28/2003
Mr. Fought's defamation of his esteemed fellow academics here no doubt stems from bias and pettiness. I doubt that he actually reviewed the resumes of the chairpersons presiding over the aforementioned conferences. I did. The collective chairs have amassed a wealth of fellowships, awards, and degrees. They have authored, co-authored and edited numerous academic texts, articles and reviews published both in Europe and in the United States. For example, one chairperson, Philip Davies, a professor at De Montfort University, is chairman of the British Association for American Studies and concurrently Director of the Eccles Centre for American Studies at the British Library.
It is unfortunately characteristic of Bellesiles' critics to dispense unproved accusations and biased invective as if it were fact. I honestly believe that part of Mr. Fought does want to engage in such demeaning behavior. Sadly, as he has stated, it is not his grown-up part.
Benny Smith - 5/28/2003
Like Mr. Morgan, I did wonder why Professor Bellesiles, of all the chairs in the program, did not have a university affiliation listed on the program. My suggestion is that the author of Arming America felt there are still fanatical, hate-driven critics out there who would seek to track him down and harass his new employer and colleagues, much the way it happened in Atlanta. Rather than risk infecting another institution with poisonous attacks from the gun lobby, Bellesiles is maintaining an inconspicuous profile.
Regarding the question of the Second Amendment and the militia, I should clarify that the full topic of the paper presented was "Carl Bogus Reconsidered: Was the Second Amendment Designed to Protect Slave Patrols Against the Abolitionists?" So, indeed, Arming America was not credited there with that particular postulate. In fact, many of Bellesiles' theses have been proposed or supported by other academicians and professionals, something that Mr. Morgan no doubt is aware of since he is familiar with the literature.
Clayton E. Cramer - 5/27/2003
"exempting Benny, he shouldn't be reviewing his own work:)" got me to thinking: is Benny Smith actually Michael Bellesiles, pulling a John Lott/Mary Rosh thing? Reasons that make me wonder:
1. Smith engages almost entirely in character assassination, never addressing the real issues.
2. Smith pretends that Bellesiles is a victim of vast right-wing conspiracy influence in the academic community.
3. Smith engages in the sort of ad hominem attacks that I have learned to expect from Bellesiles (who called me a "ideologically driven polemicist" to the Conservative Club of Columbia University--especially entertaining since it has now turned out that Bellesiles is the ideologically driven polemicist).
On the other hand, Benny Smith doesn't seem as smart as Bellesiles, and doesn't seem to have any grasp of the questions involved.
Clayton E. Cramer - 5/27/2003
"Those who have read Arming America know that colonial slavery’s dependence upon the militia was an issue discussed by Bellesiles in his book."
But not discussed in much depth, because had Bellesiles done so, he would have to acknowledge that those laws required widespread gun ownership, not guns locked up in government arsenals, as Bellesiles claimed on p. 73. See http://www.claytoncramer.com/primary/militia/GA1757SlavePatrols.pdf for the Georgia 1757 slave patrol statute which required that every person performing slave patrol duties "shall provide for himself and keep always in readiness and carry with him on his Patrol Service, one good Gun or Pistol in Order, a Cutlass and a Cartridge Box with at least Six Cartridges, in it...", or http://www.claytoncramer.com/primary/militia/GA1770BringGunsToChurch.pdf for the 1770 Georgia law requiring every militia member (almost all adult men in the colony) to carry a gun to church, and requiring elders or deacons to search men coming in, to make sure that they were armed. Or the similar South Carolina statutes of 1743 that Bellesiles cited as evidence that nearly all guns were kept locked up, except at militia musters or during war.
Clayton E. Cramer - 5/27/2003
"Cramer, who serves as kind of a disinformation minister for extremists in the gun rights movement, has long attempted to gain some respect among legitimate scholars, while trying to collect some buckage on the side. Yet despite his self-collected research which he publishes on his website, he remains largely ignored by academics in the mainstream, something that clearly rankles him."
Actually, it's the dishonesty of Bellesiles, and that he continues to have defenders in the academic community, is what rankles me.
"He wrote a long article for the History News Network, saying that he saw what other historians did not in part because history departments are rife with left wing ideologues who conspired to ignore his criticisms of Bellesiles’ Arming America."
You must have a "special" edition of that article. My point was that historians tend to not examine carefully materials that agree with their point of view, and gun control is a very popular idea in academia.
"Cramer himself is a self-described "narrow-minded bigot.""
It's called irony. I would explain the concept, but it would be over your head.
"However, with few legitimate historians joining in the campaign of intellectual assassination against Bellesiles, the gun lobby and their right wing allies have been forced to embrace Cramer, warts and all."
Hmmm. Columbia revoked Bellesiles's Bancroft Prize. The external committee that investigated Bellesiles's actions politely called him at least incompetent. Knopf decided to stop publishing the book, and pulp the returns. Three of the four William & Mary Quarterly articles about _Arming America_ politely said it was nonsense.
"Cramer only hopes more of them would contribute monetarily to his "research." His blog whined recently that he had not received many contributions of late. Some while back, he personally launched a fund-raising campaign for himself on usenet, where he has been a fixture for many years."
Like many academics, such as Professor Glenn Reynolds of the University of Tennessee.
"He told me later on an Emory Wheel forum that his campaign had netted him a few hundred dollars, which he later characterized as nothing (I’ll leave it to Professor Lindgren, the quantitative expert, to determine whether a few hundred dollars is nothing). Most recently, Cramer put up for sale his Chinese SKS rifle with a folding spike bayonet. Apparently, when nobody’s buying your scholarly shtick, it must be time to sell the guns."
Try again. As the blog entry made very clear, I was selling the SKS because I have no need for it. I earn more interest in a week than I expect to get from the sale of that SKS.
Clayton E. Cramer - 5/27/2003
I have now received funding for travel and research expenses. When I made the statement about NRA's lack of funding, it was a true statement.
Thomas Gunn - 5/27/2003
05-17-03 ~1315
Gentlemen,
Lest you forget, our favorite resident historian has a daughter working at Soft Skull Press.
Perhaps you could impose upon Ralph Luker to use his influence with his daughter to provide complimentary copies or gallies for you comparison endeavor. You could then include Soft Skull in your findings and give them the heads up the original publisher was, Hurrumph, obviously lacking, re errors in the first edition of AA.
thomas
Richard Henry Morgan - 5/27/2003
I'm still trying to figure out how such a "scholar" as Bellesiles, who plays a "leadership role", and who is purportedly the victim of right-wing zealots, doesn't have an institutional affiliation -- and Soft Skull Press said he would be teaching in Britain. Go figure. I guess the omnipotent right-wing conspiracy can keep him off the faculty, but not off a program. Doesn't make sense to me, but maybe that's just me.
Benny asks what contributions Bellesiles might have made to a session on the militia and the right to bear arms -- an unfortunate choice, Benny, given that Bellesiles rewrote the 1792 Militia Act to square with his Wills-inspired view that the federal government pledged to arm the militias. And if the use of militia as slave patrols was discussed in Bellesiles book, it hardly originated with him or his book, so he can hardly take credit for later sessions devoted to it -- it was broached by Bogus' 1998 article in the UC Davis Law Review. But then you'd have to know the literature to know that.
Earlier, I posted some reflections on American Studies in Britain. Benny referenced a course that included consideration of Bellesiles' JAH article. The course was an intro to American Studies, in what the Guardian called the premier American Studies program in Britain -- something like the tallest building in Wichita, for the course had no mention of Henry Nash Smith, the foundations of James Harvey Robinson, or the continuities in American ideology with the commonwealthmen and the country party Whig opposition. I suspect it wouldn't take much to lead those turnipheads.
John G. Fought - 5/25/2003
A part of my wants to leave 'Benny Smith' to his/her pathetic fantasies, but not the grown-up part. For those not familiar with the intricate rituals of academic conferences, let me point out that chairing a session is not always a role to be coveted. The duties include introducing the speakers in turn, many of them junior scholar; informing each how much time they is left for the presentation, if any; pointing to hand-wavers in the question period between papers, if any; and sipping water to stay awake. Session chairs do not take part in debate. The role is quite often given to people either too senior or too embarrassing to ignore completely, as a way of darting them into nonparticipation at crucial moments. That's the least cruel interpretation I can provide. British and other academics have also been known to put on public display, as if in stocks, those whose behavior, appearance, or predicament they find amusing. Was anyone who reads these posts at this conference?
Josh Greenland - 5/25/2003
Richard, I accept that any or all of the things you've just written about Allende could be true without qualification. I just don't think they justify our destabilization campaign against him and Chile, or his murder and replacement by elements much worse than he was by almost any criteria, elements that the Nixon, Kissinger and the CIA were much happier with.
I didn't reply quickly because the Chilean coup really isn't related to Bellesiles, except as it relates to Benny. It says much that he could think that the truth about the anti-Allende operation was so outre that no one would believe it and that he could use it in an "anti-American rhetoric" smear. I'm guessing that he's younger than mid-40s (wasn't very old or was not born in the early 1970s), and isn't politically sophisticated, inquisitive or well-read enough to have heard about an affair that the mainstream media has not talked about much since it happened. Nor is he a serious conservative or a left-winger, because he would probably have read in sources friendly to his views about the Chilean coup, especially if he was a lefty. Hence the attack on those who criticize Bellesiles "from the center," culminating recently in that one bizarre post where he tried to attack us as both leftwingers and rightwingers. He's a respectability-seeking middle of the roader, and doesn't have the intellectual wherewithall or courage that the other technical people on the board (Clayton, Don and I) do that bring us to conclusions about the state of things in our country that he claims to find distressing.
I agree completely with Bryan that every post where Benny can get away with attacking Clayton or someone else here is one where he can avoid dealing with the substance of criticisms against Arming America, and the content of the book itself. So I'm done with this little diversion. If you want to have a last word on this topic, feel free.
What's in The Nation is irrelevant to me. I don't read it.
Benny Smith - 5/24/2003
Perhaps those who campaigned to instigate the exile of Professor Michael Bellesiles from his post at Emory University hoped that he would go quietly into the night. However, gun huggers, right wing zealots and a few others obsessed with Bellesiles’ intellectual character assassination might be unpleasantly surprised to learn that the historian still plays a leadership role within his profession—most recently exercised at the 2003 British Association of American Studies Annual Conference last month in Wales. On the agenda there was the topic "American Nationalism in the Nineteenth Century" with a number of scholars presenting their views. Listed there on the program was "Michael Bellesiles Atlanta, Georgia," who chaired the session. This annual conference attracts top scholars from the United Kingdom, Europe, the Far East, and from America as well. This year’s conference took place in Aberystwyth, a town which was described by the event organizers as "surrounded on three sides by areas of outstanding natural beauty that includes some of the most glorious countryside in Great Britain." Egad, the horrors of exile!
Ironically, another topic on the program’s agenda was "Militia and the Right to Bear Arms." As this program occurred after Bellesiles’ own, one wonders whether he may have attended that program and what contributions he would have made. One of the papers to be presented there asked "Was the Second Amendment Designed to Protect Slave Patrols Against the Abolitionists?" Those who have read Arming America know that colonial slavery’s dependence upon the militia was an issue discussed by Bellesiles in his book. Overall, the program reflects the influence Bellesiles’ work is having on international views of American history and culture, something that no doubt sticks in the craw of his critics here. If they are thinking of complaining to the University of Wales, they may want to check its website which publicizes a personal harassment network that "provides support for staff and students experiencing any form of harassment of bullying." If only Emory or Columbia had such a support network in place to protect academic freedom on its campuses from the NRA.
Josh Greenland - 5/23/2003
"What is really unfortunate is that if Benny would pick his battles and use facts he could provide a much better defense on individual issues for Mr. Bellesiles."
Perhaps he doesn't because he thinks the cause is lost?
I was hoping to see him explain his rebuttal of Clayton Cramer's criticism of the Bellesiles double error that turned a gun shopping list into a gun census. His rebuttal has in turn been rebutted, but he hasn't offered a defense of his rebuttal yet.
I recall that militia records were one of the two things the Emory committee pilloried Bellesiles for.
"I know you don't like Tim Lambert's position on gun control Josh but he was a good example of what Phil called a dissenter."
I agree. Lambert is a dissenter, not a troll, by Phil's criteria.
Samuel Browning - 5/23/2003
Lets start planning. My cell phone is 203-376-5772 and my e-mail is TappingReeve@aol.com Please call anytime but this Saturday and Sunday and we can go from there.
Samuel browning - 5/21/2003
Sounds good to me, though I understand the copyright facists may consider that illegal. I'll look into it and if its an issue, Michael may end up making another $2 in royalties, if its going to be in paper I might be able to afford a couple copies we can loan out. I'll contact soft skull and find out what their release date is. For some reason I doubt we'll get a free advance copy.
John G. Fought - 5/21/2003
I like it. I'll take a chapter, but I won't
buy the book. I'll repay you for copying and
postage; we can set a deadline, and report back
in with documentation. How does that sound?
Samuel Browning - 5/21/2003
When Michael's new version of Arming America comes out of Soft Skull Press I intend to buy a copy and compare it to the first addition to see how many editing changes have been made. For the sake of Michael's reputation I hope the answer is many.
Since the book will be roughly 400 pages I thought we could split up this review by chapter among the participants of this board (exempting Benny, he shouldn't be reviewing his own work:)and get a handle on whether any substantial revisions have taken place or the text went out with no changes. Ideally Michael would mention in his introduction what he altered but I somehow do not think thats going to happen. What do people think?
Bryan Haskins - 5/19/2003
I have patiently read everything you have recently said about Clayton Cramer, Mr. Smith. I even gave you a free opinion of some of it on the “conspiracy kook” thread. Now you want me to comment upon how Cramer’s view of homosexual pedophilia relates to Bellesiles and Arming America. You also want me to address the funding you claim the NRA has given Cramer. Well, Mr. Smith, the time for freebies is over. I will gladly give you my opinion of these matters, but only if you will give me your elusive opinion of the two issues I raise (again) below:
ISSUE #1: THE LINDGREN E-MAIL CONTROVERSY
These are the facts: Mr. Lindgren claimed to possess an e-mail from Professor Bellesiles which contradicted his then current assertions regarding a portion of his probate research. Bellesiles promptly told the Emory Wheel that the e-mail Lindgren claimed to possess was in fact a forgery. Some, including you, Mr. Smith, have suggested that Mr. Lindgren had a motive to attack Professor Bellesiles. However, Lindgren was able in response to cite us to an earlier, recorded radio interview in which Bellesiles admitted sending the e-mail he subsequently claimed was forged.
ISSUE #2: THE SAN FRANCISCO PROBATE RECORDS
At the end of 2001 and into 2002, the National Review and the Boston Globe were hot to prove a fraud charge against Bellesiles over his use of San Francisco County probate records that were said to have been destroyed in the fire which followed the great quake. Bellesiles made several attempts to answer the fraud charges. These are the facts:
Bellesiles first claimed he could not remember where he had done the research. He then suggested two different libraries, only to have each of them claim that they don’t have the records and that to the best of their knowledge the records no longer existed. This in turn caused many to suggest that Bellesiles fabricated the San Fran records. Finally, in January 2002, Bellesiles secretly visited the Contra Costa County History Center (CCCHC). He had never mentioned doing any research there before, and afterwards he incorrectly referred to it as the California History Center. Nevertheless, he made copies of records from that facility, and he claimed that these were the records from San Francisco County which he had originally relied upon. He further claimed that he had done his original research at the CCCHC in 1993, and that the CCCHC had an “entire bookcase” of San Fran records. In an effort to assuage his skeptical critics, he produced these newly copied records for inspection. What followed was a massive attempt to verify his claim, which lead inevitably to a response from Betty Maffei, the director of the CCCHC.
Ms. Maffei had her staff review the San Fran records Bellesiles produced, and she confirmed that those documents did in fact come from her collection. She stated that they were not, however, records from San Francisco County. She explained them thus: “Examining the 26 pages of Bellesiles' probate records that were supplied to us, it appears that Professor Bellesiles merely photocopied estate documents that contained the word "San Francisco" somewhere in them.”
Ms. Maffei went on to directly contradict Bellesiles’ assertion that the CCCHC had a bookcase full of San Fran records: “We certainly do not have "an entire bookcase of probate record files" from San Francisco County. From what we know, it would appear to be impossible to count guns in San Francisco probate inventories from 1849-50 or 1858-59 in our collection, since we have no such inventories.”
Finally, she cast serious doubt on Bellesiles’ assertion that he had done his original research there in 1993. She noted that the CCCHC’s visitor log showed no visit by Bellesiles prior to January 2002, and she concluded with the following: “we cannot confirm that Professor Bellesiles did substantial research in our collection in 1993 (as he claims) or at any other time before his visit in January, 2002. We do not remember him visiting our collection before his recent visit. We have searched our log books and invoices for the years 1993, 1994, 1995 and 1996 and find no record for research fees or photocopies. Further, we are not cited or acknowledged in his book, something we always expect and receive. During Professor Bellesiles recent visit he did not reveal his primary reason for the visit. He did not tell us that he had been in our archives before and now wished to confirm aspects of his previous research. He did not say he was the author of a book and needed some help confirming his previous work. Had he done so we would have immediately begun a search of our invoices and log books. We only discovered after his visit, when we began getting phone calls from both scholars and reporters, that we were in the eye of a hurricane. We had to learn from others what it was Professor Bellesiles really needed.”
Now my opinion of these two issues is this: The Lindgren E-mail issue is an example of an outright lie, and it (like Lott’s Mary Rosh episode) casts serious doubt on Bellesiles’ credibility. The San Fran records issue is more difficult to ascertain. Bellesiles had to have known that these newly released records would be scrutinized, because they would either make or break the case being amassed against him for fabricating the San Fran records by the Boston Globe and the (definitely unfriendly) National Review. Nevertheless, he still made the incredible mistake of failing to recognize that these records did not come from the county he claimed they did. This leads to only two possible conclusions: Either he is absolutely incapable of accurately researching probate records, or this entire episode represents a desperate, lying attempt to fend off a fraud complaint with the lesser-evil “I’m just a sloppy researcher/I’m not a liar, I’m just confused” defense. The first conclusion renders his entire probate research worthless, while the second does the same in addition to proving he has committed outright fraud.
This, of course, is merely my own poor opinion of these issues. I welcome yours, Mr. Smith. You are the only one willing to attempt a defense of Bellesiles here, and I am forced to deal with you by default. I asked you many moons ago to give your opinion on these two issues. Your response claimed that it was all a “soap opera of who said what to whom” which held no interest for you. After all, (so you now claim) “Bellesiles readily admits errors.”
Nevertheless, I continue to take the time to reach out to you because you do raise some interesting issues here. In particular, I would really like to discuss your suggestion that Cramer selectively used quotes and other information to build his thesis. However, you cannot have it all your way, and I offer you a quid pro quo. If you will give me your opinion of one of my issues, then I will address one of your two newest issues with Cramer. For example, you give me your opinion of how Bellesiles handled the San Francisco records controversy, and I’ll give you my opinion of how Cramer’s views on homosexual pedophilia should affect the credibility of his research into AA. I believe that such a frank exchange of views on topics of mutual interest would surely be more productive than our current stalemate. I tire of sniping at one another across some verbal no man’s land, and I cannot think of a fairer offer to start anew, Mr. Smith.
You may of course decline by suggesting that after you discharge your mind on one of my issues I would then refuse to comply with my obligation under this new offer. Well, I can only say that I have given my word here for all to see, and I have no intention of being branded a liar. Or, if you like, just signal here your verbal agreement with the terms of my offer, and I will start the process by addressing one of your issues first. If you cannot or will not accept this offer, then perhaps you can suggest someone else who is willing to carry Bellesiles’ water here. I must say that I will not be drawn into your current Fabian strategy of trying to burn down Bellesiles’ critics. You know as well as I do that every day you can get by with drawing responses to your attacks on Cramer (and others) is another day you are spared having to answer why you refuse to consider any evidence of Bellesiles’ failings with AA.
Richard Henry Morgan - 5/17/2003
I noticed the same omission, Frank. I also remember an interview with Mr. Stack where he said that shotgunning got him into the movie business -- I think he said he had developed a rep at at a Hoyywood shooting club, where he made the contacts that built his career.
Richard Henry Morgan - 5/17/2003
You're right about Benny's tactics. I hold no brief for the CIA, I just realize that Allende was not a model of democracy -- he ruled by unconstitutional decree, outside the law. He also put a 400% import tax on spare parts for broadcasting and printing equipment -- except the government (Allende) controlled media, of course. I'm just not prepared to see Allende as the spotless virgin despoiled that is such a romantic myth on the left. We have similar electoral provisions for similar circumstances, and Bush did garner a larger percentage of the popular vote, and (arguably, though reasonable people can differ) a majority of the electoral college. If I remember correctly, Allende got about 36% of the vote, and only took a majority of the legislative votes with the help of the Christian Democrats, who threw their support behind Allende only with Allende's promise to respect the constitution -- a promise he promptly broke. Of course, you'll read these facts in The Nation.
Josh Greenland - 5/17/2003
A few years ago Robert Stack was a speaker at the California Rifle and Pistol Association's annual banquet. The CRPA is NRA's state-level affiliate in CA. Part of the program was devoted to recreational shooting matters, but I think he spoke during the political part of the evening. I wonder if a little news suppression went on as regards his politics as well?
That's amazing that the media would quash almost any mention of his shotgun prowess.
Frank A. Baldridge - 5/17/2003
Mama, what's a skeet?
As some of you may be aware, Robert Stack passed away yesterday at 84. Intrigued by the lack of certain data in his obituary, I abused my lowly position position at a major library to read as many of his obituaries as I could. Of the over 15, all mentioned his parents, first screen kiss, his role as Eliot Ness, and his gig on Unsolved Mysteries. Some vaguely mentioned his job during WW II, and his participation in the sports of polo and golf. ONE mentioned that he enjoyed shooting skeet.
There is a big different between "enjoying" doing sometime and being one of the very best to ever do it. During the late-1930s Robert Stack held the 20 ga. National Championship in skeet, ran over 350 birds, and was on both the National and U.S. Olympic Skeet Teams. Arguably his skill with a gun influenced both his assignment in WW II, and his film career. Today the "cult" is much smaller.
Josh Greenland - 5/16/2003
Richard,
The US tried to help Allende's electoral opponent win, but turned to the coup ops after their election ops failed. From my understanding, the necessary elements (the Chilean upper-middle class and the military) were not ready to pull a coup, and needed the year or two convincing that Kissinger & Friends gave it between the election and the coup. If you remember, the US created the "truck owners strike," a campaign by Chilean truck owners to sideline their vehicles - in a long, thin country that absolutely relies on trucks for commerce. The aim was to create and/or exacerbate negative economic conditions, and that's what happened, resulting in increased social tension. The CIA also bought Chilean newspapers and turned their coverage toward anti-Allende ends. Eventually the CIA was pumping so much money into Chile for anti-Allende operations that the dollar dropped in an obvious fashion versus the Chilean currency. There was also the kidnap/murder of Gen. Schneider, which seems a little harsh for "not much pushing."
Whatever you think of the Chilean political system and the way Allende became president, I hope you are not suggesting that that justifies our country's Chilean coup operation.
But if you are, that's your opinion and I respect that. What's happening here is that Benny has changed tack recently and is now trying to split us one from another, including left versus right, and socially liberal versus socially conservative, and is using non-gun issues to do that. I think it's a tribute to the strength of the case against Michael Bellesiles that people with differing politics such as ourselves can agree on the pervasive and profound falsehood of Bellesiles' work on firearms, and the social implications his work would have if it is believed.
Richard Henry Morgan - 5/16/2003
"It was quite well-known at the time that the CIA pushed different elements in Chilean society to overthrow that country's democratically elected president Salvador Allende"
I'm not sure the Chileans needed much pushing -- certainly Pinochet and others had a green light fromm the US. I understand the emphasis on "democratically elected" Allende, as opposed to "democratically governing" Allende, since he shortly after "election" took up the practice of governing by decree (see Pipes latest book on communism). For those who have trouble with GW's election as "undemocratic", Allende's election poses much more of a problem -- he never got even as close as Bush to a majority of the vote. He was elected, instead, by the legislature.
Samuel Browning - 5/16/2003
What is really unfortunate is that if Benny would pick his battles and use facts he could provide a much better defense on individual issues for Mr. Bellesiles. Someone else on this board for example had to come up with the argument that Michael's low weapons counts could have been influenced by British Army weapons confiscations. Of course Michael would have trouble using this argument because even if he did look at some probate records as he claimed, by his account the only placed a hash mark on a legal pad instead of recording things like, name, date of death, exact language discussing weapon possession, ect.
I know you don't like Tim Lambert's position on gun control Josh but he was a good example of what Phil called a dissenter. He used his own name when he logged on this board, was usually quite willing to share facts and provided specific information. One becomes a troll when one walks totally away from providing facts to support their arguments over multiple posts as Benny has done.
Josh Greenland - 5/16/2003
"The issue with Clayton Cramer's research is not just his homophobia, as you call it."
"Homophobia, as you call it"?? Yeah, Benny, you're the Great Straight Hope, friend and (respectable) spokesman for "homosexuals" everywhere. Yes, "the homosexual" is so grateful to have you speak up for him against the Cramerite evil! (And of course "the homosexual" is always male, right?)
You pretend to give a damn about the rights of gay people but only to attack Clayton Cramer on yet another IRRELEVANT issue. You've shown your true colors with regards to "homophobia, as you call it." People who are opposed to discrimination against gay people know what that word means. It isn't new to them. It's only strange and worthy of remark to those who have no problem with negative attitudes and actions against gay people.
Don't do us any favors, Benny. Gay people don't need you around. Go "help" someone else, closet bigot.
Josh Greenland - 5/16/2003
"I can readily discern by your inflammatory anti-American rhetoric where you are coming from."
Benny, or whatever your real name is, the US fomentation of the Chilean coup by the murderous Augusto Pinochet is HISTORICAL FACT, not "rhetoric," anti-American or otherwise. I was following the news during the early 1970s when this was being reported on. It was quite well-known at the time that the CIA pushed different elements in Chilean society to overthrow that country's democratically elected president Salvador Allende, and Henry Kissinger was the figure most often associated publicly with this operation. Again, Benny (or whoever), I'm talking about things that were KNOWN AT THE TIME. This happened about 30 years ago, so it's well-documented history. If you want to smear someone for slinging rhetoric, do it to someone who is actually slinging rhetoric. On this forum, that would be you.
What do you have against historical truth, Benny? Americans owned guns in great numbers and were skillful with them before the 1840s, there were very few gun control laws before that time, the militias armed themselves and were often effective in combat. Bellesiles chose to lie about all these things, even though they are heavily documented facts. Outside of Clayton Cramer's work, Bellesiles was called his lies on most comprehensively in the William and Mary Quarterly in Jan or Feb 2002, where two of the three critics are outspokenly pro-gun control and the other one said nothing about the issue.
You can try to manipulate people on this board against each other, as with your attacks on Clayton Cramer for past posts on subjects unrelated to Bellesiles, or by trying to upset conservatives (by attacking "left wing" and "anti-American" expression) and liberals (by attacking "right-wing" thinking), but other than Mr. Hayhow, we all know what you're doing.
Now what were you trying to say about Clayton Cramer's catching of Michael Bellesiles at date fudging and misquoting with the clear intention of creating a false impression of the historical record?
Josh Greenland - 5/16/2003
Samuel,
Thanks for posting this URL:
http://philelmore.com/profiling/fieldguidetotrolls.htm
According to it, Benny is a classic Contrarian Type troll. He fits 4 of the 6 characteristics mentioned, VERY closely. #1, the need to insult, fits him to a tee.
I think we need to acknowledge that Benny is only here to stir things up. He adds no information or insight to the discussion. The benefit of his participation is that he stimulates us to dig up information and to develop new insights into l'affaire Bellesiles and inform one another about these.
Samuel Browning - 5/16/2003
Hi Benny:
I was reviewing your letter of May 11, 2003 and noticed once again that like your hero Mr. Belliseles you have a major problem with selective reading. Your argument is that Clayton is an irrational conspiracy theorist therefore his work on Arming America can be dismissed out of hand. When Michael issues his next version of Arming America we at this board will have to consider whatever new facts he presents regardless of his previous errors and deceptions. I disagree of your characterizations concerning Clayton, but your refusal to consider the facts in his presentations does him a disservice that at least I will not replicate upon Mr. Belliseles.
In your letter you said that the date change from 1628 to 1630 "was inconsequential to the point of being irrelevant" ... "if it is indeed an error". If you once again look at http://www.claytoncramer.com/columbia.18apr01.htm You will notice that the date of this Massachusetts Bay Colony document is provided on the very page that lists various weapons that this group has, or would like to purchase. How you missed this date which was in plain view on this scanned document is beyond me, but I do not believe you can argue in good faith that that Michael did not make an error here at the very least.
Now this is not an inconsequential error because this date change allowed Michael to assert "There were thus exactly one hundred firearms for use among seven towns with a population of about one thousand." The bad date allowed Michael to make a claim that the document respresented the number of firearms colonists had in the wilds on Massachusetts as verses in England. It was also Michael's brainstorm to describe an equipment list as a firearms census which could not be done without forming an intent to misinterpret the nature of this document even independant of the discrepancy with its date.
In another side by side document example Clayton shows in his presentation that Michael misrepresented the minimum number of guns in America by reporting only the number of weapons in the hands of the militia forgetting number that was in the hands of the Federal Government. Notice that Michael did not say the number of firearms in private hands, which would still have provided an undercount but would have been further along the path of honesty. The reality that Michael provided inaccurate and misleading census type information about the number of firearms in Massachusetts and then the United States on two separate occasions shows intent to lie about the central thesis of his book.
As long as you keep ignoring facts like this Benny I will keep bringing them up whenever you post on this board. I hope that you will consider mastering the facts of this case so you can provide Mr. Belliseles with a more worthy defense rather than simply acting as an internet "troll".
Frank A. Baldridge - 5/15/2003
"Who's lying now?"
Who is, Sara, err Benny?
P.S. Having just last night finished my last class for my MA, and feeling sooo much smarter as a result, allow me to inquire about getting in on this grant thing. Are you capable of providing useful imformation?
Samuel Browning - 5/15/2003
Hi Benny:
Thats a pretty poor attempt at manipulation Benny, telling me that I am making inflammatory anti-American rhetoric and that I need not respond to your allegations. I believe what you are saying is that you have no facts to counter my Kissinger and Nixon example and so you are trying to cut me off. That approach may be successfully used by a few professors but it doesn't work here.
I find that lumping my example into the politics of the right wing shows some real deficiencies in your reasoning. Secondly blaming Clayton Cramer for using rhetoric that inspires anti-government extremism in the form of Timothy McVeigh and Al Qaeda is laughable. I notice that you smear Clayton and then waffle by saying 'extremism like' that of Clayton Cramer. You are covering him with paint even though you know that there is no way to blame Clayton for the actions of these people. Do you even know that Al Qaeda is motivated by a narrow and extremist interpretation of the muslem religion and hate not only the United States government but also western culture in general? Facts have never been your strength Benny.
I also discovered a wonderful website that describes you very accurately though I should encourage others to draw their own conclusions. go to http://philelmore.com/profiling/fieldguidetotrolls.htm I hereby dub you "internet troll" for 1) your intellectual dishonesty, use of insults as to Clayton Cramer, and referring to the other members of this board as being monolithic, ie hard core right wing militants. I'll have to reconsider my vote for Ralph Nader for president in light of this revelation :) Back to you Benny.
Richard Henry Morgan - 5/14/2003
"Timothy McVeigh . . . who also happened to be a member of the NRA."
You mean like Michael Bellesiles, who also claimed to be member of the NRA? Now it all makes sense. Bellesiles was put up to it by the gun lobby, in order to discredit the anti-gun crowd. Yeah, that's the ticket!!
Benny Smith - 5/14/2003
I can readily discern by your inflammatory anti-American rhetoric where you are coming from. And where you are likely to continue on. As we have discussed here prior to your arrival to this particular issue, anti-government extremism like that which Clayton Cramer espouses inspires terrorists like Al Qaeda and Timothy McVeigh . . . who also happened to be a member of the NRA. When I observe that the responses to my latest series of posts are suggestive of left wing and government conspiracies, it is rather obvious that I have been correct all along in my assumptions. This campaign of intellectual character assassination against Professor Bellesiles has been fueled by the hard core militants of the right wing and the gun lobby.
Thank you for your contributions, Mr. Browning. I wish you luck on your upcoming exam.
Josh Greenland - 5/13/2003
" As far as Mr. Cramer's research on Arming America, he claims to have documented evidence that shows that Professor Bellesiles altered dates and quotes. But look at one of the examples you have given here, the inconsequential date error, if it is indeed an error."...
I can't believe it, Benny, are you really trying to respond to a criticism of an actual passage from Arming America??
"Are you really willing to trust all your confidence into the work of Mr. Cramer, who throughout has shown a pattern of extreme prejudice, selective evidence gathering, faulty reasoning and conspiratorial, hatefully drawn conclusions?"
Benny, that doesn't describe Clayton Cramer. It describes you.
Josh Greenland - 5/12/2003
"But I suppose only the murder of Ameicans count Mr. Smith, in your definition of whether some American officials are pitiless and capable of murdering "anyone to achieve their goals" I will let others more knowlegable then myself argue Waco and Ruby Ridge with you. I'll write again soon."
I think Waco and Ruby Ridge speak eloquently for themselves. As far as our government arranging the murders of Americans, consider COINTELPRO, FBI's Counter-Intelligence Program running in the 1960s and early 1970s, that among other things fomented conflict between violent gangs and politicals groups the FBI didn't like. The fomenting bore fruit, and members of the Black Panther Party were murdered, I believe in Los Angeles and Chicago, if not other places as well. The FBI also arranged to have an agent drug a Panther member to sleep in Chicago, and manipulated the Chicago Police Department into bursting into the building where the Panther member was lying insensate and shooting him to death. There was much more to COINTELPRO than this, but these are some highlights that bolster the assertion that the people who run this country are "merciless, pitiless, evil people prepared to murder anyone to achieve their goals" for those who only count murders done to Americans.
Samuel Browning - 5/12/2003
Hi Benny;
I will be able to write in more detail on Wednesday evening (I'm studying for a midterm) but let me see if I get the picture. You who call Clayton a "crackpot" are now lecturing others on being rude? LOL
As far as calling the people who run this country "merciless, pitiless, evil people prepared to murder anyone to achieve their goals". Unfortunately Clayton does have major support for his position, I would recommend that you review Christopher Hitchen's book "The trial of Henry Kissinger" (Verso, London, 2001)Chapter 5.
In this fun filled episode of American foreign policy "Super K" (Henry Kissinger) under the supervision of "Tricky Dick" (Richard Nixon) make friends (through the CIA) with two groups of extreme right wing Chilean military officer groups. A plan was developed was to kidnap General Rene Schneider who as chief of the Chilean General Staff was opposed to his military interfering in his countries electorial process which was about to place Salvador Allende in power. The funny thing was in the American cable traffic no one, American or Chilean, was planning , heck even mentioning, any details of how to hold Schneider in captivity so kidnap was probably a term for murder from the start.
The US government through the CIA supplied tear gas granades and machine guns to one of the two groups, (called the Viaux group because of its leader)for the "kidnap" attempt. This group was also planning a general coup to prevent Allende from assuming office. The US govenment then decided that the time was not right for a coup attempt but strangely enough never told the Viaux group not to go through with the kidnapping which they carried out with members of the other group (the so called Valenzuela faction)
The U.S. has claimed they they are not responsible for Schneider's resulting death because he was not actually killed by one of the machine guns turned over to the Viaux group and subsequently shared by both factions. The evidence however indicates that the U.S. goverment was an active conspiritor in a kidnapping that lead to a murder. I would bet, though I am not a prosecutor, that Mr. Haskins could obtain a capitol felony conviction if he could establish the facts that I have detailed in front of a jury, and his court had jurisdiction in the matter.
But I suppose only the murder of Ameicans count Mr. Smith, in your definition of whether some American officials are pitiless and capable of murdering "anyone to achieve their goals" I will let others more knowlegable then myself argue Waco and Ruby Ridge with you. I'll write again soon.
Josh Greenland - 5/12/2003
"Hmmm, do we know anyone else from Chicago??"
Garry Wills teaches at Northwestern University, which is in Chicago.
Probably a search against Yassky Brief contributors, Chicago-Kent attendees and Potowmack Institute members might discover some more individuals.
Don Williams - 5/12/2003
The Joyce Foundation's website indicates that the Joyce gave out almost $3.2 million in "gun violence" grants in 2002. My understanding is that the Joyce can be so generous because it's annual income on $800 million in assets is tax-exempt --and that it's income is tax-exempt because the Joyce's officers attest to the IRS that the Joyce does not engage in political lobbying.
Benny's high moral stance has inspired me -- in a glow of admiration it occurs to me that maybe I should emulate him in some way -- e.g., by asking the IRS how the Joyce Foundation's tax exemption works.
The Joyce Foundation is in Chicago. Bellesiles took refuge at the Newberry Library in Chicago. Hmmm, do we know anyone else from Chicago??
John G. Fought - 5/12/2003
Be specific or be quiet.
Richard Henry Morgan - 5/11/2003
I guess what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If there is a gun lobby, then the Joyce Foundation, which funded the Chicago-Kent collectivist jamboree, counts as a charter member of the anti-gun lobby. Of course, the item would have to mention that Bellesiles' sponsor at Stanford, Rakove, who cited him effusively before publication, now thinks his work is flawed. And then there is Roger Lane's change of heart. And Edmund Morgan's. And Garry Wills'. All, no doubt, brought about by the unbearable pressure of the NRA. Perhaps too an item on why Bellesiles resigned, rather than take his case to the AAUP. I can see a growing list of additions to the chronology.
Benny Smith - 5/11/2003
If this thread is to suggest new items to include in the chronology of the Bellesiles affair, my vote would be to include the NRA's recent generosity to those who have participated in the Arming America author's intellectual lynching. I have previously revealed the NRA's $1 million donation to George Mason University, the sponsor of HNN, which has been far less than sympathetic and objective in its treatment of the former Emory professor. Now comes word that gun lobby darling and effusive Bellesiles critic Clayton Cramer has received an NRA grant as well. However, just as the NRA went through the back door in giving its $1 million to George Mason's law school, Cramer says his NRA grant is for civil rights research. Like the $1 million grant to George Mason University, it's just a coincidence that the NRA grant comes on the heels of Bellesiles' departure from Emory and his loss of a literary prize for Arming America.
Although Mr. Cramer in his web log does not reveal the amount of his NRA grant, he says it will be used to fund research, including air travel, for two books. With that in mind, here is a statement Cramer made to mollify his critics who had complained that he was just a paid NRA hack: "Unfortunately, one of the most painful discoveries of the last few months is that all the whining that the gun control advocates make about the NRA's deep pockets funding progun research work is, indeed, lies." To paraphrase the old country song, "Who's lying now?"
Benny Smith - 5/11/2003
We have enough petulance here without you becoming uncivil as well. I sincerely thought I had explained my position clearly enough. Mr. Luker seemed to comprehend. However, I am willing to make one more attempt to try to define it further for you and anyone else who might have missed the point.
The issue with Clayton Cramer's research is not just his homophobia, as you call it. Maybe you missed my earlier contribution which had to do with his opinions on our government leaders. Although this post was also made in the early 1990s, he reaffirmed it here. Mr. Cramer stated in a discussion group: " Make no mistake about it. The people that run this country are merciless, pitiless, evil people prepared to murder anyone to achieve their goals." I do not believe this is a rational conclusion any more than his conclusions on homosexuals. And if you had delved further, you would have seen this pattern of 'Cramerian logic' continue on other subjects.
As far as Mr. Cramer's research on Arming America, he claims to have documented evidence that shows that Professor Bellesiles altered dates and quotes. But look at one of the examples you have given here, the inconsequential date error, if it is indeed an error. Whatever the discrepancy, it is inconsequential to the point of being irrelevant, unless you subscribe to Cramerian logic that it somehow underscores a plot among Bellesiles and others to, I guess, overthrow the second amendment of the Constitution. Although Cramer claims this is one of several "altered dates" and uses it as evidence to condemn Arming America, the errors more than likely resulted from a lapse in copyreading, proofreading, printing, computers, transcription, peer review, note-taking, note-checking, an error in source material, or any one of a dozen other more plausible yet innocent explanations.
There is no question that there are errors in Arming America, as there would be in the first edition of any work of its size and breadth. Bellesiles readily admits errors, and I have not seen him try to blame others for them. I put more trust in scholars with that attitude than someone like Mr. Cramer, who insists his evidence, interpretations and implausible conclusions are sacrosanct. Or like Professor Lindgren, who when I pointed out an error in his own 'attack scholarship' sought to put the blame elsewhere. So, Mr. Browning, it all comes down to whom do you trust. Are you really willing to trust all your confidence into the work of Mr. Cramer, who throughout has shown a pattern of extreme prejudice, selective evidence gathering, faulty reasoning and conspiratorial, hatefully drawn conclusions?
Frank A. Baldridge - 5/11/2003
With all due respect, are we not drifting off course here? The personal views of folks that do not pertain to Bellesiles works are irrevalent.
Personally, based on the observations of Mr. Browning and Sherlock Holmes, plus his inability to come to grips with reality, I believe Benny Smith is Sara Brady, trying to pump some life back into the dead horse she bet on.
Josh Greenland - 5/10/2003
Poor Benny. He saw Tim Lambert help to call into question John Lott's credibility, and he wants to do the same to Clayton Cramer. Unfortunately, he hasn't found anything that reflects in any way on Clayton Cramer's credibility or on the credibility of his revelations of Michael Bellesiles' many falsehoods in Arming America. Benny can only point to views held by Clayton Cramer that Benny thinks are unpopular, and then try to link those views - somehow - to Cramer's well-documented and easily checked research that so thoroughly discredits Bellesiles. But Benny's logical linkages between Cramer's "unpopular" views and his Bellesiles research are so tenuous that they are laughed at by virtually everyone who reads them. Poor Benny....
Josh Greenland - 5/10/2003
"Benny, You may have identified the quality about what Clayton Cramer says that caused him for so long to be ignored by the academic community."
I don't know that Clayton has been ignored totally by the academic community since he's written academic articles unrelated to Bellesiles that may not have been ignored, but I think you're right as regards Clayton's statements and writings about Michael Bellesiles. The "quality" that got him ignored in the Bellesiles matter is the same one that got academic historian Joyce Lee Malcolm ignored. They are both pro-gun rights.
Josh Greenland - 5/10/2003
Actually, I think there should be a way to tease the very little we know about the OAH convention Bellesiles chatroom into some kind of Chronology item as well.
And perhaps the notice that AHA gave that it will no longer investigate possible instances of plaigarism and other types of academic misconduct, in great part because of the Bellesiles affair, as noted on a link on HNN's home page, perhaps belongs in the Chronology, too.
Josh Greenland - 5/10/2003
This seems at least as newsworthy as that bigotted little New York Times cartoon.
Do any of you know who I might write to here at HNN to request that Don's news item be added to the chronology?
Samuel Browning - 5/10/2003
Hi Benny:
What you call "a position" is certainly poorly thought out so a quick review is in order. You have discovered that Clayton made some homophobic posts in the early 1990s. Therefore your first line of reasoning is that his present work is unreliable and unworthy of consideration. Your secondary position is that you have compared his research on homosexual behavior to the point where you claim it "rivals the research he claims for his criticisms of Arming America" and "in both cases that he has selectively gathered his evidence and misinterpreted its findings in order to reach inappropriate conclusions".
Huh? We on this board have been collectively trying to get specific replies from you concerning Bellesiles's errors for months but you have provided no answers. You have also previously said that Clayton's research ON ARMING AMERICA is suspect and have been unwilling to provide specifics. you have just risen to the level of claiming that he is guilty of selective misquoting and inappropriate conclusions without providing any proof.
I have at least three questions in my last post which you have avoided addressing. I looked into what you had to say only to discover once again that you will not similarly consider another writer's questions. When will you actually do some historical as verses google research to back up your bold words concerning Clayton's research on Arming America? Where is your proof that his work on Arming America exhibits flawed research methodology, bias or irrationality? I could go on but it doesn't seem to be doing any good.
When you can point to evidence that Clayton's research on Arming America has any any problems, let alone chronic problems I hope you will share the specific details. Then just maybe I will trouble myself to do another Google search, how about Michael Bellesiles as the author, and Bennie Smith as his sock puppet.
Ralph E. Luker - 5/10/2003
Benny, You may have identified the quality about what Clayton Cramer says that caused him for so long to be ignored by the academic community. Despite having that quality, Cramer is capable of identifying some things accurately. Undoubtedly, Cramer's work was long ignored because his biases were so obvious and seemed to prejudice his findings. Probably, the more he was ignored the more irrate he became and the more irrational he may have seemed to people who were otherwise not inclined to believe what he was saying. Nonetheless, the fact that Cramer was biased does not mean that his findings were fabrications.
Benny Smith - 5/9/2003
Now that you have gotten the knack of Google searching, Mr. Browning, you can delve a little deeper if you like and perhaps better understand my position. Mr. Cramer’s flawed conclusions are not just based on his being , as you describe, "undoubtedly homophobic," although his biases there certainly matter. If you search more thoroughly, you will find that Mr. Cramer has done extensive research on homosexual behavior and posts many of his sources. The documentation he has amassed on gay behavior certainly rivals the research he claims for his criticisms of Arming America. But I believe in both cases that he has selectively gathered his evidence and misinterpreted its findings in order to reach inappropriate conclusions.
Try this search. Google search the usenet (groups) with Clayton Cramer as author, and pairing "homosexuals" and "pedophilia" as search words. Under the subtitle of "looks like Cramer must retract" there was this interesting line from a poster commenting on Cramer’s research: "The bottom line with both your posts (Clayton) and others, is that you do not like homosexuals so you will find any citation in literature to point to that." Change "do not like homosexuals" to "do not like Michael Bellesiles" and the statement applies to Cramer’s research on Bellesiles as well. If you believe that Cramer’s bias, irrationality and flawed research methodology are chronic problems, then it is reasonable to conclude that he is a crackpot destined to be forgotten in left field except for a few die-hard fans from the gun lobby.
Benny Smith's Nemesis - 5/8/2003
I know the real identity of "Benny Smtih." This anarchists name and location will be revealed on May 10, 2003!
Don Williams - 5/8/2003
Any of you who have read the Ackerman's Emory Wheel articles during the Bellesiles investigation -- and Benny's slavering responses posted on their site -- will
understand why the following will have him foaming at the mouth
and chewing the carpet. From http://www.emorywheel.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2003/02/25/3e5b2c5a95cff?in_archive=1
***********
Wheel wins regional award
By Jennifer Sutcliffe
Asst. Entertainment Editor
February 25, 2003
The Emory Wheel won second place for best college newspaper at the Southeast Journalism Conference last weekend in Pensacola, Fla. Several Wheel journalists received individual awards.
More than 30 schools from throughout the Southeast participated in the conference and the competition, which was held at the University of West Florida. The Louisiana State University Reveille received best newspaper and first place in the overall competition.
News Editor Andrew Ackerman won first place in news reporting for a series of stories on former Professor of History Michael Bellesiles. Editorial Page Editor Paul Forrest won second place for opinion/editorial writing, and Managing Editor Melissa Cheung won ninth place for news page layout and design....
******
bwaha ha ha ha ha --the evil black hand of the NRA strikes again
Samuel Browning - 5/8/2003
Hi Benny:
After spending a fair amount of time trying to track down what you were referring to I did stumble upon what are probably some of Clayton's posts from the early 1990s. I say probably because while some were probably from Mr. Cramer, (Clayton please correct me if I'm wrong)others contained quotes from people arguing with Clayton who were quoting Clayton back to him. If our Clayton Cramer is the same as cramer@optilink.COM, and the text is accurately reproduced, then in the early 1990s Clayton was undoubtedly homophobic.
"After all, being Jewish, black, female, ect. doesn't mean that you are a depraved person whose sexual compulsions require satisfaction in public restrooms and exhibitionistic displays." or "Hitler's propaganda aimed at the Jews was false. On the other hand, homosexuals are scum." http://www.google.com/groups/q=homosexuals+depraved+author:Clayton+author:Clayton+author:Cramer&hl;
Now to be fair to Clayton, the context of his comments were frequently arguments over why the gay community allowed the North American Man Boy Love Association to march in San Francisco's Gay Pride parades. And I have to say if you allow a group to march in your parade (absent a court order)you are supporting their legitimacy at some level. Clayton blamed the entire gay community for such an acceptance rather than just the particular group organizing this parade, and the San Francisco gay community which tolerated such a practice. Which leads me to the counter question, Bennie, if you were organizing this gay pride parade would you allow NAMBLA in? I sure as heck wouldn't.
There were also arguments regarding a study regarding the percentage of Gay men who had more then 250 lovers, and even 1000 in their livetimes. I would have to read the actual study to evaluate it, but Clayton's error was judging gay people instead of passing a moral judgment to the extent that anyone who sleeps with that many people regardless of sexuual preference is pretty depraved. http://www.google.com/groups/q=homosexuals+depraved+author:Clayton+author:Clayton+author:Cramer&hl;
But the bottom line Bennie is that you don't have to like Clayton, or even trust him. Historical verification is a contact sport. You need to show were Clayton has misread, or abused the historical record concerning Mr. Bellesiles. Think about it, if you go to a library and pull a volume off the shelf by any historian that is not our contemporary, you will be using the research of someone who probably holds some views, especially on race or gender, that most of us would probably consider disgusting. The question is whether these views poisoned the research at hand, and the quick answer is it depends on the historian.
You have never shown how Clayton's previous beliefs have leeched into his present gun scholarship. Given some of his previous intemperate remarks that should have been easy, but nope, he never said Bellesiles was depraved, only that he committed historical fraud, a conclusion caused in part by Bellesiles's own unbelievable explainations for his errors.
This brings me to my next point, previously I posted a link for you to consider. It was a link to Clayton's website where he had scanned two pages and placed them side by side. One page was Bellesiles's book and the second was the historical record Mr. B cited. One doesn't have to believe, like, or trust, Clayton's judgment to draw a conclusion over whether Bellesiles lied by making two "errors" by commission. But nope, you won't debate such points, or consider the facts of the matter. And if you won't consider the facts in the present controversy how can you snub your nose at Clayton? What you are doing is no more rational then his previous off topic judgments. (And Clayton if your posts are not accurately reproduced please tell us)
In the end Clayton is not writing "Conduct Unbecoming" a history adressing an aspect of the gay community. He is writing concerning the history of gun ownership in America, you've had since at least last September to dig up at least one error in his writings on these matters and have probably failed miserably. I am assuming you checked, did you?
Then you turn on Ralph for what appears to be the offense of not defending Bellesiles strongly enough. No facts, attack Ralph, there is some sort of weird psychodynamic here Bennie which makes me think that you have a familial connection to Bellesiles. I can't imagine why you would behave the way you do if not for such a factor. Please write with an explaination.
Don Williams - 5/8/2003
From UK web site http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/2002%20August.htm
---------------
Few would have seen the mark of greatness in the young Benny Smith as he was then, but his entrepreneurial spirit was evident when the thirteen year old was regularly seen out with his bucket, collecting the residue from passing horse-drawn vehicles, which were then still common on the streets of the capital. He used to sell the produce at a penny a load to keen gardeners, and was thus able to build up capital to start his first business, operating from mobile premises in London’s Middlesex Street.
Much of his early poetry has been lost to posterity, as it was published in the form of murals in various small rooms about the capital, but who can forget the poignant concision of those few works that have been preserved; such as the familiar couplet:
What is life if, lacking wit,
We have no time to sit and shit?
Pithy sayings were to become the trademark of his distinguished later career.
For an autodidact, his calculating powers were legendary and he could compute complex probabilities in his head from an early age. He was avidly sought as a consultant by small business men operating in and around the dog and horse racing tracks of North London.
There are unfortunate lacunae in the record of his career, when he seems to have disappeared from the scene for months or years on end, but admirers believe that it was during these mysterious periods of retreat that he developed his philosophy of business and life. One of his many business slogans at this time was “Quick in the head, quick on the feet.”
It was a surprise to everyone who knew him when he disappeared from London and turned up in rural Hampshire. It was at about this time that he developed his life-long interest in climate change, for he used to say that London simply got too hot for him. His transition to one of the great innovative spirits of academia occurred at this time, almost by accident. With typical generosity of spirit, he forgave an elderly woman a gambling debt and in lieu took over control of the Lillian Forsdyke School of Music, Dance and Drama, which was a well-known academy for young ladies operating from a barn in Over Wallop. His characteristic loyalty came to the fore when he sent for some of his old London colleagues to come and form what he liked to call his “negotiating team”. They were uniquely persuasive and became familiar and striking figures around the villages of North Hampshire, with their inevitable dark suits and dark glasses. One by one, local small educational and other establishments rushed to join the growing educational enterprise; and wise they were too, for many of them were to be the seeds that would grow into full-blown faculties. Miss Hale’s Afternoon Nursery Class of Kings Somborne formed the basis of a Faculty of Education. Joe’s Corner Garage of Houghton was to grow into the Faculty of Engineering. Even Fred’s Caff on the A30 just outside Stockbridge was the larva from which an imago, the Faculty of Advanced Chemistry, was to emerge.
It was about this time that he became a leading light in the campaign to end elitism in higher education. He was especially critical of the university establishment, whom he described in his typical down-to-earth language as “them stuck-up college tarts.” His sentiments found an echo in the policies of the new Conservative Prime Minister, John Major, which were to tear down the class barriers in higher education. Thus it was in the mid nineties that his creation, by then known as the Nether Wallop Combined Colleges, was at last able to offer degrees ratified by Thames University. He was not, however, a political zealot, and it has since emerged that over subsequent years he donated several million pounds to the New Labour project.
It is now common knowledge that he found himself the first Vice Chancellor of the Metropolitan University of Nether Wallop, which offered a variety of new degrees with the emphasis on relevance to the community. He also received a knighthood in the first year of the New Labour government. “Surprised?” he would jest, “I nearly bought my own beer!”
He remained famous for his pithy three-word slogans. The new Research Block, set up in a disused hangar on the Middle Wallop airfield, sported the slogan “Scares mean grants!” He always claimed that his old mate Greg Dyke, of New Labour BBC, stole from him one of his best creations, which was “Cut the crap!”
He was characteristically modest about his achievements. “I am still in the same business I was at the age of thirteen”, he would tell the congregation at the lavish degree ceremonies, for which only a small minority of parents would decline to pay the fee.
It was at the recent degree ceremony (tickets £50, bring your own picnic) held in the Middle Wallop Community Hall that the Chancellor of the University, Baroness Euthanasia Gimbal, paid a final glowing tribute to Sir Benjamin – “If there was one man who summed up what modern education is all about it was Ben. His watchword was “Access”. He did not see why young people carrying a minor disability, such as being unable to write their own name, should be deprived of higher education, provided, of course, that they had the money or credit worthiness to meet the fees. He took a particular interest in the progress of young women. As he used to say ‘While I strive to maintain the Faculty, I still have a keen interest in the student body.’
He was totally dedicated to his work and always said it was his ultimate ambition to die on the job. His close friend, eighteen year old Melanie Topley, one of his many youthful protégées, confirmed that he achieved his ambition.
And so, along with thousands of graduates around the world (with their innovative degrees in such vital subjects as billiard table studies, corn dolly engineering and media studies), we bid a reluctant farewell to one of the great pioneers of education. And future generations will sing his praises, when they are saved from roasting in the hell of global warming by the work of his inspirational creation, The Phlogiston Research Unit. And, always remembering to begin our sentences with a conjunction and to inevitably split our infinitives, we salute a man who, more than anyone, represented the spirit of the age.
Don Williams - 5/8/2003
as appears to me to be your custom.
Benny Smith - 5/7/2003
Mr. Williams . . . I recall you stating here that you would respond to my posts when you found something of substance in them. Since you have been responding to me lately, I trust you have finally discovered the substance you have been seeking. I must, however, decline your offer to share a dialogue on the battle you described. There are a number of popular venues, print as well as web-based, where armchair historians like yourself are eager to debate their views on the nature, history and tactics of past conflicts. In fact, there is a site armchairhistorian.com which should indulge your views so that you do not have to impose on my limited time here.
Mr. Luker . . . Are you indicating that Professor Bellesiles told you in confidence that his book was "deeply flawed?" Indeed, if so, you should perhaps inform the editor of this site as that would be news. Of course, I believe it was Mr. Haskins who stated to you that "the surest way to destroy a relationship you have with someone is to betray their confidence." Somehow, I do not believe that Bellesiles used the phrase "deeply flawed." I believe it was your hyperbole along the same line as stating that I am the only person in the universe who does not believe that Arming America is deeply flawed. As you yourself have stated here, "Gross exaggeration never adds weight to your argument. It undermines it."
Did I also hear you suggest that by my speaking to Bellesiles I might be having a conversation with myself? I have heard that suggestion put forth by Bellesiles' critics here, but I am surprised that you bought into that fiction as well. Perhaps you have allowed yourself to be held captive too long by the gun lobby's rhetoric here. The Stockholm syndrome is having its effect. You are losing your perspective.
Misters Greenland and Browning . . . Mr. Cramer's views on the gay community can be learned by Google searching usenet (groups). For example, do an advanced search inserting Clayton Cramer as author and pairing "homosexuals" with "depraved" as search words. Admittedly, some of the posts are old, but I have seen nothing from him that indicates that he has repudiated his views. He does seem to have toned down his rhetoric lately, possibly so that his opinions will be more palatable to mainstream conservatives.
And Mr. Greenland, I am not trying to vilify Mr. Cramer here. Afterall, I am merely summarizing his own public statements. Besides presenting these items in response to yourself and Mr. Browning, I only want to show how his research and thinking processes cannot be respected by someone like myself. And why I cannot consider him trustworthy as a historian or scholar. Remember what Mr. Hayhow said here after I posted Mr. Cramer’s opinions about this country’s leaders. Mr. Hayhow stated, "I will never trust any post of his again as I believe there is a strong streak of irrationality in that post." I realize that Mr. Cramer has strong support within the gun lobby and from right wing magazines like The National Review, but I am not inclined to subscribe to his theories, whatever the subject.
Bryan Haskins - 5/7/2003
Dear Mr. Smith,
I don’t understand why you of all people would stoop to your current bouts of mean-spirited personal attacks on Clayton Cramer. Why choose to attack him personally on unrelated issues rather than address the substance of his arguments against Arming America?
I must say I preferred the kinder, gentler Mr. Smith of last year. Of course, you were on the lecture circuit back then, preaching that we of the gun lobby should repent our evil ways. Those were the good old days, Mr. Smith, when you at least had a consistent argument:
“Focus on the message, don’t demonize the messenger, Mr. Haskins.” That was the title of your December 3, 2002, reply to one of my posts, in which you criticized those in the gun lobby whom you felt were ignoring AA’s thesis to prosecute “personal vendettas.” http://hnn.us/comments/5386.html
On December 16, 2002, you went on to bitterly complain about the unfair tactics of the “gun lobby” by stating: “Although they may claim to want to focus on issues, this is merely a smokescreen….it’s really about attacking the messenger instead of the message.” http://hnn.us/comments/5796.html
Ah, but this harangue went further than these December posts. Why, even as far back as November 19, 2002, you railed against the heavy handed tactics of the gun lobby with: “Kill the messenger and the message will die as well. That appears to be their agenda.” http://hnn.us/comments/4960.html.
Well now, Mr. Smith, I have a few questions for you…. Did you believe in the morality of these complaints, or were they just politically correct catch phrases? Did you utter them because they sounded good at the time, or were they merely uttered with the same false conviction of an atheist attending the funeral of a friend, who tries to comfort his religious comrades by joining a halting recitation of the apostle’s creed? Are you so enslaved to your ideology that your defense of Bellesiles is in reality nothing more than a reflexive knee-jerk aimed at his critics with no memory for your own prior complaints? Do you really believe that the rules are different for you, and that you can engage in the very sin you have repeatedly denounced without having to answer for your tactics?
You wonder why I reply to your posts even though we both know you will refuse to acknowledge what I am saying? Well, here’s why: I know you read them, and I want you to understand just how far your ideology has led you astray from the mainstream of this debate. How can you expect to credibly challenge the anti-Bellesiles crowd with a “do as I say, not as I do” approach? Need you really wonder why no one takes you seriously, when you choose to publicly abandon your own convictions in such a sudden, Machiavellian fashion? This is not the only example of how your zeal to defend Bellesiles has allowed you to directly contradict your own message. There are certainly others.
So, you want to personally attack Mr. Cramer because you are afraid to address his research? That’s fine with me. It is not my place to defend him even if I felt inclined to try (In fact, I even agreed with one of your earlier complaints, even though I felt it to be irrelevant to our discussion of AA). Nevertheless, I do suggest that in the future you re-read your own advice here and remove the beam from your own eye before you again accuse others of personally attacking Bellesiles.
Bryan Haskins - 5/7/2003
I’m sorry, Josh. I wasn’t referring to Lott’s supporters as a group. I do feel that by and large the “group” has done a far better job reviewing and answering Mr. Lambert’s allegations than Bellesiles’ supporters have. However, I have read a few die-hard Lott fans in other forums (and I do not mean you) who have taken the Bennie Smith “kill the messenger so we can safely ignore the message” approach to Mr. Lambert. I find that as equally frustrating as Mr. Smith’s expositions here. My point was aimed at Mr. Smith, who once again either missed it or refused to comment upon it.
Don Williams - 5/7/2003
I double-checked Marshall's "Life of Washington". Like Henry Lee, Marshall indicates, based on conversations with Daniel Morgan and John Howard, that part of Pickens' militia ran to their horses and part of Pickens' militia formed on the right flank of Line 2 to support the Continentals.
My memory was in error in one respect however. The specific quote from Howard re militia on his right flank is not in "Life of Washington". According to Lawrence Babits, "Devil of a Whipping", page 196, note 84; Howard stated in a 1804 letter to John Marshall that "a part of them [the militia] fell into the rear of my right flank where they afterwards renewed the action." If I understand Babits' citations correctly, this letter is within the John Eager Howard papers, known as the Bayard papers, held by the Maryland Historical Society in Baltimore.
Note that part of Pickens'militia who had retreated behind the left flank of Line 2 to reload were attacked by British cavalry and had to fight with unloaded rifles until some could reload and Washington's cavalry can to their relief. Babits indicates that some of those militia supported the left side of Line 2.
Note also that Picken's militia line in Line1 was only part of the militia --the Virginia militia units under Tate and Triplett were assigned to Howard, were a part of Line2 , and fought beside the Continentals throughout the battle.
Don Williams - 5/6/2003
The OAH Newletter guideline for letters is 300 words or less (which is not bad compared to the New York Times--the Times limits reader comments to 150 words). My letter to OAH was slightly longer (about 3200 words longer--hee hee) so I shortened it to meet their guidelines with hooks in to my H-OIEAHC articles. OAH didn't edit my 300 word version.
Samuel Browning - 5/6/2003
Hi Benny:
Once again your letter takes us on a journey which carefully skirts the facts at issue. Back on March 20, 2003 on this very forum I asked you to review two pages which Clayton Cramer had posted on the net. One page was a page from Bellesiles' Arming America. The other was from the historical records of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Comparing the two pages revealed the following facts. 1) the record referred to was from 1628 not 1630 as Bellesiles had claimed in his book, and 2) It was not a census of guns owned in the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1630, only a planned military equipment list.
It was my opinion that this double mistake showed an intent to deceive, but even if it somehow did not, you never responded by showing that the underlying facts contained in this example were wrong. For example, that some where else in the historical record there is evidence supporting Bellesiles "census" claim and he simply screwed up the citation here. I and others including Mr. Williams have provided specific examples and you have addressed none of them. You seem quite talented at researching Mr. Cramer's personal life, why do you refuse to attack his work head on? I cannot address Clayton's specific comments re the gay community that you refer to unless you provide me with a link or cite I can chase down. When you provide me with one I will be happy to discuss that issue. In return you could do Mr. Williams and myself the favor of a reply on the issues we have raised.
Clayton Cramer and Tim Lambert have successfully fought Bellesiles and Lott because they showed a mastery of the issues involved in both man's academic work. Until you similarly apply yourself you will be ineffective, and raise questions concerning your true intentions. To disagree with Cramer's interpretations of evidence you first have to discuss the evidence itself, something you have strangely avoided.
Josh Greenland - 5/6/2003
I'm guessing they intentionally devoted half of their letters column to Bellesiles responses as a balance to the pro-Bellesiles partisanship of Wiener's piece. They may have only gotten 2 letters along the lines of yours and the critic of Wiener, but I suspect they got more. Yours was very concise and informative, ready for a letters column. Was that the whole letter or did they edit any of it?
Josh Greenland - 5/5/2003
In my previous post, where I wrote "facility" I meant "facilitate."
Don Williams - 5/5/2003
Maybe they only received two letters and they needed to fill up empty newsprint?
Don Williams - 5/5/2003
In my above message, I gave a link to the Journals of the Continental Congress. That link doesn't work so here is an alternate:
1) Go to http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/hlawquery.html
2) In the first row of pull-down menus, go to the leftmost menu and select "Continental Congress, 1774-89". Next, go to the large box below it and enter "Cowpens", then hit search key
3) In the resulting list, select the entry for
"FRIDAY,MARCH 9, 1781"
Josh Greenland - 5/5/2003
"There is also a letter from moi re why I think OAH is obligated to correct the Bellesilesean history in US vs Emerson and Silveira v Lochyer. See http://www.oah.org/pubs/nl/2003may/correspondence.html "
[snip]
"Maybe Benny can explain why OAH prints a letter from moi -- one of those Benny describes as "gun lobby ideologues" and "conspiracy kooks"."
Your excellent letter mentioned their Binkley-Stephenson prize and other Bellesiles-supportive action. Do you think they just printed your letter to air "the other side," or because they want to expose their old pro-Bellesiles actions, preparatory to undoing some of their past support of him? (I know I'm a hopeless optimist. :)
Josh Greenland - 5/5/2003
""we have the most polite and mannerly guy on any discussion on HNN (Bryan Haskins)."
"Why thank you, Josh. That was very kind thing to say."
You're welcome, Bryan. I think people deserve praise for the good they do, rather than be taken for granted for it. It seems that the squeaky wheels on HNN are the ones who get the mention, rather than those manners facility sane, informative discourse. That isn't the way it should be.
"Still, I think it unlikely that Mr. Smith will ever award me a gold star for my exercise of discretion here...."
I don't think Benny's capable of appreciating consideration or kindness.
Don Williams - 5/5/2003
The May edition of the OAH newsletter is out. See
http://www.oah.org/pubs/nl/2003may/
Several things for Benny:
a) http://www.oah.org/pubs/nl/2003may/integrity.html
b) In the Correspondence section there is a letter from historian
Andrew Heinze, whose admiration for Wiener's defense of Bellesiles seems ..er.. limited.
There is also a letter from moi re why I think OAH is obligated to correct the Bellesilesean history in US vs Emerson and Silveira v Lochyer. See http://www.oah.org/pubs/nl/2003may/correspondence.html
Maybe Benny can explain why --if Bellesiles was subject to a gross injustice -- roughly 12? historians out of 2500+ at the annual meeting showed up at Wiener's session?
Maybe Benny can explain why OAH prints a letter from moi -- one of those Benny describes as "gun lobby ideologues" and "conspiracy kooks".
Oh, I get it. I'm "Bullying" the OAH. I and my fellow travelers have gone from terrorizing weak-kneed administrators at Emory, Harvard, and Princeton to cowing the 11,000+ membership of OAH.
Gee -- I haven't even loaded my AK-47 yet.
Josh Greenland - 5/5/2003
"That his work was predestined to be a slap in the face to the gun lobby made it all the more likely that there would be legions of amateur critics nitpicking every errant phrase or miscounted gun, rather than just weighing the bulk of evidence."
Hence your attempts at vilifying Clayton Cramer. He's gone beyond simply picking out a few quotes or a narrow area of expertise to focus on in Bellesiles' work and has gone through more of Bellesiles' source references than anyone else has, and has come closest to being able to weigh the bulk of Bellesiles' claimed evidence. Thus, you have to try to destroy Clayton's credibility.
BTW, it was mostly professional historians, not amateurs, who proved Bellesiles' unreliability in probate counts.
"Unfortunately for academic freedom in this country, the gun lobby’s subsequent chants of "lies, lies, lies" compromised some academicians and bullied college administrators."
Please prove this statement. The fact that some groups urged people to contact academics and college administrators, and that Emory dumped MB and Columbia took away his Bancroft prize, does not demonstrate cause and effect.
Josh Greenland - 5/5/2003
"It is interesting that in reading Mr. Cramer’s collection of "facts" on other forums, you will discover that he believes his facts show that the gay community supports child molestation. He has used such "facts" and his interpretation of them to argue that it should be legal to discriminate against the gay community."
I think what's interesting is that you aren't providing a quote, a source forum or a date for your claims. The most recent thing I've read from Clayton Cramer on the subject is that he's asked a lot of gay people what they thought of NAMBLA, the North American Man-Boy Love Association, and he's gotten a whole range of responses, from no problem with NAMBLA to ".44 Magnum solution." He did not find majority support for NAMBLA within the gay community.
Going beyond this, I think he has spoken positively of Pink Pistols, a pro-gay, pro-gun rights organization, http://www.pinkpistols.org/ , and I know he has worked with a gay member of Pink Pistols on a pro-gun rights conference to the extent of being scheduled to speak at that conference. I assume he did speak there, but Clayton can tell you that himself. The conference was definitely not set up to allow promulgation of anti-gay opinion, BTW.
"If you believe I am within reason to disagree with him on homosexuals"
Ho-mo-sex-u-als, huh? Gee, I bet some of your best friends are ho-mo-sex-u-als! I'm sure you know a great many ho-mo-sex-u-als at the Detroit PFLAG chapter at which you're so very active! Yeah, uh huh, right...
"then certainly I can disagree with his and the gun lobby’s interpretations of historical evidence, which uses much the same pattern of logic."
Ah, guilt by association, trying to claim that the case for the overwhelming falsehood of Arming America is based on "the same pattern of logic" that one might use to argue against civil rights for gay people. Sorry, Benny, it doesn't work. You didn't provide any logic chain, just an attempted smear against one researcher for allegedly holding non-gun-related views that you think most people won't like.
That you may not like this or that non-gun opinion of Clayton Cramer has nothing to do with his work on gun-related issues, including his research into Arming America. You haven't challenged its validity. Sorry.
Don Williams - 5/4/2003
But let's try again:
In his opening statement above, Benny said re myself and other critics of Arming America:
"Their interpretations of historical records, statements of historical figures and events that transpired centuries ago are the "facts." Those of us who differ with their opinions and interpretations merely offer statements not substantiated by the "facts." And, of course, anything at all proffered by Professor Bellesiles is a lie "
1) Let's see if Benny can put up or shut up. Consider Bellesiles' description of the Battle of Cowpens (Arming America, page 197):
"The Battle of Cowpens in 1781 offered further evidence that it was still possible for the militia to fulfill their vaunted role. But that victory was the consequence of Daniel Morgan's careful planning in placing the militia in front of his Continental units, and his working out a deal with the militia whereby they agreed to fire a volley and then leave the field. Even then, Morgan repeatedly had to cajole and even beg the militia to keep their part of the bargain in the face of Banastre "Butcher" Tarleton's English forces, and most of the militia initially made to flee as soon as the English started to leave the field. It seemed as though the militia understood any movement as full-scale retreat, and Morgan and Colonel Andrew Pickens had to place themselves between the militia and their
horses, waving their swords threateningly in order to keep them from turning victory into rout. The militia kept blundering around the field, convincing the British that the Americans were in flight. At that very moment when the British confidently charged, Morgan had Lieutenant Colonel John Howard's Continentals perform a perfect change of direction, fire a withering musket volley at ten yards, and then charge the British with fixed bayonets. Tarleton's forces collapsed before the American bayonets, and the militia, which had
to fire only that single volley, managed to hold on to their guns this time. "
2) The American commander at Cowpens, Daniel Morgan, did place a line (Line 1) of militia units (under the command of militia Colonel Andrew Pickens) about 150 yards in front of a second line (Line 2) composed of Continental units and Virginia militia. However, the militia had orders to retreat to Line2 after firing two volleys because their rifles, while more accurate and with greater range than muskets, could take up to a minute to reload -- the British bayonet charge would overrun the militia before the militia could reload if the militia did not retreat. During the battle, the militia riflemen shot up the British line and retreated behind Line 2 to reload. Line 2 exchanged fire with the British but the British threatened to turn Line2's right flank. When Colonel Howard ordered the rightmost unit of Line 2 ( a Continental unit under Andrew Wallace) to swivel around and face the British on the right, Wallace's unit misunderstood and made an unplanned retreat to the rear. The rest of Line2, to maintain alignment, followed. However, Line2 was not in a panic --they reloaded
and reformed about 70 yards to the rear and --at the command of Colonel Howard -- gave a massive fire to British soldiers charging at them. Howard then ordered a bayonet charge which threw the British line into disorder. British commander Tarleton ordered the 71st Highlanders, his reserve , to attack Line2’s right flank, but Pickens’ militia, having reloaded, surged up and attacked on Howard’s right -- causing the 71st
to collapse as well. The entire British line broke, were surrounded and surrendered, with Col Tarleton and a few British officers fleeing on horseback.
American commander Daniel Morgan noted the following in his report to Congress:
a) When the British advanced, militia units under
"[militia] Majers McDowell and Cunningham gave them [the British] a heavy and galling fire and retreated to the [militia] Regiments intended for their support. The whole of Colonel Picken's Command then kept up a Fire by Regiments retreating agreeable to orders. "
b) "Colonel Pickens and all the officers in his corps behaved well". Morgan then goes on to note that he does not mention individual militia officers because he only knows some of them (Pickens' militia units had only reached Morgan a few days before) and he does not wait to praise those he know and overlook those he does not.
c) Daniel Morgan rightly praised the Continental officers under his command, led by Colonel Howard.
(Although Andrew Wallace was noticeably left out) However, in his description of Line 2, Morgan had noted that Howard’s Continentals were joined by Virginia Militia under Major Triplett and Captains Tate and Buchanan. Morgan cited those and other officers in the Virginia Militia along with the Continental officers (being mentioned in the commanding officer’s dispatches was customary praise for high performance in battle.)
2) In his book, “The Life of George Washington”, John Marshall ( first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court)
described the Battle of Cowpens. Marshall noted that his account was based on conversations with
Daniel Morgan and Colonel John Howard. In his account, Marshall indicates that Howard remembered some of the militia units attacking on his right during the British collapse.
3) We don’t have accounts of the battle from Andrew Pickens but Continental cavalry under Henry Lee served with Picken’s mounted militia in the weeks and months following Cowpens. Two decades later,
Henry Lee wrote his “Memoirs of the War in the Southern Department of the United States”, including a
description of the Battle of Cowpens. Lee notes that after firing on the British, Picken’s militia retreated
to Line 2: “Here, with part of the corps, Pickens took post on Howard’s right, and the rest fled to their horses, probably with orders to remove them to a further distance.”
(Comment: Colonel Washington’s cavalry unit , which had been covering the hundreds of horses belonging to the militia, was charging Tarleton’s cavalry who had attacked militia retreating from Line 1 to Line 2. )
Later, Henry Lee notes “Morgan derived very great aid from Pickens and his militia, and was effectually
supported by Howard and [cavalry leader] Washington.”
4) Henry Lee also notes that Congress gave a gold medal to Daniel Morgan, a sword to Pickens, and silver
medals to Howard and Washington. Lee’s account is confirmed
in the March 9,1781 entry in the “Journals of the Continental Congress” --see http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?hlaw:1:./temp/~ammem_Lkbs:: . The Journal notes that Morgan’s army consisted of 80
Continental cavalry troopers, 237 Continental soldiers, and 553 militiamen -- and that this army
defeated a British army of more than 1100 British troops.
Note: As noted in Daniel Morgan’s dispatch to Congress, a major portion of Washington’s cavalry unit consisted of militiamen who had been added the night before the battle and given sabers.
5) Bellesiles’ suggestion that 237 Continental soldiers defeated and took prisoner 1100 British troops while
553 militiamen fled the battlefield is obviously false and misleading -- especially in view of the testimony
given above by American commanders. Congress would hardly have given a prestigious award and public praise to Colonel Pickens if his 553 militiamen had abandoned Howard’s 237 troops to 1100 British troops.
The accounts of Cowpens left behind by Daniel Morgan, John Howard, and the Journals of the Continental
Congress indicate that Bellesiles account of militia performance was false and misleading --unless Benny
wants to argue that those men were also pro-gun advocates and liars.
Does Benny have any FACTS to offer in Bellesiles’ defense?
6) Similarly, the accounts left behind by Andrew Jackson and his Chief Engineer, Arsene Latour, indicate that Bellesiles’ depiction of militia performance in the 1812 Battle of New Orleans was also false and
misleading. See
http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list;=h-oieahc&month;=0207&week;=c&msg;=PkrdkLRPluSObiMgdhAKPw&user;=&pw;=
Again, does Benny have any FACTs to offer in Bellesiles’ defense?
7) In an earlier post, I noted where Alexis de Tocqueville’s “Democracy in America” directs contradicts both Bellesiles’ primary thesis as well Bellesiles’ description of Tocqueville’s account of guns in America -- does Benny have have any FACTS to offer in Bellesiles’ defense?
Ralph E. Luker - 5/4/2003
Let's, see, Benny .... I own up to having had conversation with Michael about his book after his resignation from the Emory faculty. Do you? Or would that be like talking to yourself?Among the things that I said to him were that he would be a fool not to take advantage of the massive criticism of his book to correct it at every discrete point that he can see his mistake.
The point of a second edition of _any_ book is to correct mistakes found subsequent to the publication of a first edition. Scoffers here are likely to believe that Michael would have to start over from scratch. I doubt that.
Benny Smith - 5/4/2003
"Josh, I would not want to associate myself with the "intellectual assassination" of anyone, including and perhaps even especially Michael Bellesiles. His work was deeply flawed. Even he acknowledges that. Benny Smith may be the only person in the universe who doesn't."
I am not aware that Bellesiles ever characterized his own work as on Arming America as "deeply flawed." Do you have a source or cite for that? I believe that Arming America’s problems, whatever they may be, derived from the author’s overly ambitious attempt to review and encapsulate the extensive historical record having to do with guns and the gun culture in this country. At a time when the work of many prominent historians is narrowly focused on a single character, event or phenomenon, Bellesiles’ attempt to be comprehensive certainly opened himself up to charges of bias and error. That his work was predestined to be a slap in the face to the gun lobby made it all the more likely that there would be legions of amateur critics nitpicking every errant phrase or miscounted gun, rather than just weighing the bulk of evidence. Unfortunately for academic freedom in this country, the gun lobby’s subsequent chants of "lies, lies, lies" compromised some academicians and bullied college administrators. However, I believe the evidence more than bears up the author’s theses. And I believe Bellesiles believes this too. Otherwise, what would be the point of a second edition.
Benny Smith - 5/4/2003
I have found it peculiar the way members of the gun lobby use the word "facts" in this forum. Mr. Williams speaks of them often, as does Mr. Cramer and Mr. Browning here. It has become rather predictable, actually. Their interpretations of historical records, statements of historical figures and events that transpired centuries ago are the "facts." Those of us who differ with their opinions and interpretations merely offer statements not substantiated by the "facts." And, of course, anything at all proffered by Professor Bellesiles is a lie. It is a world of logic onto its own. There is no need for more research , debate or study. In the realm of the gun lobby, it is as if theory has unequivocally evolved into the law and anyone who casts disparaging remarks must be tortured and burned intellectually at the stake of heresy.
It is interesting that in reading Mr. Cramer’s collection of "facts" on other forums, you will discover that he believes his facts show that the gay community supports child molestation. He has used such "facts" and his interpretation of them to argue that it should be legal to discriminate against the gay community. Although I agree that some of his "facts" may contain shards of truth, I do not believe I am wrong to disagree with how he gathers his evidence, forms his conclusions, and how we as a society should therefore react? If you believe I am within reason to disagree with him on homosexuals, then certainly I can disagree with his and the gun lobby’s interpretations of historical evidence, which uses much the same pattern of logic.
Ralph E. Luker - 5/4/2003
Josh, I would not want to associate myself with the "intellectual assassination" of anyone, including and perhaps even especially Michael Bellesiles. His work was deeply flawed. Even he acknowledges that. Benny Smith may be the only person in the universe who doesn't. Bellesiles denies any intentionality in the flaws. His critics believe otherwise. It is difficult for me not to agree with them, but I cannot know to a point of absolute certitude what was going on in his mind.
Josh Greenland - 5/4/2003
" I don’t see how this is any less predictable or disappointing than reading Lott’s supporters attack Tim Lambert without addressing his arguments."
Just to disagree on a small point, Bryan, I don't think it's true that Lott's supporters as a group attacked Lambert and ignored his arguments. At least among the web commentators and gun list emailers I've read, I saw little or no attacking of Lambert and at worst some efforts to minimize or ignore the points he was making about Lott. I say this as the person who's perhaps spoken most critically to and about Lambert on this forum recently. The Mary Rosh and 1997 survey incidents canNOT be ignored by anyone who would like to use Lott's work to support greater freedom to own and use firearms. I don't agree with Lambert's statements in his more hyperbolic moments that these problems have destroyed Lott's credibility, but I do think Lott's credibility is now an issue.
Josh Greenland - 5/3/2003
"Cramer, who serves as kind of a disinformation minister for extremists in the gun rights movement"
Benny, what disinformation can you point to from Clayton? And what is your response to the claims from many different people that Bellesiles lied on many different occasions?
"with few legitimate historians joining in the campaign of intellectual assassination against Bellesiles". If by practicioners of "intellectual assassination" you mean public critics of Arming America, I'd include in the count Joyce Lee Malcolm, Gloria Main, Ira Gruber, Randolph Roth, James Lindgren, Jerome Sternstein, Garry Wills, the three members of the Emory external committee, the historians at Columbia who were part of the decision to rescind Bellesiles' Bancroft prize, and Paul Finkelman and Ralph Luker for standing up to Jon Wiener at the OAH convention. That's twelve plus an unknown number at Columbia, and I can think of more. That looks like a lot of historians to me! Tell us, Benny, how many "legitimate historians" are involved in defending Arming America?
Bryan Haskins - 5/2/2003
OK, I’m confused. Why the continuing focus on a man you deem “Mr. Irrelevant” because he is not a “real” academic historian? Either he says things that deserve to be commented upon, or he is truly the raving non-academic right-wing gun-hugging lunatic you claim him to be. Which is it? If the latter, then why don’t we just ignore him? If the former, then how about telling us what he has gotten wrong? Seriously now, wasn’t “personally attack Clayton Cramer” last year’s theme? I don’t see how this is any less predictable or disappointing than reading Lott’s supporters attack Tim Lambert without addressing his arguments.
Bryan Haskins - 5/2/2003
Ah, there is a lesson to be learned here. Curiosity lacking in smugness or condescension can get you answers to your questions. Thanks, Ralph. Oh, Mr. Smith, I mourn for what might have been between us….
I don’t blame him for wanting to keep his powder dry until the second edition hits. After all, it wasn’t rain drops that people were sprinkling over his reputation while deconstructing the first edition.
So it involves a possible quote from good old Ben….That gives me an idea. We could do our own HNN fundraiser. Everybody involved could ante up $20 for a “name that quote” contest. The winner would be the first person to post a correct guess at the quote in question, to be verified once the second edition ships. The winner would then split the pot with the HNN. All we need is some form of e-payment scheme like Pay Pal. Of course, we would also need an anti-collusion clause to keep those who are already in the know (like Mr. Weiner) from participating.
Samuel browning - 5/1/2003
Hi Benny:
Care to inform the gathering of one factual error in Clayton's work concerning Arming America? Oh, I forgot, you don't do facts. "intellectual assassination"? you seem to not have read any of the sources surrounding this matter. Lets see, large vocabulary, lasting hatred of Clayton Cramer, no understanding of the facts of this case, and I didn't get a officer position in your club after implying that you were Michael, a family member or a close associate. (God, I'm still bitter:) I'll now narrow my prediction to specify that you are an immediate member of Bellesiles family or a close relation/personal friend of the family. I can't see why else you would act the way you do. Yeh thats right, you are defending freedom. Its funny, my liberal friends generally have a much greater command of the facts in any dispute then you display, which also leads me to suspect this is a family oriented grudge towards Clayton. He "hurt" someone you care about.
Ralph E. Luker - 5/1/2003
As I recall, Bryan, it was some relevant quotation from Ben Franklin or some such thing. I assume that Wiener had had word directly from Michael about it. In light of plans for the 2nd edition of the book, however, I imagine that for the most part Michael is keeping his powder dry until then.
Ralph E. Luker - 5/1/2003
I'm sorry, Josh, but I don't have anyway to know the answer to your question. I assume that the editor of the JAH has been considering what -- if any -- appropriate response to the matter the journal should publish. Her time there is limited, apparently however, as she will be moving to Yale at the end of the next academic year.
Benny Smith - 5/1/2003
Clayton Cramer, a self-promoted ‘internet scholar’, whose criticism of Michael Bellesiles’ Arming America has been among the most effusive, has struggled in his attempts to achieve some measure of fame for his attack scholarship. Most recently, on his web log at instapundit.com, Cramer complained that nobody is interested in publishing a book he wrote on the Bellesiles affair. There is no market, he says, for a book that contends that Bellesiles’ work is a fraud. So he says he is spending a great deal of time rewriting the book "so that it barely mentions Bellesiles at all."
Cramer, who serves as kind of a disinformation minister for extremists in the gun rights movement, has long attempted to gain some respect among legitimate scholars, while trying to collect some buckage on the side. Yet despite his self-collected research which he publishes on his website, he remains largely ignored by academics in the mainstream, something that clearly rankles him. The Emory investigative report on Bellesiles does not mention him. He complained that he tried to secure a spot on a panel which was to discuss the Bellesiles matter at a SHEAR (Society for History of the Early American Republic) convention only to be told it was already "full." He wrote a long article for the History News Network, saying that he saw what other historians did not in part because history departments are rife with left wing ideologues who conspired to ignore his criticisms of Bellesiles’ Arming America.
Cramer himself is a self-described "narrow-minded bigot." However, with few legitimate historians joining in the campaign of intellectual assassination against Bellesiles, the gun lobby and their right wing allies have been forced to embrace Cramer, warts and all. Cramer only hopes more of them would contribute monetarily to his "research." His blog whined recently that he had not received many contributions of late. Some while back, he personally launched a fund-raising campaign for himself on usenet, where he has been a fixture for many years. He told me later on an Emory Wheel forum that his campaign had netted him a few hundred dollars, which he later characterized as nothing (I’ll leave it to Professor Lindgren, the quantitative expert, to determine whether a few hundred dollars is nothing). Most recently, Cramer put up for sale his Chinese SKS rifle with a folding spike bayonet. Apparently, when nobody’s buying your scholarly shtick, it must be time to sell the guns.
Bryan Haskins - 4/30/2003
Well, I am not a historian and certainly had neither the invitation nor the time nor the money to attend the meeting. I was just curious to see how it went, and your recent summary satisfies my curiosity. Thank you, Mr. Luker.
I do have one further question, however. Can you or anyone else give us a “sneak preview” of at least the general nature if not the specifics of the “additional evidence that Michael has uncovered which will be a part of the 2nd edition?” Mr. Weiner apparently referenced this material at the meeting, and I am curious to learn what it will turn out to be.
Bryan Haskins - 4/30/2003
"we have the most polite and mannerly guy on any discussion on HNN (Bryan Haskins)."
Why thank you, Josh. That was very kind thing to say. Still, I think it unlikely that Mr. Smith will ever award me a gold star for my exercise of discretion here....
Josh Greenland - 4/30/2003
"The OAH and the _JAH_ did send representatives to the chat session. I assume that they were there in order to keep their officers apprised as they make judgments about how they are to proceed in future discussions."
Is this something OAH and JAH did with every chatroom, or just with the Bellesiles one and maybe a few others?
Ralph E. Luker - 4/29/2003
No charge for the good laugh, Don. Enjoy your day.
Don Williams - 4/29/2003
Correction: I meant to say "The idea of traveling several hundred miles just to hear you discourse re "veracity, integrity, and trust" in historical scholarship struck me as hysterically funny."
Don Williams - 4/29/2003
One of the reasons I did not attend Wiener's session is that I was curious to see if you, Mr Wiener, and Mr Finkelman would show a strong committment to the integrity of the historical profession if Arming America's critics were not there to hold your feet to the fire. I guess we have our answer on that one.
The second reason ,as I noted earlier, was that I saw no reason to fly across country to attend a court ruled over by Wiener and Finkelman, whether that court be moot or kangaroo. Especially when I , and many others, have already "chatted" with you re the behavior of the professional historical community on this issue --to no avail.
The third reason is that I looked at how Wiener shaped the terms of discourse -- i.e., his stated purpose for the chat session. I am not particularly interested in "planning ways for continuing the discussion of the origins of American gun culture". I am interested in how OAH meets it's responsibility to undo the Bellesilesean contamination of two federal appeals court cases plus the legal textbook edited by Carl Bogus.
Wiener did state a second purpose for the session. However,
my academic training is in science/engineering and I favor an empirical approach. For that reason, I looked at the history of the Bellesiles affair and at your past posts here on HNN. Frankly, the idea of trying to engage you in discourse re "veracity, integrity, and trust" in historical scholarship struck me as hysterically funny.
Ralph E. Luker - 4/29/2003
You had your invitation to be there. You didn't show up. I think I'll take a pass on your interrogations.
Don Williams - 4/29/2003
From the program for the 2003 OAH Annual Meeting re purpose of Wiener's chat session
************
Chat Room: Triggering Debate About Sources, Integrity, and
the Craft of History
The recent controversy over Arming America raises a number of concerns. Some topics for consideration include planning ways for continuing the discussion of the origins of American gun culture and the broader issues of veracity, integrity, and trust in documenting historical scholarship. Hosted
by Jon Wiener, University of California, Irvine.
***************
So what "ways" did you guys "plan" for "continuing the discussion of the origins of the American gun culture"? Did you guys finally define what a "gun culture" is, by the way?? -- and whether it is good, evil, or morally neutral?
Don Williams - 4/29/2003
If not, why not?
Doesn't a fact stand on its own -- with value
regardless of who first pointed it out?
In almost a year of dialogue with people here at HNN, what facts have you received that you thought worthwhile to pass on to the historians at the OAH session?
Ralph E. Luker - 4/29/2003
I don't know that you should expect there to be any report on the chatroom session in the next _OAH Newsletter_. The convention had a number of chatroom sessions. The _Newsletter_ will certainly not feature summaries of the discussions which took place in each of them.
Jon Weiner basically summarized points which he has made in articles in the _Nation_. He had invited members of Emory's external review panel to the chatroom session. None of them chose to attend it. He also pointed out that Michael intends to publish a revised 2nd edition of the book and referred to some additional evidence that Michael has uncovered which will be a part of the 2nd edition.
Paul Finkelman took the lead in summarizing points already made in Jim Lindgren's articles, in the articles in the _William & Mary Quarterly_, and in the Emory external review panel's report. All of these documents are readily available to you, Peter, and Bryan.
I generally supported points made by Finkelman. I doubt that anything was said that would be new to you if you have kept up with the discussion. The OAH and the _JAH_ did send representatives to the chat session. I assume that they were there in order to keep their officers apprised as they make judgments about how they are to proceed in future discussions.
Josh Greenland - 4/29/2003
"Josh: What is the point of repeatedly asking a question which I have already answered here:
http://hnn.us/comments/10933.html? "
Because it wasn't much of an answer. Peter Boucher, Bryan Haskins and I wrote subsequent messages to that post asking if you could go into more detail. We're still hoping you will.
Ralph E. Luker - 4/28/2003
Josh: What is the point of repeatedly asking a question which I have already answered here:
http://hnn.us/comments/10933.html?
Josh Greenland - 4/27/2003
I guess we'll have to wait for the next OAH newsletter to find out what was discussed in the Bellesiles chatroom, since our one participant, Ralph Luker, hasn't been willing to tell us what went on there.
Why don't you want to tell us what was said there, Ralph?
Josh Greenland - 4/27/2003
"Subject: RE: NRA gives $1 million to HNN's university sponsor
"Posted By: Mike O'Malley
"Date Posted: March 18, 2003, 4:01 PM
[snip]
"For what it's worth, I have personally avoided the debate over Belliles here because of the nasty and partisan incivility."[...]
Mike, If you compared it to any other ongoing discussion on HNN, what would you say? Lately I've spent too much time in the other discussions and I think this one is at least an order of magnitude more civil than the rest. The guy who does most of the insulting (Benny Smith) isn't particularly rude, and we have the most polite and mannerly guy on any discussion on HNN (Bryan Haskins). If you see this discussion as full of "nasty and partisan incivility," you won't be able to stomach even a minute of the HNN's other ongoing discussions.
Clayton E. Cramer - 4/25/2003
"I have every right to criticize those sentiments." Sure you do. But it appears that your biggest upset is that I have said that the thugs that were running our government (which most people understand to mean the executive branch, because the Supreme Court doesn't have any law enforcement agents) were quite prepared to see people die to support their coverup of criminal wrongdoing.
Coverups aren't uncommon in city police departments. There was one with Abner Louima's torture, but it eventually broke open. You find it unbelievable that federal law enforcement agencies covered up similar wrongdoing at Ruby Ridge and Waco? (Is it a cover-up when you use a bulldozer to destroy the evidence? Or is a stronger verb required?)
Peter Boucher - 4/23/2003
Smith can't accept the overwhelming evidence of hundreds of "errors" throughout all areas of Bellesiles' book because he believes instead in a kooky conspiracy theory involving Harvard and Yale professors and the NRA.
You're a hoot, Benny.
Carl Naaman Brown - 4/23/2003
As far as Michael Moore: Documentarian goes, Mr. Moore responds to being called on facts by copping out and saying, hey I am just a comedian. Bowling for Columbine is about as much a documentary as the episode of South Park where MechaStreisand tried to seize all the power crystals to rule the world. Maybe that will be Michael Bellisiles' new defense.
Josh Greenland - 4/22/2003
"Unlike Mr. Cramer, Mr. Greenland and Mr. Williams, I do not infer conspiratorial motives from isolated tragic aberrations like Ruby Ridge and Waco."
Thank you for this compliment, Benny. I feel that I don't deserve to be mentioned together way with Clayton Cramer and Don Williams, who have diligently researched important areas of Arming America and made that research available to others.
Bryan Haskins - 4/21/2003
Finally, something Mr. Smith and I can agree on! “I do not infer conspiratorial motives from isolated tragic aberrations like Ruby Ridge and Waco.” Neither do I, Mr. Smith. “I do not believe that such events mean that ‘The people that run this country are merciless, pitiless, evil people prepared to murder anyone to achieve their goals.’” Neither do I, Mr. Smith. “That such thinking is shared however by terrorists from Al Qaeda to Timothy McVeigh makes it all the more regrettable.” I agree, Mr. Smith. Now isn’t this much more civil than trading pot shots across this electronic no man’s land?
I note that my name does not appear on your list of “kooks.” Can I take this to mean that you do not think my comments here place me in this category? I suppose it could be due to your inability to find anything by “googling” my name yet. Well, keep trying, Mr. Smith, for I am out there.
But I digress. I have written this post in the fervent hope that our agreement on these side-show issues can point us towards reconciliation. With this in mind, I’ll leave it to others to make the obvious connection between your recent speculation that the NRA has somehow bought off the HNN, and your latest complaint that gun lobby ideologues “leap to extraordinary conclusions based on blind bias and a few disparate bits of information.”
No, I would rather return to the positives in our relationship, Mr. Smith. We seem to share a desire to “reach appropriate conclusions from the evidence.” In fact, I am sure you will agree that this should be the ultimate goal of this site, and I hope that your subsequent posts will flesh out this process
Do you remember when, long ago, I offered to work on this very process with you? I believe that I began by offering the scholarly evidence contained within the articles published in the William & Mary Quarterly. As I remember, you were right in the middle of complaining (correctly) that gun lobby writers were ignoring the facts in their rush to “demonize” Bellesiles. I suppose my unexpected offer to engage in a candid discussion of the evidence caught you by surprise. Nevertheless, your decision to run away and refuse to discuss the evidence was in my opinion the worst mistake you have committed here, for it merely served to inflame your most ardent critics (those whom you call ideologues). Surely you must admit that their number one complaint against you has been your refusal to acknowledge any of the facts against Bellesiles and AA?
Therefore, and in the spirit of friendship, I offer this free advice: Do the unexpected. Come out with me and discuss the facts and evidence both for and against Bellesiles and AA’s thesis. Just think what a mortal blow this would strike against the “gun lobby ideologues!” No more would they be able to gloat over your refusal to address the facts! Indeed, such a sudden turnabout would force feed them so much crow that they would spend the better part of a week just picking feathers from their teeth.
I say these things, Mr. Smith, because I would dearly like to hear what you believe to be the “few errors” in the first addition of AA. I would also like to hear at least a portion of what you believe to be the “vast evidence for his theses.” Come on out, then. I truly do not see how engaging in a scholarly discussion of these topics could hurt you. Why, if the “ideologues” respond by attacking you as you fear, then would this not in itself validate your argument that they act out of blind bias and attack anything that moves in the Bellesiles’ camp? Please, Mr. Smith, take this renewed offer to cut the support from the arguments the “ideologues” use against you. Show them that you are capable of addressing the facts against Bellesiles and AA’s thesis, and in turn force them (and myself) to confront those facts in favor of the man and his work.
Don Williams - 4/20/2003
Benny's idea of scholarship appears to be "my delusion is just as good as yours" --which actually is not a bad summation of postmodernism.
Benny ignores the huge mound of evidence that critics of Arming America have provided --evidence which refutes much of Arming America's claims.
Eyewitness accounts from American commanders like Andrew Jackson, Daniel Morgan, and John Howard contradict Bellesiles' description of the Battle of New Orleans and Cowpens.
Benny doesn't care.
Bellesiles indicates that the militia were worthless in the American Revolution and that they mostly turned and ran in the War of 1812. In direct contradiction, The US Army's history says that the militia's contribution to winning the Revolutionary War was great and that they fought as well as regulars in the War of 1812.
Benny doesn't care.
On page 348 of Arming America, Bellesiles says that Tocqueville mentioned guns once: " .. that great observer of early America, Alexis de Tocqueville, mentioned guns once. In explaining why democratic armies --'this small uncivilized nation' as he called it -- are dangerous, he wrote that the army 'has arms in its possession and alone knows how to use them...' . Earlier, on page 309 , Bellesiles states: "...Travelers saw wastefulness... restlessness, and many other traits, but somehow they just did not see the guns that were supposedly all around them".
Yet, in the very book which Bellesiles cites (Democracy in America), Tocqueville describes the typical pioneer cabin: "From time to time we come to fresh clearings; all these places are alike; I shall describe the one at which we halted tonight, since it will serve me for a picture of all the others. ...We entered the log house: the inside is quite unlike that of the cottages of the peasantry of Europe; it contains more that is superfluous, less that is necessary. A single window with a muslin curtain, on a hearth of trodden clay an immense fire, which lights the whole interior; above the hearth, a good rifle, a deerskin, and plumes of eagles' feathers; ...." (See http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/DETOC/ap_u.htm )
Tocqueville's note that the typical pioneer cabin had a "good rifle" contradicts Bellesiles' primary thesis. But Benny doesn't care.
Clayton Cramer has a website pointing out similar errors/misleading citations in many of Arming America's footnotes --Benny doesn't care.
James Lindgren published several articles showing that other researchers looking at probate records found a high rate of firearms ownership --Benny doesn't care.
James Lindgren also published an article showing many other mistakes in Arming America -- Benny doesn't care.
To my knowledge, no historian has tried to defend Arming America or to argue that Arming America's narrative is true --but Benny doesn't care.
Benny Smith has shot off his mouth for almost a year -- casting slurs on the critics of Arming America. In all that time has Benny ever tried to produced ONE FACT to support his claims?
In my opinion, Benny's repeated refusal to address the facts --or provide facts -- means that he is NOT a deluded conspiracy kook. In my opinion, he is a deliberate liar.
Jerry Brennan - 4/20/2003
With slight alterations some of Benny's recent rant fits him quite well.
It is characteristic of Benny's rants to leap to extraordinary conclusions based on blind bias and a few disparate bits of information. The ability to reach appropriate conclusions from the evidence is one thing that separates true scholars and academics from Bellesilesian kooks.
Meanwhile, having failed to wish away abundant evidence of numerous fictions perpetrated by Bellesiles, both in his book, "Arming America", and in his subsequent comments relating thereto, Benny separates himself, and vicariously "historians as a group" (presumably a group of two, JW and MB), from such evidence. Checking his hero's sources magically becomes 'attack scholarship' relative to Benny's blind bias. However, his incantations are not working; the evidence has not gone away.
Benny Smith - 4/19/2003
Mr. Cramer and some of his comrades here continue to illustrate why I cannot buy their rationale on Bellesile's Arming America, or other matters, relevant and irrelevant. Unlike members of the gun lobby, I do not believe that a few errors in Bellesile's first edition work are enough to undermine the vast evidence for his theses. Unlike Mr. Cramer, Mr. Greenland and Mr. Williams, I do not infer conspiratorial motives from isolated tragic aberrations like Ruby Ridge and Waco. Unlike Mr. Cramer, I do not believe that such events mean that "The people that run this country are merciless, pitiless, evil people prepared to murder anyone to achieve their goals." That such thinking is shared however by terrorists from Al Qaeda to Timothy McVeigh makes it all the more regrettable.
It is characteristic of gun lobby ideologues to leap to extraordinary conclusions based on blind bias and a few disparate bits of information. The ability to reach appropriate conclusions from the evidence is one thing that separates true scholars and academics from the conspiracy kooks. It is why I, as well as historians as a group, have largely ignored Mr. Cramer's anti-Bellesiles 'attack scholarship' as well as the ranting of other members of the gun lobby.
Jerry Brennan - 4/19/2003
A copy of the June 30, 1994 rec.guns post under discussion may be found at:
http://www.groups.google.com/groups?selm=Cs8G3q.JI9%40optilink.com
The portion of that post by Clayton Cramer which was recently posted here is:
"Let me try to be calm when I say this: the reason why you should support the NRA is because the alternative is going to be a police state where people get dragged off to windowless cells to be raped by trained dogs (as was done in Uruguay), beaten until eyes and teeth are knocked out (almost anywhere in the Third World), and forced to listen to their children die of thirst in adjoining cells to extract confessions (Iraq).
The people that run this country are merciless, pitiless, evil people prepared to murder anyone to achieve their goals. Make no mistake about it."
Many of the subsequent related comments seem almost to pertain to some very different original post.
In the original post, Clayton referred to: "The people that run this country ...", and left his readers to surmise just which people he had in mind. But whoever he had in mind, they are, he asserted, "prepared to murder anyone to achieve their goals", among other things. He did not limit the assertion with any qualifiers such as some, or a few. His wording implies that all of them, each and every one of them, are "prepared to murder anyone to achieve their goals". So, to whom did Clayton refer?
It may be observed that the phrase "run this country" is at best quite vague, and the numbers of people to whom Clayton referred may be large, or small. In his subesequent comments, Clayton referred to actions of members of various federal government agencies, as well as to actions of members of at least one city government agency. Such comments suggest that to Clayton, the phrase "The people that run this country" includes members of federal, and city, government agencies. If city agencies are included, perhaps state agencies may be expected to be included. If all of those people are "prepared to murder anyone to achieve their goals", it would seem amazing that any of us remain to be having this discussion.
If, on the other hand, one were abritrarily to assume that instead of referring to those millions of people, Clayton had in mind only a few thousand people, who might be included? Well, the nine Justices of the US Supreme Court may be expected to be included in "The people that run this country". Have they all been dabbling in murder on the side? Has Federal Reserve Board chairman Alan Greenspan been snuffing inflaters who oppose his goals?
All rather silly, but all among the implications of the original post as written. There is additional silliness in the original post as written, but having to spell it out seems a bit silly also.
It would seem that it might be preferable that those who choose to discuss it would do so based on its actual wording.
Don Williams - 4/18/2003
Mr Hayhow thinks that the world he reads about in the newspaper is the real world --it is not. He thinks that the view of the world given by the New York Times is complete --it is not. I say that as someone who worked on national intelligence systems from 1990 to 1999 and who was cleared for 4 areas of "Sensitive Compartmented Information" (SCI).
In 1996, Janet Reno greatly undermined our Constitutional checks and balances by asserting that it was illegal for SCI-cleared personnel, including government contractors, to go to Congress with concerns about actions by the Executive Branch unless the Executive Branch had granted permission to do so.
Note that Reno argued that not only could we not talk with our members of Congress but that we also could NOT talk with members of the Congressional Intelligence Committees set up to oversee the US government's secret operations.
Reno's assertion was only overcome by a law passed in 1998, the
"INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION ACT OF 1998".
For more info, see the report issued by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI): a)Go to http://thomas.loc.gov/cp105/cp105query.html b) Go down to the menus for "Committees", go to the menu for the "House", select "Intelligence" then hit the search key c) From the list which comes up, click on the link to the "House Rpt.105-747 - Part 1 " associated with the "INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION ACT OF 1998" d) From the list of links which appear, look at "Findings" and "Background and Need for Legislation"
Note that the Clinton Administration forced a compromise: SCI-cleared personnel can talk to the Intelligence Committees about concerns provided they notify the Executive Branch's Inspector Generals 60 days in advance. Most people would hesitate to destroy their careers and family's livelihood by standing up and yelling "I'm a snitch". Time and time again, events have shown that "Whistleblower protections" are a joke.
This situation is of particular concern now, with the creation of a Department of Homeland Security and an apparent dismissal of such fundamental Constitutional protections as habeas corpus. The Executive Branch now claims the right to arrest AMERICAN CITIZENS and hold them for 9 months without judical hearings or trial.
Congress cannot oversee the Executive Branch without the help of Executive Branch employees--but such employees risk much if they speak up.
I'm not going to spin sinister "Oliver Stone" stories about domestic operations. There are some interesting "observables" which crop up occasionally, however. Consider the fate of John Millis circa June 6,2000. Mr Millis was director of HPSCI staff and he severely criticized Clinton's CIA director.
See http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node;=&contentId;=A4896-2000Jun6¬Found;=true
and
http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2000/6/18/165743
and
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node;=&contentId;=A6116-2000Mar3¬Found;=true
Clayton E. Cramer - 4/18/2003
I am still waiting for Mr. Hayhow to explain what he finds so incredibly offensive and bizarre about what I said. I am also waiting for him to demonstrate that he knows something of the history of abuse of government power.
At the end of the Waco tragedy, there were dozens of people dead--and many pieces of evidence that might have clarified what led to this standoff had been "lost" by the FBI.
The FBI's claims that they never fired any sort of incendiary device were demonstrated to be false when an attorney went through the Texas Ranger's collection of recovered items.
The original BATF raid was clearly done for PR reasons, and somehow, critical video that BATF shot of that raid is missing.
The original search warrant is laughably wrong in several areas, and includes a long discussion of child abuse allegations which are outside of the federal government's authority (and were already investigated by local officials).
The FBI's "independent arson investigator" turned out to be a retired BATF official whose business card listed his address as the BATF office.
And Mr. Hayhow thinks that I am being irrational in regarding the people running our government at the time as evil?
Clayton E. Cramer - 4/18/2003
If you aren't aware of the abuses of governmental power that took place at Ruby Ridge and Waco, then I guess I can understand why you are confused.
Clayton E. Cramer - 4/18/2003
Why should I be ashamed? Are you saying that our government has never gotten out of control, and never will? And you call yourself a liberal?
Clayton E. Cramer - 4/18/2003
And when governments sometimes get out of control, how is that usually expressed? Police abuse of human rights.
Josh Greenland - 4/18/2003
"We must take some things on trust even when we read conflicting reports on the same question. I found Mr. Cramer's remarks as quoted by Mr. Smith (and not repudiated by Mr Cramer) to be profoundly disturbing and irrational."
Ah, Mr. Hayhow, you've fallen for Benny Smith's ad hominem attack against Clayton Cramer. The problem with ad hominem "logic" is the false notion that something unrelated to the argument the attacked person is making can undermine that argument. We all expect BS to use unethical debating techniques, since he simply won't argue the issues. But that doesn't mean any of us have to fall for his games.
But you seem to be saying that Clayton Cramer's 1995 post is so "irrational" that nothing else he says can ever be trusted again.
Is this how you handle political disagreement on issues that you feel strongly about? Everyone who disagrees with you on a hotbutton issue is crazy, or just wrong (factually and morally all at once)? You remind me of an anti-communist who would completely dismiss Herbert Aptheker's historical writings that are not related to Communism.
I understand your point about having to judge the reliability of an informant because no one has the time to check every source reference. But isn't it enough that amateur and professional historians who've bothered to talk about Cramer find his Bellesiles material reliable? Instead, you've decided that a person's views on good intentions of our government leaders should be a litmus test that, if answered wrongly, should "forever" disqualify him or her from being taken seriously about anything.
I think you're the one who's being irrational. Benny pushed your buttons, but you can't see or admit that. Do you truly believe you're too clever to be manipulated?
"I also found Mr. Cramer's response disingenuous as what he said in his post was not the equivalent of the original comments. On both grounds, then, he has seriously undermined his credibility with me."
It's up to Clayton to explain/justify his posts, if he feels the need to. It's entirely reasonable to judge a person's truthfulness based on how truthful they've been in the past.
John G. Fought - 4/18/2003
"I will never truat any post of his again as I believe there is a strong streak of irrationality in that post."
Now read my post to you again, and see if you can put them together.
Think about it. Don't bother replying.
Josh Greenland - 4/17/2003
"The third and fourth paragraphs of Smith's post are what I am talking about. Saying that the leaders of this country are evil, merciless, and will murder anyone to get their way are statements he should forever be ashamed of."
Why should Clayton "forever be ashamed" for writing what he did? I think these statements are true. What can you say to refute what I posted to Benny? Here're the relevant parts:
"I don't have any trouble with [Clayton Cramer's 1995 posted statements]. If they were actually made during the mid-1990s as you say, that would have been after Ruby Ridge and Waco. Especially after the latter atrocity, what is your problem with these remarks?
"I don't know how old you are, but I remember the 1960s and 70s of the Vietnam War, COINTELPRO, and overthrow of Chilean President Salvador Allende. If you know about the US sanctioned and aided heroin dealing, systematic torture by US personnel and the Phoenix Program in the former conflict, the fomented murders of COINTELPRO, and the horror, including mass torture, unleashed on Chileans by the latter CIA-orchestrated coup, you wouldn't be able to describe the remarks you attribute to Clayton Cramer as "banter.""
You then wrote:
"I will never truat any post of his again as I believe there is a strong streak of irrationality in that post."
You haven't done anything to prove that our leaders aren't evil and merciless and that they won't murder anyone who gets in their way. Based on the recent history that I described above, and MUCH MORE, I assert that your view of our leaders is wrong. Why should I, or Clayton Cramer, be ashamed for seeing things the way they really are?
Van L. Hayhow - 4/17/2003
Your comment that I am out of my depth here is just plain silly. I fully understand all the issues. The fact I disagree with you does not indicate otherwise. Neither I nor anyone else I know has the time to double check everything we read. We must take some things on trust even when we read conflicting reports on the same question. I found Mr. Cramer's remarks as quoted by Mr. Smith (and not repudiated by Mr Cramer) to be profoundly disturbing and irrational. Given the lack of quality in Mr. Smith's posts in the past I fully expected Mr. Cramer to deny the quote. Instead, he defended it. I have every right to criticize those sentiments. Free speech is not freedom from criticism. I also found Mr. Cramer's response disingenuous as what he said in his post was not the equivalent of the original comments. On both grounds, then, he has seriously undermined his credibility with me. If you don't understand why, I can't help you. But my comments have nothing to do with B's book and what he did or didn't do.
Bryan Haskins - 4/17/2003
Here is something that happens every day across America. A man or woman like you or me comes into a room and meets a man wearing a black robe. This black robed man tells him or her to spend 20 years, 40 years, twelve months, or life in prison. On the authority of that black robed man’s voice alone, these people will turn and calmly walk into the jail cell to begin serving their sentence. Rarely, if ever, will the condemned person make a scene or have to be maced as he fights off attempts to be marched into that cell. The only thing which makes this possible is respect. The respect our society shows for the law, for the process used to apply that law, and for the officers and judges who follow the law.
Mr. Cramer, by discussing Mr. Louima’s case, makes a valid allusion to a specific example of criminal conduct on the part of police officers which clearly works to destroy respect for the process I have just described. Nevertheless, I do not agree with Mr. Cramer’s assessment of the potential dangers we face as expressed in the quote Mr. Smith dredged up. (I will not, however, put on my thought police badge and suggest he should retract his statement merely because I do not agree with it or because others feel he should be “ashamed” of it. He is as free as anyone else to express his views, and I am equally free to agree or, in this case, disagree with them.)
I have some experience dealing with law enforcement officers, and I believe that I can fairly make the following generalizations of them: They are just as human as you or I. They are truly overworked and underpaid. They react to boredom, excitement, joy, fear, and frustration just like everyone else. There will always be “bad cops,” just like there will always be “bad priests,” bad judges,” and “horribly blind NFL officials.” Men with evil in their hearts (racism, for example) live among us, and no profession can infallibly weed all of them out up front in the job interview process. The officers who assaulted Mr. Louima are the rare exception, not the rule. Similarly, Waco and Ruby Ridge are exceptions that in my poor opinion had more to do with incompetence than deliberate and premeditated malice. It is extremely rare to find an officer who intentionally chooses to violate a suspect’s constitutional rights. Officers generally fear doing so, because they do not want to be talked about by their fellow officers (boy, so-and-so really screwed up that case…), their judges (I’m starting to think you are a dishonest cop…), and their supervisors (how could you have screwed that up? Now the judge thinks you’re either an idiot or dishonest…).
Sometimes these restraints aren’t enough, however, and “mission creep” (I’m going to protect society from the “bad guy”) leads officers to justify their errors without learning from them. Here are two examples:
Example #1: Officer A aggressively goes after suspected drug dealers. He stops a suspect car and searches it under the mistaken belief that his search was justified by the Carroll Doctrine. He comes to Court and loses the case when the ounce of crack he seized is rightly suppressed because of his illegal search. He blows off the loss with the comment: “Well, at least I got that ounce of crack off the street.”
Example #2: Officer B sweats a confession out of a killer in violation of Miranda. He appears for a pretrial hearing and hears the judge suppress the confession. He blows off this setback by stating: “Hey, at least I locked him into his story. If he tries to testify now and says anything different I know you can then admit the suppressed confession to impeach him. So in the end I still did you a favor because that suppressed confession will keep him from taking the stand and trying to lie his way out of being convicted.”
Neither of the officers in these examples deliberately tried to violate anyone’s rights. Rather, it was their burning desire to “complete the mission” which led them to make hasty field judgments which unwittingly did just that. This kind of conduct and attitude is far, far more common than the actions and beliefs of those who assaulted Mr. Louima. In response to this kind of conduct, former Supreme Court justice Louis Brandeis uttered this warning: "Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding." Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 479 (1928) (dissenting opinion) I believe this to be the true danger we face, and my point is this: We have to draw bright lines which deter this kind of conduct, or well-meaning “mission creep” will gradually erode our liberties. Organizations like the NRA and the ACLU spend their time and money patrolling these lines, and I am happy to support them for doing so. Although I disagree with Mr. Cramer’s assessment of the danger, I am not ashamed of my past conduct in support of each of these organizations.
Now let me turn to the officers who attacked Mr. Louima. I may be old fashioned, but I also believe that our individual liberties are intended to provide a framework for deterring the many officers “A” and “B” from becoming the officers who assaulted Mr. Louima. The right to keep and bear arms is just one of those liberties recognized (but not created!) by the Bill of Rights, and it is not necessarily paramount to this scheme of protecting our liberties. (Although I certainly recall that Brandeis claimed it to be the “palladium” of the liberties of a republic) It merely operates, on perhaps a larger and more subconscious scale than the judicially created exclusionary rule, as one more deterrent to official misconduct at all levels of government. Therefore, the true debate is how to frame this right of deterrence. Is it collective, or is it individual? Is it to be interpreted narrowly or broadly? Is it an ordinary right, or is it a “fundamental” right? I say the latter in each instance.
These questions create a very large body of water for us to navigate. Arming America is, when all is said and done, still a very small boat adrift upon this vast sea. Yet it is one which currently holds the fascination of many of us. While I appreciate Mr. Smith’s diversion away from that work and down this equally fascinating path, I think we should return our focus to the subject of this web page. (my e-mail address can still be found for those who want to continue this particular discussion without gumming up this site) I would dearly like to know what happened at the OAH meeting. Was it recorded in any fashion? Is there anyone out there who can fairly summarize the arguments made for and against AA? I second those calls to answer these questions.
John G. Fought - 4/17/2003
Trust is not the issue, Mr. Hayhow, not yours and not mine. Nothing is true or false just because somebody says it. If you think you can trust liberals or conservatives or anybody in between just because of their political views, you're out of your depth. If you use secondary sources such as published scholarship, you should check them by looking at some or all of the primary sources they refer to. Clayton Cramer's work on the Bellesiles material has been careful, even meticulous, and very useful through this whole affair. It checks out when you look at the references and quotations; his arguments built on the evidence are coherent and logical. He has saved others a lot of time by identifying and organizing the evidence in the primary sources and guiding us to it. He has been right again and again. He deserves our gratitude and respect for this. Moreover, he understands the principle of accountability better than most of the fully credentialed academic blowhards involved in this matter. If Bellesiles had done the work he was so well paid for in the way Cramer does his volunteer work, this thread wouldn't even exist, and Bellesiles might have won a prize he deserved. I don't care if Cramer regularly writes in his vote for Herod the Great or Bakunin. It's not his politics, or yours, that I'm concerned about here, and I don't see anything in all this that entitles you to turn up your nose.
Van L. Hayhow - 4/17/2003
The third and fourth paragraphs of Smith's post are what I am talking about. Saying that the leaders of this country are evil, merciless, and will murder anyone to get their way are statements he should forever be ashamed of. I will never truat any post of his again as I believe there is a strong streak of irrationality in that post.
Josh Greenland - 4/17/2003
"If you look at the post that Smith found, what you said in the post in response to mine is not what you said then. I think my conclusion is correct and your response is really a non-response. Yes, governments get out of hand sometimes, but that's not what you said before. You should be ashamed."
I don't see any conclusions in either of your two recent posts, and your unexplained feeling that Clayton Cramer should be ashamed is meaningless. Why don't you cut to the chase and tell us what SPECIFIC THINGS in his 1995 post you have problems with?
Josh Greenland - 4/17/2003
"I am sorry to see that you are not embarrassed by what you wrote. You should be. While, I am a liberal, I have enjoyed your posts and your rational discourse concerning your positions (something not everyone that posts here can claim) but that post is irrational and disgusting. Yous shouldn't be embarrassed, you should be ashamed."
No, Mr. Hayhow, YOUR post is irrational. You spew out emotion and opinion, and don't explain what you base them on. Why should anyone take your post seriously, until you explain what you found irrational about Clayton's post, what in it caused you to feel disgust, and why you believe he should feel ashamed for having written it? Clayton can say nothing or anything he wants about his post, but outside of requesting clarification, I don't see why anyone should bother to respond to your factually empty expression of sentiment.
Van L. Hayhow - 4/16/2003
If you look at the post that Smith found, what you said in the post in response to mine is not what you said then. I think my conclusion is correct and your response is really a non-response. Yes, governments get out of hand sometimes, but that's not what you said before. You should be ashamed.
Jerry Brennan - 4/16/2003
Clayton,
A copy of the rec.guns post under discussion may be found at: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Cs8G3q.JI9%40optilink.com&output;=gplain
It does not say: "that police sometimes abuse their power" It does not say: "that governments sometimes get out of control"
It says exactly what it says. When people read it, they see what it says, not whatever you may have had in mind when you wrote it. Your recent comments appear not to address your statements in that post, or their implications, as written.
Peter Boucher - 4/16/2003
Ralph,
Would you please summarize Wiener's arguments and Finkelman's and your counters?
Clayton E. Cramer - 4/16/2003
"Much of the material in Arming America seems to be in question, but there is other unchallenged material. Please, critics and supporters of Bellesiles answer these key questions:
"Did critics of America, who hated our country, never make any comments on our gun culture? "
They did. In fact, Bellesiles misrepresents Frederick Maryatt's travel account quite severely. Bellesiles wrote:
---
Thus Marryat sneered in 1837 that the “unwillingness to take away life is a very remarkable feature in America, and were it not carried to such an extreme length, would be a very commendable one.” He was speaking of the American hesitance to use capital punishment compared to the more strenuous criminal justice system of England. But Marryat attributed a general squeamishness and even feebleness to Americans based on their faith in equality: they did not want to commit murder, even legal murder, for fear of violating the notion that one person is as good as another.
----
What Maryatt wrote, however, was:
----
Slander and detraction are the inseperable [sic] evils of a democracy, and as neither public nor private characters are spared, and the law is impotent to protect them, men have no other recourse than to defend their reputations with their lives, or to deter the defamer by the risk which he must incur.
And where political animosities are carried to such a length as they are in this exciting climate, there is no time given for coolness and reflection. Indeed, for one American who would attempt to prevent a duel, there are ten who would urge the parties on to the conflict.… The majority of the editors of the newspapers in America are constantly practicing with the pistol, that they may be ready when called upon, and are most of them very good shots.… But the worst feature in the American system of duelling is, that they do not go out, as we do in this country, to satisfy honour, but with the determination to kill.
----
"Were muskets of the time expensive, unwieldy and prone to break as the book makes out? "
Not expensive. Seventeenth century firearms (mostly muskets, some pistols) in probate inventories that I have counted averaged 1 pound, 2 shillings. Price of firearms purchased by Massachusetts at the start of the Revolutionary War (n=482)
averaged 1 pound, 19 shillings, 8 pence. Pennsylvania Committee of Safety purchased large numbers of both new and used firearms (n=371) averaging 2 pounds, 13 shillings, 7 pence. Maryland purchased 63 firearms, nearly all muskets, average price,
3 pounds, 7 shillings, 4 pence. These are all in the local currencies, and so they are not all exactly comparable values--but muskets were NOT especially expensive, even under wartime conditions.
Fragile? Well, there's a particular maker of muskets who
built 500 of them in the 1830s for the government to give to
the Indians. In the 1870s, 94 of them were surrendered by
one tribe. Pretty impressive survival rate, what?
"Were Indians more involved with guns than regular Americans? (thus validating his claim that Indians were the first gun culture) "
They were certainly avid purchasers of them, in spite of selling guns to the Indians being a very serious crime in many colonies. Virginia, for example, made it a capital offense.
What do you think the chances are that the Indians had more guns than the Europeans, considering that it was a crime to sell them guns for much of the 17th century, and the guns had to pass through European hands?
"Did historical accounts of the time really observe troops discarding firearms en masse after the end of the Revolutionary war? If not what evidence challenges such an outlook? "
More likely, they saw no reason to hold onto muskets--which are of limited value for hunting. Too heavy, for one thing.
Clayton E. Cramer - 4/16/2003
"Yous shouldn't be embarrassed, you should be ashamed."
Why? For saying that police sometimes abuse their power? That governments sometimes get out of control, and there's no reason to assume that our government is immune to the sort of abuses that are common in some parts of the world? Do you think Americans are different from the rest of the planet?
There are a lot of aspects to our government that work pretty well. But Abner Louima is a reminder that police torture isn't just found in the Third World.
Van L. Hayhow - 4/16/2003
I am sorry to see that you are not embarrassed by what you wrote. You should be. While, I am a liberal, I have enjoyed your posts and your rational discourse concerning your positions (something not everyone that posts here can claim) but that post is irrational and disgusting. Yous shouldn't be embarrassed, you should be ashamed.
Josh Greenland - 4/16/2003
Well, Ralph, that's more than anyone has told us so far about the chatroom, so I thank you for that. But could you tell us what aspects of l'affaire Bellesiles were discussed? What was controversial and what did people agree on? Just curious, if you're willing to tell us.
Ralph E. Luker - 4/15/2003
What's to say, Josh? I've already explained that it was just a chatroom session. It was not called to reach any findings. Jon Wiener presented his arguments. They were countered by Paul Finkelman and me. Others joined in the discussion. No consequences.
Richard Henry Morgan - 4/15/2003
"In view of the mistreatment/injustice that Benny alleges Bellesiles has suffered, maybe Benny can explain why the 2400+ historians at the OAH Annual meeting failed to show up at Jon Wiener's Bellesiles session to loudly protest in favor of Bellesiles."
What is there to wonder about? From BS's standpoint it is axiomatic, from the lack of OAH protest, that the OAH itself is just another part of that Hydra-headed monster, the "gun lobby".
Josh Greenland - 4/15/2003
In another HNN discussion, Ralph suggested that he had attended the Bellesiles chatroom or had special knowledge of it.
How 'bout it, Ralph? What happened there?
Clayton E. Cramer - 4/15/2003
I suggest that Mr. Benny Smith needs to spend some time reading about the history of police abuse of power in the United States. Does the name Abner Louima ring any bells?
Read _No More Wacos_ by Dave Kopel and Paul Blackman. It doesn't make any assumptions of intentional murder by federal agents at Waco--just a combination of arrogance, stupidity, abuse of authority, and then a cover-up of what happened. Too many pieces of evidence were turned over to the FBI by the Texas Rangers--that later disappeared--like $50,000 worth of cash, gold, and platinum from the Branch Davidian safe. Evidence like six foot tall steel doors that would have clarified who shot at whom during the initial raid--and they just "disappeared."
There's the Randy Weaver matter as well. Regardless of his bizarre political ideas, the federal government told so many lies about what happened on Ruby Ridge, that Weaver's defense attorney (a prominent leftist, I might add) rested without calling a single witness. The government's misbehavior was so severe on this that they later settled out of court with Weaver for several million dollars--and were required to pay some of Weaver's criminal defense attorney fees--unheard of in a criminal case.
A bit further back, we have the entire Cointelpro disaster of the 1960s and 1970s, when government agents regularly broke laws in their effort to "get" various left-wing groups. Some of whom weren't particularly nice people, but I expect my government to not break the law to enforce the law. One of the more startling documentaries I've seen was on PBS several years ago, about the Black Panthers. They interviewed a retired FBI agent who said, quite directly, that the FBI intentionally misled Chicago PD about the level of resistance that they should expect when raiding Black Panther Party HQ--and the hope was that Chicago PD would kill them all.
There is a reason that we have a Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment. Governments have a bad habit of getting out of control. If Mr. Smith thinks that the torture that his common in much of the Third World couldn't happen here, he is living in fantasyland.
I am not embarrassed at all about what I wrote in 1995 on this matter.
Don Williams - 4/14/2003
In view of the mistreatment/injustice that Benny alleges Bellesiles has suffered, maybe Benny can explain why the 2400+ historians at the OAH Annual meeting failed to show up at Jon Wiener's Bellesiles session to loudly protest in favor of Bellesiles.
According the Rick Shenkman here at HNN, "A session on Bellesiles was expected to draw a crowd. Only a dozen people showed up. The crowd was at the panel on Iraq, which was scheduled to take place at the same time. (OAH Executive Director Lee Formwalt assured me afterward that the timing was coincidental. He said he had not even realized until I mentioned it that the two panels overlapped.) When I asked Jon Wiener, co-host of the Bellesiles panel, what had taken place, he laughed. There hadn't been any fireworks. "
I wonder if the "dozen" included the two chairmen plus three stray tourists who stopped by and asked for directions to the bathroom?
Jerry Brennan - 4/13/2003
Perhaps it came to Benny in a dream, at first dimly, then with the mind numbing effulgence of a fantasy in the making, the reason that various historians could not find the time to examine the evidence even of "egregious misrepresentation" in "Arming America": they were too busy perusing the hundreds of Clayton Cramer's posts in rec.guns in order to find excuses to look the other way.
John G. Fought - 4/13/2003
I knew as I wrote my last message that I should have found
the reference again. It's tax time: I can't find anything.
So, thanks, Josh, and voila, Ralph. I didn't check anything
in the review, and I don't recall anything about it that
seemed suspicious. It was just funny in retrospect, and a
reminder that there's no vanity like intellectual vanity.
Josh Greenland - 4/13/2003
"Perhaps you, Mr. Cramer, would like to recant or otherwise explain some of your previous punditry. The following allegations were made back in the mid-1990s by one, Clayton Cramer, on the rec.guns newsgroup:
"'Let me try to be calm when I say this: the reason why you should support the NRA is because the alternative is going to be a police state where people get dragged off to windowless cells to be raped by trained dogs (as was done in Uruguay), beaten until eyes and teeth are knocked out (almost anywhere in the Third World), and forced to listen to their children die of thirst in adjoining cells to extract confessions (Iraq).
"'The people that run this country are merciless, pitiless, evil
people prepared to murder anyone to achieve their goals. Make
no mistake about it.'
"Remarks such as these do explain why you remain the darling of the gun lobby. However, unless you can properly document accusations like those, can you understand why scholars and historians do not take your banter seriously?"
Benny, I have no idea where you got these quotes, or if Clayton actually wrote them or not. He can say whatever he wants about them.
I don't have any trouble with them. If they were actually made during the mid-1990s as you say, that would have been after Ruby Ridge and Waco. Especially after the latter atrocity, what is your problem with these remarks?
I don't know how old you are, but I remember the 1960s and 70s of the Vietnam War, COINTELPRO, and overthrow of Chilean President Salvador Allende. If you know about the US sanctioned and aided heroin dealing, systematic torture by US personnel and the Phoenix Program in the former conflict, the fomented murders of COINTELPRO, and the horror, including mass torture, unleashed on Chileans by the latter CIA-orchestrated coup, you wouldn't be able to describe the remarks you attribute to Clayton Cramer as "banter." Whoever the author of those remarks, the people who run this country are as dangerous as s/he says, and I for one think we are a lot safer from them as armed citizens.
Josh Greenland - 4/13/2003
Ralph, I found this citation via web search:
http://www.americanantiquarian.org/Fellowships/fellowsb.htm
BELLESILES, MICHAEL A.
"Does Evidence Matter? Puritanism Revised, Reviled, and Deconstructed," Canadian Rev. of Amer. Studies (1988)
Ralph E. Luker - 4/13/2003
John, Could you give me a citation for that review?
Frank A. Baldridge - 4/13/2003
Benny Smith, an advocate of dishonored anti-gun historian Michael Bellesiles, announced today that another esteemed scholar has bought into Bellesiles' agenda, and a multi-tasking anti-American group has been formed to advance various agendas for folks who are able to come up with substantial amounts of cash. Smith's announcement was made at the conclusion of a meeting attended by himself, Michael Moore, Bellesiles, Hans Blix, and the recently unemployed historical scholar and commentator Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf at a latte shop somewhere near the University of East Anglia, England. Smith stated that the addition of Sahaf, AKA Baghdad Bob, to their group was especially fortuitous as Sahaf is widely noted for his critical and perceptive observations regarding American violence and armament - http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/bliraqdenial.htm -
and that additional expertise was necessary after Blix's guide dog got lost in the Iraqi desert.
The group will be known as Moore, Bellesiles, Smith, Blix, and Sahaf, or Moore BS Squared. It plans to continue submitting amicus briefs on litigation regarding the Second Amendment, looking for weapons, filming Moore's fantasies, and through Jon Wiener has secured a contact with the Organization of American Historians for lesson plans and revisionist histories. Bellesiles and Sahaf are the principal authors of those histories, drafts of which are available for review at
http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/mss_history.html
Smith, whose essay is overdue, closed his conference observing that obviously Bellesiles works are reaching a larger audience as Sahaf carries his interpretations of history to the world.
Benny Smith - 4/12/2003
"But I'd like to know how academia could function without factual criticism."
"Much as it does right now. I'm told by someone who shares mutual friends with Bellesiles that in the mid-1990s, Bellesiles was privately grousing that there was a lot of fraud in the writing of history. " - Clayton Cramer.
Perhaps you, Mr. Cramer, would like to recant or otherwise explain some of your previous punditry. The following allegations were made back in the mid-1990s by one, Clayton Cramer, on the rec.guns newsgroup:
"Let me try to be calm when I say this: the reason why you should
support the NRA is because the alternative is going to be a police state where people get dragged off to windowless cells to be raped by trained dogs (as was done in Uruguay), beaten until eyes and teeth are knocked out (almost anywhere in the Third World), and forced to listen to their children die of thirst in adjoining cells to extract confessions (Iraq).
The people that run this country are merciless, pitiless, evil
people prepared to murder anyone to achieve their goals. Make
no mistake about it."
Remarks such as these do explain why you remain the darling of the gun lobby. However, unless you can properly document accusations like those, can you understand why scholars and historians do not take your banter seriously?
John G. Fought - 4/11/2003
Right again, I believe, Mr. Cramer. Sometime around then, B published a review (of something about Puritan MA, as I recall),
and the title of the review was (brace yourselves) "Does Evidence Matter?". I wonder what else lies beneath the calm surface of American History departments, but I'm not going to be the designated diver.
Clayton E. Cramer - 4/11/2003
"But I'd like to know how academia could function without factual criticism." Much as it does right now. I'm told by someone who shares mutual friends with Bellesiles that in the mid-1990s, Bellesiles was privately grousing that there was a lot of fraud in the writing of history. I suspect that he was right. Perhaps this was why so many historians resisted holding Bellesiles accountable for what he did?
Josh Greenland - 4/11/2003
"[...]I believe that Mr. Greenland and his cohorts who would demean others in an attempt to discourage intellectual freedom must know that their efforts are self-defeating."
Benny considers fact checking to be demeaning "others in an attempt to discourage intellectual freedom." But I'd like to know how academia could function without factual criticism.
Josh Greenland - 4/11/2003
Benny gets so many things wrong in his posts, that I think he does have trouble distinguishing reality from fantasy. I found a lot of questionable and wrong things in his most thread-starting post, just by doing Internet searches.
His cult-inculcated defense mechanisms mindlessly react against our attempts to point out his errors and evasions by calling them mudslinging or personal attacks, but I believe we are helping him by pointing out the truth whenever we can, and that deep down below the conditioning, he appreciates what we are doing for him.
Josh Greenland - 4/9/2003
"...the Encyclopedia of Guns in America."
I meant to write "...the Encyclopedia of Guns in American Society."
Josh Greenland - 4/9/2003
I used a different search engine and criteria and found F.Frederick Hawley's resume, which contains a long list of publications. A word search on "gun" shows that almost all of his gun writings are associated by title or publication name with crime, violence or gun control. One or two others are not associated with those but are with the South, and the remainder are in the Encyclopedia of Guns in America:
http://wcuvax1.wcu.edu/~hawley/wwwresume.htm
Jerry Brennan - 4/8/2003
Josh,
One may guess that they might regard the splicing of Heston's speeches, as well as the splicing of the reference to Willie Horton onto a copy of a Bush ad, as analogous to "altering the content of news photographs" when done in an alleged "documentary".
FWIW, a google search for "Bellesiles" in google's current collection of data from latimes.com found no matches.
Jerry Brennan - 4/8/2003
Or is it a plea for help? In a recent post Benny Smith quotes his earlier line: "Hopefully, they have learned that their side of the debate will be better served in the future only if their criticism is constructive and not the demeaning ridicule that has characterized so much of this sordid affair". In the earlier post that line was prededed by: "That Arming America remains on the shelves of academia is another sign that it's time for Bellesile's critics to accept what they cannot change and to move on to other issues."
Perhaps he may merely be suggesting that his ridiculous, self demeaning, posturing may be expected to continue, but perhaps he may be seeking help to escape the ways of the cult. In view of the possibility, however remote, that the latter may be the case, some constructive criticism may not be a total waste of time, but since the odds seem quite slim, I'll not spend much time on it.
Fundamentally, it may help Benny Smith (or Jon Wiener, or other Bellesiles cultists) to begin to learn to distinguish between fantasy and reality. Clues in making such distinctions may be found in evidence. Resorting to fantasies about people who gather evidence, in order to pretend that that evidence may thus be wished away, is not conducive to perceiving reality.
Samples of abundant evidence of numerous fictions perpetrated by Bellesiles, both in his book, "Arming America", and in his subsequent comments relating thereto, may be found at:
http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/wm/59.1/main.html
http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/wm/59.1/gruber.html
http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/wm/59.1/roth.html
http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/wm/59.1/bellesiles.html
http://www.law.nwu.edu/faculty/fulltime/Lindgren/LindgrenFINAL.pdf
http://hnn.us/articles/667.html
http://hnn.us/articles/678.html
http://hnn.us/articles/742.html
http://www.claytoncramer.com/unpublished.htm
http://www.emory.edu/central/NEWS/Releases/Final_Report.pdf
http://www.emory.edu/central/NEWS/Releases/B_statement.pdf
and/or links therefrom.
That didn't take much time.
Josh Greenland - 4/8/2003
Jerry,
I don't recall seeing any LA Times articles about the exposure of Bellesiles' fraud either. The LA Times may be the most anti-gun ownership newspaper on the West Coast, so I can imagine they wrote up a positive review of Arming America when it first came out.
I wonder what the photography crew of the LAT would say about Bowling for Columbine?
Josh Greenland - 4/7/2003
"He is still teaching."
Where is Michael Bellesiles teaching, Benny?
Richard Henry Morgan - 4/6/2003
To start, 'hopefully' is an adverb, and one generally remonstrates "with" someone -- I know it's petty, but I try to be a stickler even with myself (and just as often fail). But consider the following statement by Foner:
"If you don’t believe me, just click into History News Network which regularly publishes scurrilous, if not libelous, attacks on historians including myself, often with no basis in fact whatsoever, and that’s their freedom of speech, but I hope nobody here takes that stuff seriously."
Why am I not surprised that this should be quoted, with approval, by Benny Smith? It certainly follows the pattern -- an assertion offered without supporting evidence, wrapped in the sackcloth and ashes of martyrdom. There's a name for that: it's called a drive-by shooting. And thankyou so much, Benny, for not mentioning that I withdrew that "air-head convention" remark, and even apologized for it. By my count, fully seven and a half hours passed between my apology and your post, yet you chose to ignore it. Had you not done so, people might have gotten the impression that you have some commitment to fairness in argument.
Strange too that you did not mention that Foner denied that the anti-war movenment, tout court and therefore presumably without exception, does not desire the failure of American military forces, or even their death, despite the fact that Foner comes fresh from the Columbia "teach-in" where DeGenova wished for "a million Mogadishus". You never disappoint, Benny.
Benny Smith - 4/6/2003
Many times I have attempted to remonstrate those, particularly within the gun lobby and the right wing, for their repetitive personal attacks on historians and others who voice disagreement with their views. In fact, my last post here stated, "Hopefully, they have learned that their side of the debate will be better served in the future only if their criticism is constructive and not the demeaning ridicule that has characterized so much of this sordid affair." Yet, in the case of the two who responded to this message, Mr. Morgan yesterday titled a response to a discussion at this week’s convention of the Organization of American Historians as the "air-head convention." And in response to my post, Mr. Greenland apparently searched the internet, mining for mud with which he could sling at academics who favorably quoted Professor Bellesiles in a new book on American’s gun culture.
That said, it was interesting to hear Professor Eric Foner’s comments last night in Memphis at the OAH convention. Although his comments addressed criticism of historians’ views of the Iraq conflict, I felt this statement to be relevant to the discussions of Bellesiles as well. Foner said, "Today also, statements about history that in normal times might be considered uncontroversial are regularly labeled treasonous. If you don’t believe me, just click into History News Network which regularly publishes scurrilous, if not libelous, attacks on historians including myself, often with no basis in fact whatsoever, and that’s their freedom of speech, but I hope nobody here takes that stuff seriously."
I am not convinced that Mr. Morgan takes his stuff seriously or even means himself to be taken seriously, but I believe that Mr. Greenland and his cohorts who would demean others in an attempt to discourage intellectual freedom must know that their efforts are self-defeating. A second edition of Bellesiles’ book is due out. He is still teaching. His research is providing the foundation for future gun scholars. And Bellesiles’ critics’ own campaign of hateful rhetoric just may raise the historian to the level of cult hero for those of us who cherish the freedoms our founding fathers brought us.
Josh Greenland - 4/6/2003
Good point, Richard. Benny seems to have found only two academics who spoke positively of Bellesiles' work, yet he generalizes from that that Arming America is quietly taking the academy by storm and gun rights supporters should get over it.
But in looking at Benny screed more closely, I can't see much support for MB in Thomas Altherr's statement that "Although his book Arming American [sic] has attracted a crossfire of controversy, history professor Michael Bellesiles has forced Americans to re-examine just how many Americans had firearms before the Civil War and the extent of their competency and knowledge." That's just the truth, that Arming America DID force us to re-examine how many guns Americans owned way back when and how well we know them, and we discovered that we were as awash in and competent with guns as we'd always believed, and that Bellesiles was wrong. Benny may want to clarify Altherr's statement, but as he reported it, it isn't a ringing endorsement of MB.
So all that's left is Hawley's complete acceptance of Bellesiles' assertions of low rates of pre-Civil War gun ownership and militia incompetence. I don't know when Hawley's writings were contributed to the Encyclopedia of Guns in American Society, but I wonder if they were written before the Emory external committee made its findings public, and Hawley just never bothered to contact editor Gregg Lee Carter to change or withdraw them? Benny is really reaching if he sees complete victory for Bellesiles in one professor's essay and a copy of AA that hasn't been withdrawn from a college bookstore yet.
Josh Greenland - 4/6/2003
This article is the most detailed that I've seen going into the falsehoods in Michael Moore's supposed documentary Bowling for Columbine, including the mangling of US history over 100 years back:
http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel040403.asp
Jerry Brennan - 4/5/2003
A Bellesiles cultist's tasks are never done. It seems that demeaning himself by having served for months as a cheerleader for Bellesiles' fictions is not enough. He must, it seems, continue his pretenses and posturing for as long as his hero continues his.
We may hope for the cultist's sake that Bellesiles refrains from any additional changes to his stories. Cult life may be difficult enough without having to adapt to new revisions of: A day at the archives, er, um, at the court house, er, um, at the history center, er, um, somewhere.
Richard Henry Morgan - 4/5/2003
The great thing about Benny Smith's post is that they almost invariably involve conclusions that go beyond the evidence -- makes me wish I were still in the classroom, and could use his posts as material in critical thinking or methodology classes. His last post concluded that "it is apparent that the theses advanced in Bellesile's Arming America, however controversial they may be, will be presented and discussed in centers of higher learning throughout the world." That conclusion from the listing, in a single course at East Anglia, of Bellesiles OAH article, not his book. So what we have is the hasty jump from the article to the book, and the jump from East Anglia to "centers of highing learning throughout the world".
But I digress. The current example is the citing, by a single author, of Bellesiles' Arming America, in support of the proposition "Gun scholars quietly accepting Bellesile's [sic] work". The jump from a single citation to the plural "scholars", the jump from citation to "acceptance" ... well, you get the picture. Again, the double jump, garnering even a 5.9 from the French judge. Keep up the good work, Benny -- the relation of evidence to conclusions in your posts is positively Bellesilesian.
Josh Greenland - 4/5/2003
I've looked around a bit on the web, but I can't find anything this guy has published.
Josh Greenland - 4/5/2003
Yep, there is a Thomas Altherr teaching at the Metropolitan State College in Denver. He has written on hunting and shooting, but his focus is broader, on the history of sports, about which he's written a number of books and articles. His interests may encompass recreation in general; a Thomas L. Altherr is credited with writing "Procreation or Pleasure: Sexual Attitudes in American History."
Josh Greenland - 4/5/2003
"Bellesile's Arming America is cited in E. Frederick Hawley's article on "Gun Culture." [...] Hawley, a professor criminal justice at Western Carolina University, is regarded as an expert on gun culture."
I couldn't find an E. Frederick Hawley, but there is an F. Frederick Hawley teaching at WCU. The description of his interests on the WCU website is ambiguously worded and may be suggesting that Hawley thinks of gun ownership as part of the culture of crime. The website says Hawley is an expert in Southern crime culture:
http://www.wcu.edu/aps/cj/CJ_FS-hawley.htm
Josh Greenland - 4/5/2003
I thought you all might be amused to know that Bellesiles is still on the Emory U website, complete with a page for Arming America and for his probate "research":
http://www.emory.edu/HISTORY/BELLESILES/
I especially enjoyed the page on San Francisco probates:
http://www.emory.edu/HISTORY/BELLESILES/sfprobate.html
Benny Smith - 4/5/2003
One of the newest books to delve into the historical, social and political aspects of our gun culture is Guns in American Society which reveals more evidence that gun scholars have begun integrating Professor Michael Bellesile's research into their own published work. Guns in American Society is a two-volume reference work published near the end of 2002 that, in the words of editor Greg Lee Carter, "has been written for researchers, teachers, students, public officials, law enforcement personnel and members of the general public having an interest in this critical area of American life." Featuring many contributors who are experts in their fields, as well as pro-gun lobbyists and gun control supporters, the book examines hundreds of topics, notable personalities and controversies.
Bellesile's Arming America is cited in E. Frederick Hawley's article on "Gun Culture." Hawley states, "But recent historians point out that most Americans, even on the frontier, did not own guns, nor were they familiar with their use and handling." Hawley cites Bellesile's Arming America there. Hawley also credits Bellesile's work on the 'efficacy of American militias' when he says, "Local militias were poorly disciplined and insufficiently armed to be of much use." Hawley, a professor criminal justice at Western Carolina University, is regarded as an expert on gun culture. An expert on hunting, Thomas Altherr, professor of history at the Metropolitan State College in Denver, credits Bellesiles as well when he says, "Although his book Arming American has attracted a crossfire of controversy, history professor Michael Bellesiles has forced Americans to re-examine just how many Americans had firearms before the Civil War and the extent of their competency and knowledge."
So notwithstanding the whining of the gun lobby here, Bellesile's research is already providing grist for future gun scholars. Lest anyone think that Guns in American Society provides a mere one-sided look at the issue, the book features on its editorial board David Kopel, one of the gun lobby's most prolific and best known cheerleaders. Kopel is a regular contributor to the National Review and has written extensively on behalf of gun rights enthusiasts. In addition to being a member of the editorial board of Guns in American Society, Kopel contributed the most selections of any author--over three dozen articles.
During a recent trip, I visited the bookstore of a university bookstore and found Bellesile's Arming America for sale there, not far from the works of Stephen Ambrose, another award-winning historian whose credibility sustained attacks within the past year. That Arming America remains on the shelves of academia is another sign that it's time for Bellesile's critics to accept what they cannot change and to move on to other issues. Hopefully, they have learned that their side of the debate will be better served in the future only if their criticism is constructive and not the demeaning ridicule that has characterized so much of this sordid affair.
Jerry Brennan - 4/4/2003
"Arming America" would be beyond the purview of the photography crew of the LAT. I'm not aware of whether any of the writers and/or editors of the LAT have brought any of AA's fabrications to the attention of the LAT's readers.
Josh Greenland - 4/4/2003
How long did it take the LA Times to admit that Arming America is a lie? Or have they admitted it yet?
Josh Greenland - 4/4/2003
"Josh, I can't say that Wills's career has been a sad one. I've read _NA_ several times and virtually everything else that he wrote between his early _National Review_ articles into the late 1980s. I haven't read _A Necessary Evil_, so I can't comment on it."
Fair enough. I'll admit I haven't read most of _A Necessary Evil_, but what I have read is available here:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0684844893/ref=lib_dp_sp_1/103-8333521-5506246?v=glance&s;=books&vi;=slide-show#reader-link
Look especially at Excerpt 2 thru Excerpt 18, the book's Chapter 1. The footnotes aren't available in the URL, and he only mentions Bellesiles' name twice, but Chap 1 reads like it was taken wholly from _Arming America_. Wills allowed himself to be taken in completely by Bellesiles, and burns himself badly at the start of the book. He quotes a number of authors who supposedly support his anti-militia or anti-gun points in that chapter, but I wonder how many of the footnotes in this chapter were directly copied from _Arming America_. I don't think the chapter could stand without AA.
Outside of editorial cartoonists, Wills has expressed more naked hostility toward gun right supporters than any other public figure I know of. Chapter 1 of ANE is a diatribe, and he attacks a well-known NRA official in each of the first three pages of the chapter. There's no subtly or nuance here. NA it ain't.
I believe Wills allowed himself to lose emotional balance due to his extreme anti-gun rights prejudices, and he fell so completely for Bellesiles' falsehoods that he based at least the whole first chapter on them. I've looked through the full index of the book, also in the URL, and throughout it are references to subjects and people involved in the gun control/gun rights debate in pages in different places in the book. So other parts of the book beyond the first chapter may well be based on Bellesiles' work.
But it's enough that Wills shot his foot off in the first chapter of the book.
I wonder how much of the book is false? I caught Wills in one error: he refers to Tanya Metaksa as a "publicist" for the NRA, and maybe that's his sexism operating, but Metaksa was actually the head of NRA's lobbying arm, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA), when she met with militia people. She was not impressed by them. But telling his readers that wouldn't have advanced his agenda, would it?
Angry people get sloppy and make more mistakes than the rest of us, and it's clear just in what's available in the URL that Wills is angry at a lot more than just gun rights supporters or the NRA. I wonder how much else is screwed up in this book?
Jerry Brennan - 4/3/2003
Some organizations are able to recognize a fabrication, and to deal with it, in days, rather than years. Perhaps they could offer the OAH a chat room session on fabrication recognition.
From: http://www.latimes.com/news/custom/showcase/la-ednote_blurb.blurb (April 3, 2003)
Los Angeles Times - Editor's Note
Editor's Note
On Monday, March 31, the Los Angeles Times published a front-page photograph that had been altered in violation of Times policy.
The primary subject of the photo was a British soldier directing Iraqi civilians to take cover from Iraqi fire on the outskirts of Basra. After publication, it was noticed that several civilians in the background appear twice. The photographer, Brian Walski, reached by telephone in southern Iraq, acknowledged that he had used his computer to combine elements of two photographs, taken moments apart, in order to improve the composition.
Times policy forbids altering the content of news photographs. Because of the violation, Walski, a Times photographer since 1998, has been dismissed from the staff. The altered photo, along with the two photos that were used to produce it, are below:
(snip to end)
Bryan Haskins - 3/31/2003
Well at least you are reading what I have posted, Mr. Smith. So now I am tardy? I certainly agree that your posts far outnumber my own here. Additionally, I admit that I have ignored the many virtually similar posts you dropped at the Emory Wheel’s site because I did not have the time to keep up with you. Nevertheless, when we first started here I was apparently posting far too much for your liking, and you constantly complained that I must be forsaking my oath of office to chase you here. Now you suddenly complain that I don’t answer you promptly. I wish you would stop being so petulant and make up your mind which you prefer.
Until I came in Saturday I was actually going to take a pass on your new thread. However, I simply cannot ignore your offer to trade tongue-in-cheek humor. Please, take what I have to say in the same kind spirit which I took your latest post.
As I have said before, humor is an excellent medium for communication, and I occasionally find such posts from you to be informative. Why, until you latest post I had no idea that I had become a much feared (albeit tardy) cyberstalker. Since you are determined to convict me of this crime, I feel I must now discharge my mind concerning my indictment and the evidence you seek to offer in support of it. Stalking is designed to punish someone “who on more than one occasion engages in conduct directed at another person with the intent to place. . .that other person in reasonable fear of death, criminal sexual assault, or bodily injury....” I have never threatened to kill you, sexually assault you, or beat you up (nor would I). Therefore, I do not fit the definition of a stalker. If you wish to convict me of stalking, then we must amend the statute to read: “who’s...conduct places that other person in reasonable fear of death, criminal sexual assault, bodily injury, or being exposed as an ideological demagogue who readily lashes out at every critic of Bellesiles yet is incapable of addressing the merits of Arming America.”
Now if your indictment of me was founded upon this amended language, then I will gladly tender a plea of guilty. In mitigation of my sentence, I would like to state that my conduct is the direct result of your reasonable provocation. You chided others for refusing to use this site as a forum to debate the merits of Arming America. I took that as an invitation, and throughout my pursuit of you here I have merely sought your honest opinions on the merits of AA’s thesis and the conduct of its author as he defended the work. I would not have had to stalk you in this manner if you had demonstrated the courage to engage in an open debate of the subject you chose. There now, I have exercised my right of allocution, and I beg the mercy of the Court as it weighs my sentence. I would be willing, as a term of probation, to take this class with you in East Anglia. Perhaps then we could finally have our discussion of the merits of AA.
Before you pronounce sentence, however, I do have one final favor to ask. Please, as you go through your transfiguration from demagogue to demigod, do not sentence me to a leadership position in your cult. As a leader, I would bear the responsibility of fielding uncomfortable questions from those interested in joining. For example, how could I answer them if they asked me to explain the doctrine of your cult? All I could possibly say is: “I have no idea. Mr. Smith hides his opinions from me. You’ll have to ask him yourself.” This is hardly the confident answer you would wish one of your trusted ministers to provide as he ushered new recruits into your audience chamber. Indeed, with such a lackluster introduction, how could you possibly believe that you could convince them your cult is anything more than the fraudulent worship of a book whose thesis you will not defend. No, Mr. Smith, if you placed me in charge, then I feel your command to “pay no attention to that man behind the curtain” would not prevent Dorothy from reading what Mr. Cramer has discovered.
Please, Mr. Smith, take this tongue-in-cheek humor in the light it is intended, for I truly sympathize with your plight. I understand how difficult it may be to find someone who is willing to believe in your cult. Yet you need such a person to lead it if you expect Mr. Fought to be able to pay the bills. A doubting Thomas like myself would surely drive away the membership and lead the cult to financial ruin. Therefore, I must withdraw my nomination for a leadership position in your cult.
Don Williams - 3/31/2003
There is an old tradition of thought concerning how to establish and maintain liberty within a state --from Aristotle and Polybius down through Machiavelli to John Locke and Algernon Sidney. Sidney is not often mentioned in universities today but he had great influence on the Founders. See, for example,http://www.constitution.org/as/foreword.htm ,
http://www.liberty1.org/sidney.htm ,
and
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch3s1.html
At one time, the great questions these men tried to address were studied at university as part of a liberal education -- from "liber" (free); i.e., the education of a free man. (Note that I'm not speaking of an indoctrination into a ideology -- one must study Hobbes' defense of order as well as Sidney's defense of revolution. )
This goal of educating free men seems to have been dropped in today's academia. As we have seen, academia today argues strongly in defense of central authority -- because that authority ensures that academicians do not have to work for a living.
Algernon Sidney's writings were part of the Founders' mindset -- and reading them reveals how the Chicago Kent attendees twisted and distorted the Founders' intent in crafting the Bill of Rights , including the Second Amendment.
Ralph E. Luker - 3/30/2003
Josh, I can't say that Wills's career has been a sad one. I've read _NA_ several times and virtually everything else that he wrote between his early _National Review_ articles into the late 1980s. I haven't read _A Necessary Evil_, so I can't comment on it.
Josh Greenland - 3/30/2003
Ralph, I also was impressed with Nixon Agonistes when I read parts of it in the 1970s. I had forgotten that Garry Wills had written it, and was surprised to discover that the unintelligent defender of Bellesiles that I saw on C-SPAN and author of A Necessary Evil was the same guy who wrote NA. Garry Wills seems to have degenerated in the intervening years from an author capable of subtle, penetrating writing to a ham-handed hack. It's really kind of sad.
Jerry Brennan - 3/30/2003
Mr. Baldridge,
While it may be incorrect, my impression is that you would not be likely to be able to become a good cultist. Please do not take offense, but cults must have their standards, and obsequious deference to the views of the hero of the cult, as exhibited, for example, in the writings of Benny Smith, or for that matter Jon Wiener, with respect to Bellesiles, is usually paramount. I suspect that you simply could not live down to such a standard.
While you might imagine that anything a wimp could do, you could do, but it seems to require a special knack to be as obsequious as Benny Smith and Jon Wiener have demonstrated their abilities to be. I do not understand such behavior, but they seem to have it down pat. Perhaps your bird dogs may have such a knack, but I suspect that even they would have their own opinions about what is, or is not, a bird, and may not be willing to accept a Bellesilesian opinion to the contrary.
Frank A. Baldridge - 3/30/2003
Dear Mr. Smith:
I would appreciate your consideration for a position on the board of directors, and have enclosed a resume. While I may not be as articulate as the individuals you have nominated, I am sincere in my beliefs, and promise to work hard to further the goals of the cult.
I was wondering - would it be possible to hold our first meeting at Dr. Fought's place so we can watch hummingbirds while we conduct our business? I am really looking forward to meeting these individuals.
Also, have you given any consideration in regards to a mascot?
Allow me to thank you for courageously reappearing to serve as a diversion in these times of stress - kind of like the rattlesnake that once took up residence under the back steps to my house. But, now you are claiming that you are really only a gopher snake wearing a rattle on its tail as humor? Sure fooled me - Ha Ha.
One of the reasons I would like to be on the board is that I believe certain individuals and institutions within the academic historical community need to reassess the reason for their existence. For various reasons that community seems more concerned with promoting propaganda that reflects their views, than objectively illuminating the past in order to fairly assess the past, or propose realistic solutions for current or future problems. Their creditability will suffer.
Virtually all the works I have been required to read as a graduate student are thesis driven and abuse their sources. And never in my previous life (50 plus years) have I had so much extraneous "political matter" forced on me in class - examples range from suggestions on how to vote stamped on assignment sheets, to handouts urging me to protest the policies of certain "short-sighted presidents who cannot think properly," to repeated diatribes against the NRA - outside of our racist bigoted sexist imperialistic fore-fathers the favorite whipping boy for all the world's problems. Supposedly I am to buy into all this ... because it originates in academia?
At the beginning of my current graduate seminar my fellow students, most in their early twenties, during introductions, got into a contest to see who could express the most contempt of anything that might be even remotely termed "American." Maybe some day they will lose weight, mature, and realize their blessings. But first, all are headed into the public school system, to espouse their views, perhaps in conjunction with study-guides prepared by OHA.
And I am willing to bet my set of Bancroft's Works that none of those students has any personal experience with firearms. I was fortunate in spending much of my youth in a rural area, and began hunting small-game with a 1890 Winchester at nine. Most of my friends also hunted, and took the standard safety and shooting courses offered by the NRA. We went on to other things, like girls, cars, and school. Then I found myself in the service. I believe that one of the reasons I came back from Vietnam was because I hunted as a kid. Not because I could shoot a "gun," but because I learned to hunt. On several occasions I have seen individuals who have never handled a firearm before turn in the top score. Marksmanship can be quickly learned by most people, it takes awhile longer to learn to walk in the woods (only those who have "been there" will understand this), and fully develop safe practices.
Neither I or any of my personal acquaintances have ever accidentally shot anyone. Outside of the service, nobody I have ever known has intentionally shot anyone, or been involved in a crime with a firearm. If it was not for the fact that I enjoy training and working bird dogs I would not hunt anymore. But I enjoy shooting targets, and collecting antique shotguns and their cartridges for their historical significance. During the past ten years my ability to engage in all of those endeavors has been restricted, on several occasions. Further restrictions are currently proposed, and I see further restrictions looming in the future.
Perhaps then, you can understand my concern when the OHA argues that the events of 11 September 2001 occurred because I, and past associates who are no longer here to defend themselves, served in Vietnam (OAH Newsletter, February 2002), and advances bogus information with the intention that my personal liberties be further restricted. I will defer the historiographic essay on how all this occurred, but I am rather tired of being accused of being at the root of all the current problems in society. Personally, I am offended, and note that both I and my heritage would be more favorably considered within the "scholarly historical community" if I was a structure (CRM). Thankfully, this will be my last semester within that community. But I will continue to use every ethical and legal means available to frustrate conniving folks like you, "The Marksman" Bellesiles, and "Low Cal" Moore.
I would also like to assure you that I, and I believe the NRA and all responsible "gun" owners, am deeply concerned about the inappropriate use of firearms, for both the personal trauma and political implications involved. The NRA has established and implemented numerous safety programs that address the realities of the times, and it has worked to insure that existing laws are enforced. Any time you and your academic pals can come up with a proposal, based on valid research, that will stop the illegal and inappropriate use of firearms I believe we would all be appreciative.
You might note that even if all the "legal" firearms were collected, those safely programs would have some degree of value. But then the new-left-environmentalists would have to come up with a massive amount of money to fund existing conservation programs funded by the "Gun Cult" that benefit a wide spectrum of individuals outside the cult.
Since you claim to be good at research, spelling, and writing, would you and Mr. Hindson mind submitting an essay on the following for our edification? Feel free to use as many pages as you like, but if we don't see at least 20 pages we will assume all your claims are bogus.
As you may both be aware, sex and violence involving firearms are continuously glorified and sensationalized in the media, and there are certain social problems associated with each. Yet, the approaches to solving those social problems seem to be diametrically opposed. Solving the former with the methods advanced for the latter would involve kids in school getting ATF approved chastity belts with 10 day delayed unlocking devices instead of condoms. Meanwhile "Eddie Eagle" can't come on most school grounds. Please fully explore the history, rational, or logic behind these differing solutions.
By the way, I passed that 1890 on to my son. Hopefully he will pass it on to his.
At any rate, you might also note that I previously proposed something along the lines of your "Benny Smith Cult," but I was hoping that we might do something more fruitful than focusing on you.
Have a nice day, and be sure to inform me of the first meeting.
Sincerely,
Frank
P.S. To all, my comment on naval facilities was overly broad. Please excuse.
Jerry Brennan - 3/29/2003
Mr. Hindson,
At least since November of last year (see, for example, http://hnn.us/comments/4448.html ), Benny Smith has been frantically insulting any number of people who have chosen not to ignore abundant evidence of numerous fictions perpetrated by Bellesiles, both in his book, "Arming America", and in his subsequent comments relating thereto.
(Samples of such evidence may be found at:
http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/wm/59.1/main.html
http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/wm/59.1/gruber.html
http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/wm/59.1/roth.html
http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/wm/59.1/bellesiles.html
http://www.law.nwu.edu/faculty/fulltime/Lindgren/LindgrenFINAL.pdf
http://historynewsnetwork.org/articles/article.html?id=667
http://hnn.us/articles/678.html
http://hnn.us/articles/742.html
http://www.claytoncramer.com/unpublished.htm
http://www.emory.edu/central/NEWS/Releases/Final_Report.pdf
http://www.emory.edu/central/NEWS/Releases/B_statement.pdf
and/or links therefrom. )
Unless one is willing to ignore such evidence, one is not likely to be taken in by Benny Smith's tirades. If one is so willing, his tirades would be redundant. So, one might conclude that Benny Smith sticks around to insult people, and to be insulted in return. Such behavior by internet trolls may be expected, and it may be considered impolite not to tweak his delusions on occasion.
Richard Henry Morgan - 3/29/2003
Yeah, I picked up on the self-reference the second time around, but didn't make that clear, obviously. Also, perhaps we can say that Adair's dissertation has now been published twice? I myself am interested in the distinctively unliberal aspects of Jefferson's thought. His proposal, found in his proposed Virginia Constitution, that all freeholders (or some such construction), not be debarred the use of arms in their own lands and tenements, sounds awfully Harringtonian, as does the lessened property requirements found in that proposed Constitution. Unfortunately, as you well know, Jefferson's papers and library went up in flames at Shadwell around 1770 (if I remember right). But one of the first things Jefferson did when rebuilding his library was purchase much of the William Byrd library, including Harrington's Oceana. Jefferson's library was sold to Congress, and then two-thirds again perished in flames. But there is a 1737 edition of Oceana still at the LOC -- is it Jefferson's? Does it contain annotations? I'm not expert enough in the field to even know if these questions have been addressed. Does anybody know?
Ralph E. Luker - 3/29/2003
Mr. Morgan, I was mocking myself with that comment. The 2 articles on Wills are fairly admiring of his work. I was then much under his influence, particularly _Nixon Agonistes_. The articles were done to exorcise his intellectual influence and outline my disagreements with his critique of liberalism. Yet, I still think _NA_ is a terrific book.
Adair's dissertation has now been published: Douglass Adair, _The Intellectual Origins of Jeffersonian Democracy: Republicanism, the Class Struggle, and the Virtuous Farmers._ Edited by Mark E. Yellin (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2000).
Benny Smith - 3/29/2003
"Everyone seems so quick to jump on Mr. Smith...but I see noone in this thread could answer the questions I brought up...very interesting.
You guys just stick around to insult people? We should rename this board the "History News Network of Very Bitter and Sarcastic Human Beings".
Kudos on your astute observations, Mr. Hindson. It’s almost like I have my own cult here on HNN, a devoted gaggle of gun huggers who hover near their computers, waiting for me to post my next bit of news so they can rush their "repudiations", misspellings and all, into cyberprint. As one who has observed the gun lobby for some time, I assure you that it’s not what they say that’s important, or how they say it, but how fast they say it. Perhaps, I must just acquiesce, adapt and organize this cult. I nominate Mr. Fought for treasurer since it’s beneficial to have someone well heeled in such a position to prevent temptation. Mr. Morgan can keep his stated rank as "fun poker" since I see no evidence that his talents might lie elsewhere. Of course, I must too nominate the tardy but dependable Mr. Haskins to a leadership position, since he appears to have become my own personal webstalker, an ironic twist for someone who claims to be an assistant prosecutor. Perhaps Mr. Williams will volunteer to be secretary since he has shown that vain know-it-all attitude that I’ve encountered in some secretarial types.
I have to admit, Mr. Hindson, that I’m at once flattered and flabbergasted by the attention I receive here. I do feel that my occasional contributions have sparked some useful discourse. At one time, gun lobby contributors here were urging their fellow posters to ignore my observations. That they now respond, and so quickly, shows that my arguments must have merit.
In closing, I’ll confess the deliberate tongue-in-cheek character of much of my response here. Hopefully, those reading this will take it in a kind spirit. I’m not aiming to push anybody’s buttons.
Richard Henry Morgan - 3/29/2003
"The tendency of some historians to self promotion, however, is one I find particularly distressing."
Distressing? You are a Puritan after all, Mr. Luker. Rather, I simply find it an amusing part of the human comedy. Oh, wait, I guess I'm the Puritan -- I didn't pick up on the irony the first time around.
When next I get myself to a research library I'll check out your Wills dissection. Wills does say, in his dedication, "To Douglass Adair, who got their first" (or words to that effect). That may not count as the most generous of thanks, but it is something. Perhaps at some point in the future, the cataloging of Adair's dissertation will drop the notation "unpublished dissertation"?
In any case, when it goes out tomorrow, I'll restrict myself to some of Wills' philological contortions vis-a-vis the Second Amendment. If it doesn't make it on HNN, I'll send you a copy. Let us know how the OAH meeting went.
Josh Greenland - 3/29/2003
"Everyone seems so quick to jump on Mr. Smith...but I see noone in this thread could answer the questions I brought up...very interesting."
It seems that someone did answer some of them:
http://hnn.us/comments/9731.html
There has been a lot of discussion of the various erroneous part of Bellesiles book on a few different boards, including the Bellesiles colloquy on the Chronicle of Higher Education site, Clayton Cramer's site and this site. I have seen someone debunk Bellesiles' assertion that firearms were expensive in the colonies on one of these sites. But I don't remember who or where and I feel no obligation to find out. If you are serious about your questions, why don't you do a little research before demanding that others do research for you?
Ralph E. Luker - 3/29/2003
Mr. Morgan,
I'm looking forward to seeing what you've come up with on Garry Wills. It will be an especially smart piece of work if it manages to cite:
Ralph E. Luker, "Garry Wills and the New Debate Over the Declaration of Independence," Virginia Quarterly Review, LVI (Spring, l980), 244-26l; and
Ralph E. Luker, "The Lost World of Garry Wills," South Atlantic Quarterly, LXIX (Winter, l980), l-l6.
The tendency of some historians to self promotion, however, is one I find particularly distressing.
Richard Henry Morgan - 3/29/2003
Good answer, Mr. Luker. The Benny Smith quote you offer does share two problems: the clunky metaphor of a an orgy that dies, and the assertion without evidence (one might even say contrary to evidence) that the anti-Bellesiles rhetoric is dying off. I was thinking more along the lines of the quick and easy and thoughtless jump in the wider quote from East Anglia studying Bellesiles, to the assertion that Bellesiles' theses "will be presented and discussed in centers of higher learning throughout the world" -- but that's precisely the breathless sort of copy one would expect from a PR source, or from a Soft Skull sales brochure. I really had no idea that East Anglia had such influence -- I'll have to rearrange my mental map of educational and scholarly excellence.
Actually, East Anglia is a hotbed of climatological research. And the Guardian, for what it is worth, says East Anglia has the best American Studies program in Great Britain. The section BS mentions is run by DJ Mulloy and, as one might expect, the readings show a certain tendency. Bellesiles' article gets play, and Garry Wills' bad book A Necessary Evil and his equally bad NYRB article are also listed (complete with a misspelling of his name) -- critical reading skills among some faculty probably need a little tweaking.
American exceptionalism is more assumed than explained, with no treatment of the roots of American attitudesa in English history and politics: no mention of James Harrington's Oceana, the commonwealthmen, the country and opposition whigs. No historical examination of the roots of American Studies in, say, James Harvey Robinson's Presidential Address. And no Henry Nash Smith, etc.
Tell me, Mr. Luker, should I be very naughty and send in my Wills piece now to HNN, just in time for the OAH convention? And send a copy to an East Anglia bulletin board? I'm feeling very wicked, and I could show up at the OAH meeting merely to point out that, though Paul Finkelman even cites William Grayson's letter denouncing Madison's proposals as ignoring structural proposals, he doesn't point out that Grayson quite explicitly referred to Madison's proposals as dealing with solely individual liberties -- an oversight, no doubt!! Nah, I'll stay at home. That's what God invented publishing for. Have as good a time as you can, and keep up the good humor.
Ralph E. Luker - 3/29/2003
Mr. Morgan, I nominate this passage from Mr. Smith's post as the most problemmatic:
"As the orgy of anti-Bellesiles rhetoric from the gun lobby and right wing zealots dies, ..."
Some Bellesiles critics never die, to paraphrase General McArthur, ...
Hope to see some of you fellas at the OAH convention next week.
Matthew Hindson - 3/29/2003
Everyone seems so quick to jump on Mr. Smith...but I see noone in this thread could answer the questions I brought up...very interesting.
You guys just stick around to insult people? We should rename this board the "History News Network of Very Bitter and Sarcastic Human Beings".
Dave LaCourse - 3/28/2003
Mr. Baldridge, I could not agree more with you.
Since Mr. Bellesiles and his article and book are still being studied, quoted and cited, it is important to keep asking groups like the OAH and others to review the merits of Bellesiles' work, and not wash their hands of this issue under the guise of ‘we didn’t know any better at the time’ so Bellesiles gets to keep the award.
And this includes discussing what is proper "process" for reviewing his work. We don't want blood, as Mr. Luker once claimed, but the truth.
The question remains, "Does Bellesiles deserve--ON THE MERITS OF HIS WORK--the OAH award based on what is known TODAY?"
My last response to Mr. Luker covers this very point. Available here:
http://hnn.us/comments/9941.html
Samuel Browning - 3/28/2003
Note to self: Do not allow Benny's writing to push one's buttons. I am writing to take back my just delivered comment concerning Bellesiles and intellectual auto erotism. In retrospect I think it was a bit too tasteless for public consumption.
Samuel Browning
Samuel Browning - 3/28/2003
Hi Benny:
How is the weather in England this weekend? By the way Bellesiles was the first person I've ever seen who succeeded at an intellectual self lynching or perhaps it would be more accurate to say intellectual auto eroticism. See any good book by Roy Hazelwood for a discussion of the latter.
Best wishes
Samuel Browning
Richard Henry Morgan - 3/28/2003
"As the orgy of anti-Bellesiles rhetoric from the gun lobby and right wing zealots dies, it is apparent that the theses advanced in Bellesile's Arming America, however controversial they may be, will be presented and discussed in centers of higher learning throughout the world."
Listen up, children. Today we're going to discuss the methodological error of small sample bias, which in another era went by the name of "the fallacy of hasty generalization". I direct you to the statement above. Later, we will address the methodological "problems" of Michael Bellesiles' work, to include the lack of population and sample size statements, the omission of contradicting data, and the citation of non-existent archival materials. But first, which of you can spot the problem with the quoted passage above? Anyone? Anyone? (damn, I wish I had a job at a top univeristy, devoid of dullards, rather than here at East Anglia)
Josh Greenland - 3/28/2003
"The University of East Anglia near London, England takes a fair amount of pride in its diversity with 1,200 international students enrolled from 100 countries worldwide. With a total enrollment of 13,000, students are offered a choice of nearly 300 courses ranging from Environmental Sciences to World Art and Museology. Among the Spring 2003 offerings is the class "Introduction to American Studies," which is relevant to those following the Bellesiles affair. One of the weekly sections being covered is "Americans, Guns and Violence" which asks the question, "What accounts for America's apparent love affair with the gun?" Heading a list of suggested reading material is the Journal of American History article "The Origin of the Gun Culture in the United States." by Michael Bellesiles."
Benny, how did you find out about this? Could you give us a source of information for this news item?
Frank A. Baldridge - 3/28/2003
Actually Beeny, I feel that you have really helped to substantuate the fear and loathing I and others have expressed in regards to Bellesiles, his "Gun Cult" article, and the Journal of American History. Hope Dr. Luker is tuned in. Thanks.
Frank A. Baldridge - 3/28/2003
Benny Baby! It is great to hear that "The Marksman" and "Low Cal" are allied in their endeavors. Let us all hope that they are both soon in the same, very small, boat on the international high seas. What a reality show, The Ship of Conniving Fools. Hope "Low Cal" brings his "unblicking eye" and appitite. Mayby "The Markman" will wish he had a gun. Maybe you should go with them. Please excuse my misspellings, very long day.
Jerry Brennan - 3/28/2003
After a lengthy staff meeting, the parodists of http://www.theonion.com threw in the towell and conceded that they could not out-parody the self parodies of Bellesiles cultist Benny Smith. "Parodying flat earthers is one thing, but Bellesiles cultists are so detached from reality that we can't concoct a way to appear less realistic", said one theonion.com staffer.
John G. Fought - 3/28/2003
Well, HALLELULIA, Mr. Smith! Is this were B is teaching now? By the way, early next month I'll be the invited guest at a college historiography class session that has been assigned to read Arming America and several other items. I think I can promise you this one won't be a gospel sing-along, though.
Benny Smith - 3/28/2003
The University of East Anglia near London, England takes a fair amount of pride in its diversity with 1,200 international students enrolled from 100 countries worldwide. With a total enrollment of 13,000, students are offered a choice of nearly 300 courses ranging from Environmental Sciences to World Art and Museology. Among the Spring 2003 offerings is the class "Introduction to American Studies," which is relevant to those following the Bellesiles affair. One of the weekly sections being covered is "Americans, Guns and Violence" which asks the question, "What accounts for America's apparent love affair with the gun?" Heading a list of suggested reading material is the Journal of American History article "The Origin of the Gun Culture in the United States." by Michael Bellesiles.
As the orgy of anti-Bellesiles rhetoric from the gun lobby and right wing zealots dies, it is apparent that the theses advanced in Bellesile's Arming America, however controversial they may be, will be presented and discussed in centers of higher learning throughout the world. Witness the international reception being given Michael Moore's biting documentary Bowling for Columbine which has earned high honors for turning the unblinking eye of the camera onto this nation's peculiar attraction to firearms. With what's going on in Iraq, curiosity over how our gun culture evolved will be strong. Certainly, Bellesile's Arming America will provide a resource for students. It is refreshing to see that, despite the gun lobby's efforts towards censorship and intellectual lynching here in the United States, Bellesile's works are gaining acceptance from a larger audience.
Dave LaCourse - 3/26/2003
Mr. Luker,
I have been away for over a week and have not had a chance to respond.
As for your "gross exaggeration never adds weight to your argument. It undermines it" comment, you are certainly correct to a point. However, the truth is that Bellesiles still has hard-core supporters, and is being republished. Therefore, questioning the merits of his work remain valid, and not an attempt to get "blood". Just another exaggeration, I guess.
I am still wondering if you believe that Mr. Bellesiles deserves the remaining award, or any others he had for that matter?
As for my OAH comments on having them review his work on the merits--it appears that this is could actually benefit Bellesiles--IF his work is possible to salvage at all. It is amazing to me that Mr. Bellesiles has not attempted to have any group like OAH attempt to rebuild his reputation by looking at all of his book.
That is also why I was surprised by the ‘too late to do anything’ way they handled his award--especially after claiming to be willing to continue to debate his work AND the controversy surrounding it.
Compare the two quotes available here:
http://www.oah.org/pubs/nl/2003feb/formwalt.html?emtm0203e
"Although the case appears to be closed for many observers, the Bellesiles matter, like many historical problems, is not a simple matter of determining unprofessional conduct, condemning it, and moving on. As professional historians, we offer our readers, students, and clients a complex understanding of the past, often with inherent tensions. Why should this case be any different? ... We have an obligation to deal with ambiguity and tension in this matter and not simply wash our hands of it."
Sounds like they are serious about getting to the truth, but they aren't really going to review the merits of his work as an organization as seen here.
"After lengthy discussion, the board decided not to rescind the prize noting that the decisions of the organization to award a prize or publish an article are based on the best information available at that time."
Sorry, Mr. Luker, but I can't believe that that kind of process you keep talking about supporting involves the washing of the hands-type 'we didn't know any better at the time' defense. In this case, it may more accurately be called the 'can't change the past, as it is history' defense.
Yes. I know that OAH will keep talking about the Bellesiles debate, but talk is cheap. Mr. Bellesiles will keep an award regardless of the new evidence available. Awards are different than a previously published work, and are removed all the time in more trivial areas. Remember Milli Vanilli?
The key point to me is that OAH deliberately will not say how the work of Mr. Bellesiles would fair "based on the best information available" TODAY.
I have a big problem with this for two reasons 1) If Mr. Weiner and a few others are correct, Bellesiles should have his name cleared for all but the probate records and misquotes or 2) If Mr. Bellesiles was wrong in too many areas (far beyond those admitted points)--then having him keep an award tarnishes everyone who earned the same award both before and after him. That is why the Columbia took away their Bancroft award.
People deserve the truth. Is Bellesiles’ earlier work worthy of the award today or not? Perhaps the slippery way they worded and conducted their non-revoking says it all. But that leaves Mr. Bellesiles with another non-endorsement that we don't know if he deserved this time or not.
While I am aware that you "do not tell the Organization of American Historians what to do", I am curious if the 'didn't know in time defense' is a valid one in your mind.
So I have to ask, Mr. Luker, was the OAH process one you support? Or should the actual merits and evidence be considered in a proper review process?
Dave LaCourse - 3/25/2003
Lott Responds to critics here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8021-2003Mar21.html
Just an FYI.
Dave
Richard Henry Morgan - 3/24/2003
In his open letter to President Bush, Michael Moore said that Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and their like, got their ideas for the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution from the French during their stays in Paris. Unfortunately for "Professor" Moore, Jefferson wrote the Declaration (to the extent he wrote it) before he went to Paris, and he was in Paris when the Cosntitution was written by people other than him. I'd have to conclude that a command of elementary facts is not exactly Moore's forte.
Bryan Haskins - 3/24/2003
“The hateful ridicule posted by Mr. Haskins?” The first time our paths crossed here, Mr. Smith, I recall your immediate response was to attack me by suggesting that I was ignoring my professional duties. In the posts that followed, you consistently refused to acknowledge any of the criticism I leveled at either Bellesiles or Arming America. Instead, you chose to repeatedly assail me with unsubstantiated, sneering comments about my supposed work habits. Now I could have responded by saying (with an Eddie Murphy voice over): “You cut me deep, Shrek, you cut me real deep just now.” Yet, I felt then and still feel now that it would have been cowardly for me to hide from a debate with you under the fictional guise of your having wounded my self-esteem.
Nevertheless, I acknowledge your claim that I have somehow harmed you with my rhetoric. Here then, is my response to your claim: If the uncomfortable breeze you are now feeling has caused you to become suddenly aware of the many holes in your theory, then perhaps now is the time to second guess your strategy of lobbing stones at me from within your too-fragile glass house. If you feel that I have harmed you with such rhetoric, then I would suggest you adjust your tolerance meter down a few notches from its current hyper-sensitive setting. It was never my intent to shame you with rhetoric that either you or anyone else would find offensive.
I sought to engage you in debate here because I originally thought I had found a man who not only could write well but was willing to use his talents defending Arming America. Indeed, many moons ago you passionately argued that the theory contained in Arming America should be the focus of this site (rather than what you derided as personal attacks on Bellesiles). “Very well then,” I said to myself, and I chose to accept your offer to discuss the thesis of Bellesiles’ work. Six times, Mr. Smith, have I knocked on the bathroom door and asked you to either go or get off the pot, and each time you have chosen to crawl out of the window instead. I have taken every path my poor wit has allowed me to entice you to open up that door and discuss what you believe the real issue should be. I have joked with you in a humorous tone. I have gently reminded you when you ignored my offers. I have offered a detailed and fair-minded format for discussion here. I have exposed my private e-mail address as an alternative forum for discussion. All of these efforts have come to naught.
I wish you were not so suspicious, Mr. Smith. I did not lay hidden traps for you. I merely sought to draw your considerable time and effort away from your strategy of “victimization defense.” In the beginning, you may have really thought that your portrayal of Bellesiles as a victim would operate to shield him from an inquiry into his misdeeds (like the San Francisco records and Lindgren e-mail issues you still refuse to acknowledge). Yet even you must now realize that labeling every person or entity who dares criticize Bellesiles as a deluded, biased, and hateful gun nut has served merely to harden the resolve of his critics in addition to having them rebuke you for your inability to address the very issue you once derided us for ignoring. You are a slippery fish, Mr. Smith, and I confess that I have proven unable to weave a net with a mesh fine enough to lure or drag you into a debate over the validity of Arming America’s thesis. I still believe that it would have proven to be a tremendous learning experience for us both, and I am truly sorry for having driven you into silence on this issue.
Don Williams - 3/24/2003
In my opinion, you have not discussed "matters like peer review and due process" so much as you have made contorted justifications for the (continuing) failure of the historical profession to subject Arming America to extensive peer review and correct the case files of US vs Emerson and Silveira v Lochyer.
Your disclaimers of expertise surprise me. After all, I'm not asking you to discuss a major complex topic like Beard's economic interpretation of the Constitution -- I simply noting that your "peer review process " has still not addressed many instances in Arming America in which , in my opinion, Bellesiles' assertions are contradicted by the primary sources.
To engage in abstract philosophical musings without addressing the specific facts of a matter is a ludicrous act ridiculed by Aristophanes over 2500 years ago. Should we build you a basket --suspended from a high tree-- for your retirement?
Surely you, as a historian, are capable of checking a citation -- or has academia's "educated incapacity" grown so unchecked that you are convinced that you cannot perform such a minor task?
Too bad Aristophanes is no longer around --he could (and would) have written a hilarious satire on how the postmodernist professional historical community addressed the Bellesiles affair.
I can even imagine a hysterically funny character called Mr Luker.
On the off chance that you have never read "Clouds", I enclose
an online reference: http://classics.mit.edu/Aristophanes/clouds.html
In the meantime, I leave you to "traversing the air and contemplating the sun". I need to go and find a box of matches.
Frank A. Baldridge - 3/23/2003
Well, he also lied his fat bogus butt off on Oprah, and she loved it. No doubt he will win big on Oscar night. Maybe Martin Sheen will ask him to be in his next war movie.
Ralph E. Luker - 3/23/2003
Look. I explained to you and others many months ago that I am no expert in constitutional law, probate records, military history, or gun manufacture in America. If you want to discuss those matters, discuss them with someone else. I have reserved my discussion to matters like peer review and due process. It is irrelevant to accuse me of refusing to discuss the other matters with you because I don't have anything to say to you about them. It doesn't even seem to end matters by saying to you: yes, you are correct, I do not intend to discuss constitutional law, probate records, military history, or gun manufacture in America because I have no expertise in those areas. Got it?
Don Williams - 3/23/2003
IMO, you show similar behavior --posting for almost a year on this subject but still showing the same unwillingness to discuss specific sections of Arming America --the same unwillingness to compare Bellesiles' claims against the historical record, the same unwillingness to debate based on the facts -- all while denouncing Arming America's critics.
Unlike Benny Smith , however, you feel compelled to continually proclaim the virtue of professional historians while at the same time you mysteriously seem unable to address my specific indictments or to offer specific facts in their defense.
Ralph E. Luker - 3/23/2003
Have it your way. There was no "scotch verdict" in any meaningful legal sense. Your inclinations to conspiracy thinking and ad hominem attack make discussions of these issues with you odious and tedious. Can we end with that?
Don Williams - 3/23/2003
In my opinion, Mr Luker's tightly repressed prejudices are creating a "reality-distortion field" around him -- a field which makes him unable to read even the simplest English. I did not "predict " that Emory would reach a Scotch verdict --in the sense of that being the only outcome Emory was likely to reach. I merely indicated that that a Scotch verdict was one of several possible outcomes Emory might reach, depending on how they focused the investigation ( I did not state the obvious --that it would also depend on how merciful Emory's leadership was feeling.)
I find it interesting that the Bellesiles investigation largely focused on the probate study results. Admittedly, that was what James Lindgren focused on , probably because Bellesiles' probate assertions were such a prominent aspect of the Chicago Kent articles/lines of legal reasoning. (Gun control advocates --and Bellesiles defenders like Nation writer Jan Wiener -- who argue that the probate results only make up a few pages in Arming America fail to note that Bellesiles' probate results were the base on which much of the Chicago Kent arguments were built.)
However, the exclusive focus on the probate study has had the convenient?? effect of diverting attention away from the other major flaws in Arming America-- fron Clayton Cramer's criticisms , for example.
Mr Luker's argument that "legally defensible" was an Emory motivation seems unconvincing -- Emory's defense against a Bellesiles' lawsuit would have been BOLSTERED if they had shown an extensive pattern throughout Arming America of distortions, falsifications, misuse of sources,etc. It is easy to argue that any one offense is an error, not intentional fraud. Showing a pattern of multiple offenses is a much stronger case.
I'm not talking about criticizing Bellesiles reasoning, either. I'm talking about comparing Bellesiles description of the militia's actions at the Battle of Cowpens with commander Daniel Morgan's report to Congress. I talking about comparing Bellesiles's description of the Battle of New Orleans (and his statements of what Andrew Jackson reported) with Andrew Jackson's actual letters. I talking about comparing Bellesiles' description of the militia's performance at the Battle of Concord/Lexington with the view of the British commander who fought the American militia.
On H-OIEAHC, JL Bell has taken issue on several occasions with some details in my Arming America criticisms on. Yet even JL Bell remarked on the curious way in which academia and official media coverage has focused on the probate study issue. See http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list;=h-oieahc&month;=0302&week;=a&msg;=v2qvDqvHMEOJ1mXHtnipzA&user;=&pw;=
--some excerpts:
************
Prof Kevin Hardwick wrote:
records. As the most quantitative element of Bellesile's study, this part
of his study has drawn far more attention than it merits, because it
occupies a relatively minor role in his argument.>>
I've also been surprised by this phenomenon, though not surprised that
probate inventories got more attention than ARMING AMERICA's lack of
definition of a "gun culture." The latter is, after all, a challenging
historiographical argument that doesn't lend itself to conclusions of right
or wrong, as many in the public and media might like.
What surprises me about the ultimate focus on probate records is how
researchers critical of ARMING AMERICA had earlier announced other faults
in the book (which I won't rehearse). Many of those faults involved
comparing quotations with sources or documenting unacknowledged events, not
the lengthy task of sampling inventories.
So how did the probate records discrepancy catch people's attention when
other faults hadn't? Why did the Emory committee's investigation focus
almost entirely on how Michael Bellesiles researched probate inventories?
(All five questions the committee dealt with involve probate records. One
section of Appendix B deals with travel narratives, but the main report
doesn't mention that topic.)
*************
In their quest for attention, I think Mr. Cramer and some other early
critics of the book were hampered probably in not being academics, and
certainly in being associated with gun-ownership groups. (Mr Cramer
published his earliest reports through the website of one such group,
though apparently after or while trying more standard scholarly channels.)
For the media, such critics didn't look like that mythical "unbiased
authority."
Nevertheless, on review at least a good portion of those early criticisms
from outside academe turned out to be valid--but they've since been
overshadowed by the probate inventories, especially in the "official"
scholarly record of articles and reports. This seems to be an example in
which the content of the message was less influential than the messenger
and the channel. But I suspect historians of historiography looking back on
the ARMING AMERICA debate will find that the academic record is not only
less full and less passionate but also less informative than open forums
like H-Net and HNN.
Josh Greenland - 3/23/2003
Here are a couple of articles asserting that Michael Moore butchered the truth including small pieces of recent history in his award-winning documentary Bowling for Columbine:
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110003233
Josh Greenland - 3/23/2003
"The NYT cartoon does not equate Lott with Bellesiles."
Actually, Tim, it does. As well as dehumanizing gun rights supporters (turning them into little "saturday night specials"). It's interesting to me that you are so intensely defensive of something that is just an editorial, after all.
"This seems to be a standard line amongst Lott defenders. They accuse anyone who observes the obvious parallels betwenn the Lott and Bellesiles cases of equating Lott with Bellesiles."
Anyone, or just you, and a few others who actually are trying to equate Bellesiles and Lott?
"As for discussing Lott here, you were the one who raised the issue here. I find it astonishing that you would portray my joining a discussion of Lott as defending Bellesiles."
Give us a break, Tim. This is a Bellesiles discussion, and you've been lurking here long before I posted that first Lott item.
"Bellesiles lied about research results. This is not acceptable. You seem to be arguing that Lott is OK as long as you can show that he didn't lie as much as Bellesiles."
Lott's lying is not a good thing, but it isn't clear to me that he's misrepresenting the research that he has done. That may be proved down the road, but it hasn't been yet.
I will assert that the lying that we know about from Lott so far isn't vaguely as bad as Bellesiles' lying.
Which leads me back to something that I've been wondering: what are you doing here on a Bellesiles forum? Are you here because you're really interested in Bellesiles's research misconduct, or because you are a gun control advocate who is upset that "your side lost one" with Bellesiles?
And if I haven't asked before, what do you think of Bellesiles' book? Do you think he only lied where Emory's external committee said he did, or do you think that almost everything in the book is a lie? I'm interested in your views on this, because you really do spend a lot of time watching this site, and posting in it, for the few people you might hope to reach, especially now that this forum is no longer directly referenced on HNN's home page.
Ralph E. Luker - 3/23/2003
Ahh ... Williams predicted a Scotch verdict. Fight says Emory wanted a Scotch verdict. Neither acknowledges that the sequence of events and consequences of the inquiry proved them both wrong. Sigh. Obviously, no amount of evidence would convince those who can't see the light.
Don Williams - 3/23/2003
I am saddened to contradict Mr Luker, but I never said that I thought Emory wanted a Scotch verdict -- merely that Emory might reach one if a certain event occurred. What I specifically said, in my August 25, 2002 post (see list of messages below) was the following:
-----------------
"...My guess, and it is just a guess, is that Emory received information on 22 August which was not addressed by their panel and the information pointed out something that the panel had not realized. Hence, the need for further study. My guess is that the new info to Robert Paul came from a surprising and most unlikely source. (not me, by the way) 21 4930
In my opinion, if Emory is focusing solely on narrow specific charges, then Emory may reach a Scotch verdict "not proven"
because of an inability to prove something was not a stupid mistake. If Emory's investigation is more broad , then Bellesiles, in my opinion, will have difficult problems with criticisms not mentioned in the media yet
I'll hold further comment until Emory's verdict in a few months."
---------
The number at the end of the paragraph above, "21 4930" was a pointer to my Feb 14 2002, 9:30 comment on the Bellesiles Colloquy at the Chronicle of Higher Education site -- the comment that provided an alternative explanation for how Bellesiles might have erred in his probate study. If Emory focused solely on the narrow issue of the probate study, then I could see how they could have been hung up on PROVING Bellesiles deliberately "cooked the data" vice making an error.
I eventually explained this to Mr Luker on December 18 (see message list below) after he made several forlorn appeals over the August - December timeframe.
What I didn't explain to Mr Luker was who I thought might have talked with Robert Paul. I will leave that question to Mr Luker's formidable intellect.
John G. Fought - 3/23/2003
If the 'clear retrospective evidence' of Emory's intention is the narrowness of the charge to the outside committee, your interpretation of it is clear only to you. I and some others here have already argued an opposite interpretation of the significance of the narrow charge. If there is some additional and unequivocal evidence on this point, other than the opinions of the elect, please identify it. The narrow finding has certainly been a godsend to B's defenders, who carry on as if there were no other documented incriminating findings published elsewhere, in WMQ, for example. It was clever of me to subvert almost all of them, wasn't it?
Samuel Browning - 3/22/2003
Hi Benny:
You actually consider Bryan Haskin's letters to be "hateful"? A reasonable person would consider them to contain usually polite requests to debate the merits of the subject at hand. I would be interested to hear the answer if Ralph Luker asked Mr. Bellesiles whether he was acquainted with you, but because of Mr. Bellesiles previous dishonesty I would not rely on that answer. Please review http://historynewsnetwork.org/articles/article.html?id=678 which contains James Lindgren's refutation of Bellesiles insinuation that Lindgren manufactured e-mails in Bellesiles name. Secondly please read http://historynewsnetwork.org/articles/article.html?id=742 which is a good review of the contradictions in Michael's claims that "the flood ate his notepads". And of course there was the matter of not being able to tell a consistant story about those mysterious San Francisco probate records and I could go on but why provide more specifics when you never respond to them? I would also be interested where and when Clayton Cramer proclaimed himself as an internet scholar, but why let facts get in the way of a good rant? :) Certainly the accuracy of Clayton's historical work is much more reliable then that of Mr. Bellesiles. The literary merits of Bellesiles is not in question, he is a clever, and cleverly misleading writer. The historical accuracy of his book is at issue. Your refusal to address issues continues to puzzle me and leads me to consider your identity a relevant issue. I stand by my original contention that there is a substantial possibility that you are Mr. Bellesiles, a member of his immediate family or a close associate.
Ralph E. Luker - 3/22/2003
Professor Past Tense:
Since you long for specifics, the notion, first promilgated by Williams and shared here by you, that Emory University academic administration wanted a "scotch verdict" is "wrong-headed." The retrospective evidence seems quite clear on that. Otherwise, it would have given the external review committee a quite different set of instructions, which would have led the committee to a "scotch verdict" report. Essentially, I think, Mr. Morgan agrees with me about that.
I would be honored to accept the Bellesiles Prize, but only if you concurrently accept the Mary Rosh Award, given by John Lott in drag.
Richard Henry Morgan - 3/22/2003
I've yet to fully subscribe to Don Williams' theory of a conscious campaign, but I would point out one fact not noted (or I should say, that I haven't seen noted). Bogus, of Chicago-Kent fame, appears as a signatory to an Emerson case amicus appeal brief by David Yassky (formerly of Brooklyn Law, and now a member of the staff of Charles Schumer, a passionate advocate of gun control). Bogus himself was counsel for a gun control advocacy group. And guess what? At least two of the contributors to the later Chicago-Kent issue, though never having published before in the field of Second Amendment studies, were also signatories of the previous Yassky brief. The brief apparently proved to be a potent recruiting ground by Bogus for collectivist "scholarship". And we now know the mechanisms of the Chicago-Kent review -- an outside party (in this case Bogus) proposes, organizes, and edits the edition.
The funny thing about the Yassky brief is that it was filed in the first week of September, yet it cites the Fall issue of Constitutional Commentary, which I have otherwise seen cited as the October issue. You don't think Yassky would cite an unpublished work in a federal brief, do you? Do I think that a former counsel for a gun-control group (Bogus) could have the foresight to prime the pump with bad scholarship in anticipation of further Emerson appeals and a Silveira appeal? Sure. And if you read Bogus' contribution to the Chicago-Kent issue you will see an article devoid of fairness, balance, etc. -- in fact a model of partisan special pleading (the advocate often trumps the analyst in law professors).
The twistings and turnings of Rakove on the Bellesiles matter also make clear that something other than a pure concern for scholarship was at work. And if you read Reinhardt's opinion in Silveira it looks remarkably like dictation -- you can only imagine my joy when he covered himself in glory by citing Bellesiles months after he had resigned. If this pattern keeps repeating itself it won't be long before I'm fully in Don's camp.
I've elsewhere compared unfavorably the mechanisms of retraction in the humanities with those in the sciences. I note there is no great rush to adopt stricter controls, nor any great interest by the profession in fixing a system of peer review so obviously deficient and prone to political abuse. More than once, without a single favorable nod, I have proposed that a published work carry, in the notes, the names of those peers who gave the work a favorable review for publication -- but nobody seems to want that much accountability. Nor have those who have provided favorable book reviews felt, for the most part, the need to retract. Here's something to chew on: at what point are the standards of a profession so lax that they longer deserve the title of 'professional standards'?
John G. Fought - 3/22/2003
In this post, Mr. Luker does not address anything Mr. Williams wrote in the post he replies to. If you doubt it, compare the two yourself. Luker makes up a number of preposterous assertions and attributes them to Williams, just so that he can scorn them. In dealing with me elsewhere here, he has brought this process close to perfection: I am 'wrong-headed'. That's it: no quotations, no bibliography. That's the end-point of his own cherished freedom of research and publication. This may be the right time to establish a Bellesiles Prize, to be awarded annually by its namesake and paid in Marks from the Weimar era. If Mr. Luker wins it unfairly, as an insider, that would be just right.
Remarc E. Notyalc - 3/22/2003
?
Don Williams - 3/22/2003
In my opinion, They both seem to show the same unyielding refusal to address the primary issue and the same stubborn refusal to discuss the specific errors in Arming America.
Pace Mr Luker, Arming America and it's JAH predecessor article were not merely academic articles tossed out into the marketplace of ideas. They were the primary basis for a strong campaign by a group of prominent historians to , in my opinion, overturn the Second Amendment in US vs Emerson.
Go and look at the number of citations to Bellesiles in the Chicago Kent articles -- I have not done a complete count but it looks to me like he is the most frequently cited source.
Perhaps Mr Luker could explain how Bellesiles 1996 JAH article and Arming America slid through the JAH peer review process so easily. Perhaps Mr Luker could explain why he feels OAH has no responsibility to correct the case files of US vs Emerson and Silveira v Lochyer, given the role OAH's Journal of American History played in bringing Bellesiles work into the public forum??
Don Williams - 3/22/2003
1) I never undertook to answer all of your questions-- some would require a bit of research. The ones I did/will address are as follows:
a) Re you question, "Were muskets of the time expensive, unwieldy and prone to break as the book makes out? " , I think the Brown Bess and Charleville muskets were formidable weapons for the time --equivalent to today's shotguns. They were pretty robust. You can see them by contacting a reenactment group and make your own judgment. Their powder pans were obviously vulnerable to rain but could be protected with greased leather covers in the rain. I hardly think the Colonies and the French king would have went to the huge expense and effort of smuggling roughly 100,000 of them to America through the British Navy if they were worthless. (See http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list;=h-oieahc&month;=0302&week;=a&msg;=LplYLWmW5XBVFb6B9aYkYw&user;=&pw;=
) (If this link doesn't work, cut and paste it into your browsers address bar and hit enter )
Relative to military muskets, The hunting rifles were lighter and slower to reload but with longer range -- leading to sniper tactics by mounted infantry vice large massed formations. I will note that jamming of the ball due to powder buildup --mentioned by Bellesiles --could be handled by using a backup supply of slightly undersized balls.
b)Re "Is there any evidence against Bellesiles claim that 50,000 militia should have fought at Washington during the War of 1812, but only some 10,000 showed up and of that they ended up fleeing to 5,000 British marines? "
The battle of Washington was not the militia's finest hour. I will note that when the British army subsequently went on to Baltimore, they were defeated, their commander was killed and the British withdrew to their ships in Chesapeake Bay and left.
If the British had not retreated, they would have been surrounded and destroyed. By 1812, the United States had more than sufficient guns and men. The problem they had was in transporting men and materials quickly to meet an invading force.
Andrew Jackson was able to block/defeat the huge British invasion of New Orleans (over 12,000 men) , for example, because several thousand militiamen rode rafts down the Mississippi from Tennessee/Kentucky -- covering about 1000 miles in 30 days. About 6000 muskets were shipped to New Orleans from Pittsburg down the Ohi0-Mississippi Rivers but most arrived late--due to incompetence/corruption in the Army headquarters in Pittsburg (they shipped the muskets vis slow,cheap flatboats instead of via faster, more expensive steamboats--and pocketed the cost savings. Andrew Jackson was not amused.)
My ancestor, William Williams of Surry County, North Carolina, was called up for militia service to deal with the British invasion in the Chesapeake Bay (the Expedition which burned Washington). However, the British retreated before the large North Carolina militia could reach Norfolk Virginia.
c) Re "Was the battle of New Orleans really determined by artillery and had little to do with any marksmanship? " -- the answer is No. A balanced judgment --supported by primary sources -- is that the combined effect of cannon and musket/rifle fire destroyed the British advance and I make an argument that the musket/riflefire was somewhat more effective than the cannons.
See http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list;=h-oieahc&month;=0207&week;=c&msg;=PkrdkLRPluSObiMgdhAKPw&user;=&pw;=
In my opinion, Bellesiles' depiction of the militia in the Battle of Cowpens is also false and misleading -- see http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list;=h-oieahc&month;=0204&week;=b&msg;=ZaiNCJUF5zlXeniXAg0xzA&user;=&pw;=
d)Re "The whiskey rebellion seemed to give clear point that ordinary citizens weren’t supposed to arm themselves and protest government tyranny,"
--it did nothing of the kind. The rebels had some popular support in the Pennsylvania and elsewhere. Plus the government the rebels were opposing was not a "tyranny" -- it was a legitimate government exercising clearly defined powers per the Constitution.
The primary point is that, in the 225 years since this country's founding, federal regulation/bans of firearm possession by the general population has never been accepted. That's why gun control advocates have to engaged in such tortured sophistry when they talk about the Founders and the the Constitution.
e) Re "Historians in general, specifically a doctor at Ohio State University tend to think some of our past knowledge about guns is flawed. He brings up a number of good evidence and support. "
what Saul Cornell brings up is his opinion. I already noted earlier why I think that opinion is hardly unbiased.
A few commnents re Mr Cornell's article to which you link:
(1) It is well understood that state governments restricted firearms possession by some people. One, many people (women, Afro-Americans, Indians, etc) were not considered citizens.
Two, in the early decades, the Bill of Rights did not apply to the state governments , only to the federal government. The Fourteenth Amendment, however, made the Bill of Rights binding on state governments as well. Surely Mr Cornell understands this. Surely Mr Cornell is also aware of other sections of the Constitution which refute the "Second Amendment as a state government right to resist federal government power" interpretation. For example, the clause which prohibits state governments from possessing warships and military units not approved by Congress.
(2) Mr Cornell's narrative doesn't mention the Newburgh Conspiracy -- the 1783 plot among some officers of the Continental Army to overthrow Congress.
I think the purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure an armed militia that could protect Congress from coercion by a rogue clique in the Executive Branch --the Branch which commands the federal military. Obviously , this militia would be commanded by State Governors and officers appointed by the state governments.
See
http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list;=h-oieahc&month;=0205&week;=b&msg;=NRdnf9Xb81oNjBY%2b/Xd6oA&user;=&pw;=
and
http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list;=h-oieahc&month;=0206&week;=a&msg;=aN/jQb0GM4%2bsreh2LgfPNQ&user;=&pw;=
Ralph E. Luker - 3/22/2003
Good Lord, Williams. Given your inclination to conspiracy theories, you will soon have me responsible for preventing the _JAH_ from addressing its responsibility for the 1996 article.
There is _something_ in the way you interpret these issues which ignores freedom of research and inquiry and freedom of press and publication. I do not believe that it is the responsibility of the historical profession in general to track down and banish from existence all error of any sort whatsoever which may or may not have been published by Michael Bellesiles and/or anyone ever associated with him in the years leading up to the Emory report. Williams appears to believe that it is.
Real freedom of research and inquiry, of press and publication, is a messy business which is likely occasionally to yield flawed product, just as free markets are, and just as free elections are likely occasionally to yield flawed office holders. The kind of excruciating examination of "correctness" Williams calls for is likely to lead to an academic marketplace which is no longer free.
Don Williams - 3/22/2003
1) The whole point of Arming America criticism was NOT what punishment or reward, if any, to levy on Bellesiles. That issue was a matter for his employer, Emory, to eventually decide. Plus other historians would, of course, decide whether they would trust and cite his scholarship in the future.
2)Rather, the MAIN question was whether history had been falsified in the course of a campaign to overturn a major Constitutional right and bulwark in legal cases going to federal appeals courts and to the Supreme Court. If so, the historical profession obviously had responsibility for reviewing and correcting the history contained within Arming America, within the Carl Bogus book containing the Chicago Kent articles which extensively cite Bellesiles, and within the case files (briefs) for US vs Emerson and Silveira v Lochyer.
By correcting I don't mean modifying the original text -- I mean publishing an extensive, specific review of Bellesiles' work which could be cited within the case files as an alert to future scholars and to lawyers consulting those precedent-setting cases.
3) In my earliest H-OIEAHC postings, I asked whether Arming America was a political argument or history. I saw the distinction as important -- the adversarial process in law and politics accepts deceitful, misleading sophistry as legitimate tactics , with refutation left to the opponent.
History, and other academic fields,on the other hand, have a completely different process -- in which all participants are expected to put an unwavering committment to objective truth as the primary, overriding goal. For that reason, the citizens of this country place much more faith and trust in academic writing than in arguments made by lawyers and politicians. In the past, the academy has justified that trust by enforcing the standards.
( I'm speaking of History, not of American Studies )
Note that any academician is entitled to, and should be encouraged to state his political opinion on public issues, but he should distinguish between that opinion and research results. I began criticizing Arming America after Bellesiles indicated, in his letter in the November 2001 OAH newsletter,that Arming America was history and not advocacy of a position on gun control.
Arming America has shown that the academy is no longer willing to enforce standards via peer review. Initially, the excuse was that discussion needed to be halted until Emory's process finished --out of fairness to Bellesiles. Mr Luker forcibly made that argument here at HNN in an article he published last summer. At the time, I told him that suppression of discussion could harm Bellesiles' case as much as help it. I assume that my H-OIEAHC January article demonstrated the proof of my assertion to him.
Subsequent to Bellesiles' resignation, however, the professional historical community has, in my opinion, continued to drag it's feet and to make grudging, token gestures. The March issue of OAH's Journal of American History still has no explanation of why it published Bellesiles' 1996 article, of why it gave Bellesiles the Binkley-Stephenson award, and of why it published the highly favorable review of Arming America in 2000. I have already spoken on Formwalt's questionable choice of chairmen for the Bellesiles "chatroom" in Memphis on April 6. In a recent post, Mr Luker disclaimed influence over OAH's actions but my understanding from his posts a few months ago was that Formwalt appointed Paul Finkelman at Mr Luker's recommendation.
I still do not see articles from historians addressing several questionable areas of Arming America -- Bellesiles' depiction of the early militias in specific battles , for example.
"The biggest one big" - 3/22/2003
Matt: Why don't you try true/false or multipul guess? Then we will all have time to play.
Richard Henry Morgan - 3/22/2003
Looking over my last post I realize there's a vagueness on one point. I wish to make clear that I don't think 'process' and 'proceeding' are synonymous. Still, it would be unfair to say that O'Malley definitively labelled the committee's work ("proceeding") as unfair, etc., as his use of 'proceeding' may have been merely illustrative. My curiosity persists however: does he think Bellesiles was railroaded by an unfair proceeding?
Richard Henry Morgan - 3/22/2003
I'd have to conclude, Mr. Luker, that the words are O'Malley's, and that the thoughts of Mr. Fought aren't relevant to O'Malley's meaning, any more than that 'process' and 'proceeding' are synonymous. O'Malley's point about rancor is, of course, true, but finds expression only in the second iteration -- in the first, the fault is laid on only one side. Personally, I'm not all that offended by rancor, but were I of that mind, I wouldn't add to it by the use of 'witch hunt'.
As to due process, your comment about "forms" would seem to create a contrast with "substance", perhaps suggesting (in conjunction with your views about the likely effects of scope) that Bellesiles has been railroaded. I hope I'm being fair to your views. If not, let me know. But as the words were O'Malley's, I'm rather more curious as to whether he thinks Bellesiles was railroaded by the committee, or by Emory. I admire your ability as defense counsel, but in this case I feel O'Malley has to be represented pro se.
Ralph E. Luker - 3/22/2003
Professor Fought's opinion is wrong-headed as usual, but that's just my opinion.
Ralph E. Luker - 3/22/2003
Mr. Morgan,
You may, of course, be correct, tho I do not see how the narrow definition of Emory's charge to the committee was in any sense a "gift" by Emory to Bellesiles. A gift to the committee, yes, surely. A gift to itself, undoubtedly. A gift to Bellesiles? I doubt it. So do Bellesiles and Wiener. I don't dispute whether there are flaws, serious flaws, grave flaws or many grave flaws in the text that were outside the committee's purview. My point remains that Emory focussed the committee's attention on those parts of the text which it believed stood the greatest chance of meeting a legal challenge to the committee's and the university's conclusions. I don't see how that can be interpreted as a "gift" to Bellesiles.
I am inclined to agree with Professor O'Malley that lynching probably did kill some people who were guilty. The point is that, guilty or not, its victims were denied due process. I do believe that Michael was given the forms of due process -- but it they were observed in an atmosphere shaped by a howling lynch mob. (Read the posts here, for example, about "pig roasts." When you recall that the bodies of some lynching victims were actually burned after lynching, the disgrace of such posts is the more obvious. Merrit, I'm talking about you!)
As for your observation about what constitutes a "proceeding," re-read John Fought's claim here that his research on the 1996 article is a part of the "process."
John G. Fought - 3/22/2003
It's true you were only expressing your opinion in describing Bellesiles as the "victim of a partisan witch hunt", followed up by a vague allusion to lynching, and then by characterizing the discussion of the case on HNN as "unduly partisan and rancorous". My opinion, however, based on the evidence I just cited, is that this hardly lifts you above the level of Mr. Smith. Not an enviable position, particulary for someone who apparently sees himself as inoffensive and, by implication at least, nonpartisan.
I must have a look at your work someday :-):-):-):-)
Incidentally, I agree with Mr. Morgan that Bellesiles would have fared worse in proportion to the breadth of the inquiry into Arming America, and I have believed all along that Emory was hoping for a Scotch verdict. It nearly got one, too: had B not admitted that he deliberately left out two years of probate records from one location because they showed "disproportionately" many guns, I suspect that the report would have officially been judged 'inconclusive'. Just my opinion.
Richard Henry Morgan - 3/22/2003
I think you're mostly right, Mr. Luker. Where I would most disagree is with your intuition expressed thusly:
"Undoubtedly, had Michael Bellesiles been paying the committee to render a judgment, he would have defined the task more broadly."
I don't share the confidence you express with 'undoubtedly', as I think the narrow scope was a gift by Emory to Bellesiles, to the committee, and to itself, and I don't believe Bellesiles' case would be improved by expanding the scope of the inquiry -- in fact, quite the opposite.
We may also disagree as to whether or not "witch hunt" is purely descriptive or falls within the scope of "mean spirited". But then, perhaps I presume. Professor O'Malley's point did, however, quickly climb from the specific to the general -- that Bellesiles was a victim, and that people may be guilty and yet be victim of an unfair "proceeding". The claim is Professor O'Malley's, and the choice of words would seem to (though without the force of necessity) implicate Emory and the committee, as nothing said about Bellesiles on this forum or anywhere else outside the committee's report would usually be deemed a 'proceeding'. But then again, the general claim may have been offered as merely illustrative, not analytic. Again, I "nit pick", but I hope not unfairly. After all, it's just an opinion. Right?
Ralph E. Luker - 3/22/2003
I think Professor O'Malley's point is well taken. There is really no need to be snide here -- even if you happen to disagree with his opinions.
On a question raised by Mr. Morgan, my reasonably well informed intuition tells me that Emory University officials had made a tentative decision, prior to the work of the external review committee, that _Arming America_ was so flawed that Michael Bellesiles had to go. I believe that the University asked the committee to do a narrow examination of the book because it believed that the work was most decisively flawed on the issues which it asked the committee to look into and that it did so because it wanted the committee's report to focus on that body of evidence it would lay out which was most likely to be considered decisive in the event of a law suit.
Thus, Jon Wiener is essentially correct in complaining of the narrow scope of the external review committee's work, tho' not in his ad hominem attacks on the members of the committee. Emory University was paying them to produce a report which would sustain its a priori judgment in any legal test. Undoubtedly, had Michael Bellesiles been paying the committee to render a judgment, he would have defined the task more broadly. All of that, I remind you, puts in a somewhat remarkable light all of the pro-gunners' attacks on Emory University prior to the release of the external review committee's report and Michael's resignation from its faculty.
Mike O'Malley - 3/21/2003
Mr Fought, you are indeed right that I presented nothing more than my opinion. I stated it quite clearly as such, in fact, using the words "my own opinion is that." It is offered as my opinion and nothing more--emminently dismissable since I offered, as you noticed, no evidence to support it.
I don't see how I am bossing anything, in any of my posts. I stated a few matters of fact about the NRA/GMU law school question, and gave the evidence that I have never been personally pressured nor seen evidence of pressuring. I then gave my opinion about the the Bellesiles case while also giving my opinion that the discussion in this forum is unduly partisan and rancorous. This hardly makes me a boss.
I then got two replies, both of which critiqued my initial post with what seemed to me to be mean spirited quibbles: examples, in fact, of the rancorous tone of this discussion, from both sides of the question. I wrote a post pointing this out called "two cases in point," and this post seems to have irked you. I challenged no one's veracity, called no one's evidence into question: I simply objected, rather mildly, to being nit-picked.
Again, there is no bossing going on. Clio is fine Mr. Fought. Conclude what you wish.
Matt Hindson - 3/21/2003
No offense but you didn't answer the vast majority of my questions :)
The biggest one big should there have been 50,000 troops and they didn't even really show up...the ones that did lost to 5,000 british who were outnumbered 2 to 1.
Richard Henry Morgan - 3/21/2003
"Mr Morgan quibbles that it is not possible to be both guilty and the victim of a witch hunt, since, he says, a witch hunt involves only the persecution of the innocent"
To quibble further, I neither wrote nor implied "only". I thought that would be not too difficult to grasp, even on this board. In any case, I would have thought that the best objection to a witchhunt would be that witches don't in fact exist. But your point is well taken nevertheless. I too would be curious to hear to what extent this lack of fairness extended to the Emory investigation, if at all.
Editor - 3/21/2003
test 5
This post should appear directly below:
Subject: Benny Smith again refuses to discuss the facts , IMO
Posted By: Don Williams
Date Posted: March 20, 2003, 11:02 PM
Editor - 3/21/2003
Test 4
Subject: Benny Smith again refuses to discuss the facts , IMO
Posted By: Don Williams
Date Posted: March 20, 2003, 11:02 PM
Editor - 3/21/2003
test 3 This post should appear directly below
Subject: RE: Once again, for Mr. Browning
Posted By: Editor
Date Posted: March 21, 2003, 1:03 PM
Editor - 3/21/2003
Test 2 this post is in response to my Test 1 post and should appear directly below it. That is, directly below:
Subject: RE: Once again, for Mr. Browning
Posted By: Editor
Date Posted: March 21, 2003, 12:54 PM
Test 2 This should appear directly below "Once again, for Mr. Browning" March 20, 2003, 10:40 PM
Editor - 3/21/2003
Test 2 This should appear directly below "Once again, for Mr. Browning" March 20, 2003, 10:40 PM
John G. Fought - 3/21/2003
Greetings, Mr. O'Malley, and congratulations: I see that Clio has died and left you boss. But you have not given us anything more than your own opinion that Bellesiles is the victim of an irregular, unfair, or illegal proceeding -- a witch hunt as you define it. Do you refer to specific postings here? If so, please identify them. Is your characterization supposed to fit Mr. Morgan's postings? Feel free to check them for accuracy, and to offer the apology that will then be in order. Do you refer to Emory's proceedings in this way? If so, please specify what aspects deviated from Emory's published policies, or in what ways those policies are irregular, unfair, or illegal. I have followed it carefully, and I concluded that it was as narrowly focused as it could be and still be called an inquiry. In the absence of identified and verifiable evidence to support your statement, I will conclude that you are simply upset because the outcome of the affair does not please you, and so you wish to blame your discomfort on those who caught Bellesiles cheating. Aren't people who cheat in their published scholarship supposed to be caught and to pay a price for it? Poor Clio. I'm going to miss her.
Mike O'malley - 3/21/2003
I seem to have managed to irritate both sides! Mr. Smith wonders how i can use the term "local" regarding the NRA, Mr Morgan quibbles that it is not possible to be both guilty and the victim of a witch hunt, since, he says, a witch hunt involves only the persecution of the innocent
Bravo to you both, for your consistency, and for demonstrating part of my point.
Mr.Smith, by local I meant that the NRA's headquarters are in Northern VA and I presume they have personal contact with people at the law school, through the informal networks that wealthy conservatives use. I don't know this for a fact, though, because again my point was that HNN, CHNM, the GMU History department, and as far as I know the GMU College of Arts and Sciences have no connection the NRA's gift to the Law School and feel no pressure as a result of it.
Mr. Morgan, it is posssible to be both guilty and the victim of an irregular, unfailr, or illegal proceeding. For example, OJ Simpson was probably guilty, AND the victim of a police attempt to frame him. There may have been many victims of lynching who were in fact guilty. It is not a difficult idea to grasp, except, perhaps, on this forum.
Peter Boucher - 3/21/2003
"...self-proclaimed internet scholar Clayton Cramer believes..."
That rhetoric sounds an awful lot like Mary Rosh's "...Lambert and Lindgren should slink away..."
You have to give Benny one point though, it would CERTAINLY clear this right up if someone would just ask Bellesiles if he knows any anonymous internet posters. :-)
Don Williams - 3/21/2003
Amazing how Benny Smith can engage in a discussion for almost a year and still refuse to provide facts or logic to justify his position.
In my opinion, he is like a Middle Eastern religious fanatic -- he cannot explain why he supports a cause , he seems to feel a deep unease at the very idea of questioning or explaining his faith -- all he knows is that he's found something greater than himself and he evidently does not care if it might be a lie.
What a contemptible state for an adult human being. How cowardly --to flee from a defense of one's stated beliefs.
Which is what he's doing, IMO. Anyone can post a message -- an compose an unsupported slur. But it takes courage to step into a public arena and defend one's position/reasoning.
Even 12 years olds muster up the bravery to do so, on occasion. But some people remain forever stuck in an infantile mind-- unable to function as an adult and eternally seeking some surrogate daddy -- some father substitute who will do the child's thinking for him.
Benny Smith - 3/21/2003
Since I have already said that I do not know Bellesiles personally, certainly you yourself can ask Mr. Luker to investigate with the Arming America author himself to see if he has some association with me. Of course, I believe that Mr. Luker would regard that sort of exercise as absurd as I do, even without the dramatics of your monetary pledge. And since you say you have read the hateful ridicule posted by Mr. Haskins, the assistant prosecuting attorney, then you know why I regard this site as a poor forum for scholarly debate on the literary merits of Bellesile's book. And why George Mason University history professor Mr. O'Malley describes the atmosphere here as nasty and uncivil. Better that you should join with members of the gun lobby who have expressed their interest in composing a gun culture history of their own, certainly a more civil response than throwing brickbats here. Although your self-proclaimed internet scholar Clayton Cramer believes such an effort is doomed by the rampant plague of anti-gun sentiment in the publishing industry, John Fought has pledged financial support. If his comments regarding wealth on this thread are any indication, you may be able to skip the publishing houses anyway and self-publish the book at the printer of your choice.
Benny Smith - 3/21/2003
Once again, I am struck by the lack of appropriate response to the questions I have raised here, this time regarding the NRA's donation of $1 million to buy a professorship at George Mason University. Apparently, nobody can argue that this generous type of NRA grant is common. Or that the History News Network has NOT been overtly biased towards the gun lobby view of the Bellesiles affair. Or even that the timing of the grant, coming as it did only a couple short months after Bellesile's resignation from Emory University, is pure coincidence. The usual fun-poking is more creative, with talk of goat entrails and even an Al Yankovich imitation. Yet I am somewhat confused over George Mason University history instructor Mike O'Malley's description of the NRA as a "local" outfit, since this $1 million grant was announced by national NRA chief executive officer Wayne LaPierre. And Mr. O'Malley does not comment on the ethics of accepting a $1 million grant for a professorship from a group whose annual convention includes its titular head holding up a gun and shouting, "From my cold, dead hands." If Mr. O'Malley believes the atmosphere here at HNN is uncivil, he should study other venues where the gun lobby is active. During the debate over a particularly controversial gun law in Illinois last week, threats and racial epithets against legislative proponents of the law were so extreme that extra police were called in for protection and the NRA issued an apology. One can only wonder what Bellesiles went through in the witch hunt that Mr. O'Malley believes the evidence portrays. By the way, Mr. O'Malley, "B" is the correct answer in your response.
Don Williams - 3/21/2003
1) Saul Cornell, at Ohio State, is not --in my opinion -- an
objective source. He was one of the historians who brought
Bellesiles history into the Second Amendment legal arena by citing
Bellesiles in his Constitutional Commentary article --the same issue which carried articles by Bellesiles and Don Higginbotham questioning the Second Amendment as an individual right. These Commentary articles , in turn , were cited by the Prosecutor and by gun control amicus curiae (supporting briefs) in the Second Amendment case US vs Emerson. Mr Cornell also joined Bellesiles and Don Higginbotham in presenting arguements against the Second Amendment as an "individual right" at a February 2000 Symposium -- sponsored by Handgun Control and with the avowed purpose of challenging "the gun lobby's on-going campaign of misinformation about the Second Amendment."
See para 7-d and 7-g at http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list;=h-oieahc&month;=0301&week;=e&msg;=5%2b8SY5LwwM8pBlTCpRhMcA&user;=&pw;=
2)As I explain in the above article, Bellesiles' Arming America was part of a strong campaign by some prominent historians to influence the federal appeals courts in a major Second Amendment case. Much of the funding for this effort appears to me to have came from a major advocate of gun control -- the Joyce Foundation in Chicago.
My understanding is that: a) the Joyce Foundation has close to $1 Billion in assets b) the Joyce enjoys a hefty income from those assets and c) the Joyce's annual income is tax free because the Joyce states on it's Income tax return that it does not engage in political lobbying.
3) The Joyce Foundation'w web site has a list of it's "Gun Violence" grants -- go to http://www.joycefdn.org/programs/gunviolence/gunviolencemain-fs.html
and click on "Grants" at the top of the page. Among the 2002
grants is almost $400,000 given to "Ohio State University Foundation, Department of History, Columbus, OH " for
"the creation of a comprehensive Second Amendment Research Center." And who, according to a Joyce Foundation release, will be one of the two directors???? Who is that masked man??
Ta Da! Saul Cornell.
See http://www.joycefdn.org/articles/gunarticles/0301rightbalance.html
4) While I think , in general, that academia's sense of intellectual integrity today is best summed up by the saying "He whose bread I eat his song I sing", it is not my intent to question Mr Cornell's integity -- merely to point out that he's ..er.. been around the track a few times. I mention this to
establish context.
I do acknowledge that Ad hominem cracks are worthless -- if Mr Cornell has facts to support his opinions, then we are required to acknowledge and address them whenever he gets around to presenting them.
5) I do think historical evidence discredits the "state's right" argument of the "objective right" group. If you are interested, I will explain why. I oppose the "objective right" interpretation not to score political points but because I think the historians tinkering with the Constitution don't understand what they are doing -- again, I will explain why on request.
6) In my opinion, Bellesiles' depiction of the early militias is false and misleading -- I explained why in H-OIEAHC posts on the Battles of Cowpens and New Orleans. If you are interested, let me know and I will give URLs. Another poster on this forum, John G Fought , showed years ago that Bellesiles' depiction of the Battle of Concord/Lexington was refuted by Fischer's book on that battle. Either John or I can provide you with the URL to John's article on request.
Matthew Hindson - 3/20/2003
I am neither pro-gun nor anti-gun; I was raised in a community where some people hunted and practices while others did not. Anyone including myself did not particularly care either way. That being said I was raised to believe that every American always owned a dependable musket, as such, the book was extraordinarily fascinating, and I felt, accurate.
Of course, the recent controversy has raised many doubts to huge chunks of what the book contains. I personally think Bellesiles screwed up and saw the connections in his head and got ahead of himself in some areas. I think he unintentionally did thesis-driven research, which of course is not the way to do groundbreaking research. Honestly though I can think of tons of people on both sides of the issue who do the same thing everyday. It is just to call him out and say, “that wasn’t objective history and it has flaws”, which should be insult enough for him. These personal attacks seem completely ludicrous and stain the academic community. I would hate to see a professor have controversial historical research never publish his book because he was worried everyone would personally attack him. Remember one of the key developments of history is from people who just randomly ask new questions, I should everyone would dread silencing new and accurate information. No one ever knows if there research is 100% accurate, we must exercise caution.
Enough with the lecture :)
Much of the material in Arming America seems to be in question, but there is other unchallenged material. Please, critics and supporters of Bellesiles answer these key questions:
Did critics of America, who hated our country, never make any comments on our gun culture?
Were muskets of the time expensive, unwieldy and prone to break as the book makes out?
Were Indians more involved with guns than regular Americans? (thus validating his claim that Indians were the first gun culture)
Is there any evidence against Bellesiles claim that 50,000 militia should have fought at Washington during the War of 1812, but only some 10,000 showed up and of that they ended up fleeing to 5,000 British marines?
Did historical accounts of the time really observe troops discarding firearms en masse after the end of the Revolutionary war? If not what evidence challenges such an outlook?
Was the battle of New Orleans really determined by artillery and had little to do with any marksmanship?
Was the Mexican War really determined by superior artillery and organization? (which is instead of superior marksmanship.)
Other questions he rose that other historians are raising:
The whiskey rebellion seemed to give clear point that ordinary citizens weren’t supposed to arm themselves and protest government tyranny, it was looked down by everyone. They didn’t even have arms yet they were farmers, not urban citizens. They also were put down by an expensive militia process.
Historians in general, specifically a doctor at Ohio State University tend to think some of our past knowledge about guns is flawed. He brings up a number of good evidence and support.
http://www.acs.ohio-state.edu/researchnews/archive/2ndamend.htm
I encourage your comments, preferably with actually evidence.
Tim Lambert - 3/20/2003
On my blog I try to link to everything relevant to the Lott affair. For example, I link to posts by Lott apologists like Glenn Reynolds. It is nonsense to suppose that I am "championing" everything I link to. The NYT cartoon does not equate Lott with Bellesiles. This seems to be a standard line amongst Lott defenders. They accuse anyone who observes the obvious parallels betwenn the Lott and Bellesiles cases of equating Lott with Bellesiles.
As for discussing Lott here, you were the one who raised the issue here. I find it astonishing that you would portray my joining a discussion of Lott as defending Bellesiles.
Bellesiles lied about research results. This is not acceptable. You seem to be arguing that Lott is OK as long as you can show that he didn't lie as much as Bellesiles.
Samuel Browning - 3/20/2003
Hi Mr Smith:
Perhaps I should clarify why I believe that you may be Michael Bellesiles, a member of his family, or a close relative, and therefore your actual identity is relevant. I've been reading your postings(and everyone else's) on this site for months. Your correspondence with others including Bryan Haskins showed the unique trait of never discussing the specifics of M. Bellesiles's errors and misrepresentations while blasting the gun lobby and right wing zealots. I had to ask myself why would anyone with a good vocabulary, and therefore presumably a fair amount of intelligence, refuse to discuss details while making such statements? A likely answer is that you are either someone who is closely tied to Bellesiles who has not read much on the details of the controversy, or Bellesiles himself who has "learned" a lesson about the danger of providing explicit answers to critics who could then deconstruct them.
I don't know what Mr. Fought considers $50 to amount to, but but if Ralph Luker (with whom I have not shared this idea) would be willing to be your contact person, I think we could be assured that your identity would not fall into the hands of the gun lobby, unless of course you are who I suspect you may be. If you would prefer however to discuss the substance of the charges against Bellesiles I would recommend that you look at htt://www.claytoncramer.com/columbia.18apr01.htm and examine the first of Clayton's case studies. On page 63 of his book Bellesiles wrote matter of factly that in 1630 the 1000 people in the Massachusetts Bay Colony had 100 firearms. The record was misrepresented in two ways. The date of the document was changed from 1628 to 1630 when the Colony was up and running, and a list of military provisions mysteriously became a gun census. it would be possible I suppose for Bellesiles to make either mistake, but together they show strong circumstantial evidence of bad faith since the erronous date makes the second error more 'believable'.
Now as far as the right wing attempting to "control" what we read and hear about issues, I think you are concluding that all of us who are pro-second amendment are linked to say, Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coultier. Personally I'm a liberal democrat but while the NRA is a strong lobby, I do not see any evidence that it is attempting to silence the opposition, I understand there is also at least one study out there which shows the Brady campaign receives more favorable press coverage then the NRA in the media. Since freedom includes the right to be free of insipid government regulations that unnecessarily limit constitutional rights, I think most people who write on this site are interested in preserving personal liberties. The freedom of the media is more threatened by the corporate mergers and cost cutting in their profession then any overt ideological assault. Please write again soon :)
Samuel Browning
Richard Henry Morgan - 3/19/2003
Let's see if I have this right. Bellesiles "is guilty of some serious fabrication", AND "he has been the victim of a partisan witch hunt". Fiddler On the Roof is having a revival I see. And I had thought a witchhunt took in innocent victims. Break out your copies of Malleus Maleficarum.
Frank A. Baldridge - 3/19/2003
I have no specific information on HCI and Bellesiles at hand, nor would I know how to get it. By Brady Bunch I meant the anti-gun crowd. To be honest, I was making an assumption, and without specific information on all the sources of Bellesiles funding my comment was inappropriate. I apologize. What I should have said was the NRA should be free to give money to whomever they want just like the Brady Bunch is free to give money to whomever they want. It is my understanding that professors get chairs due to their ability to get grants, and the sources of grant monies received by Bellesiles might be interesting. But still, private groups should still be free to give to whomever. With public monies, it is a different story.
Actually, I am pretty fuzzy, or naive, on the whole grant thing (I guess its kept pretty much a secret until one gets a doctorate). Recently I was somewhat taken back to learn another individual got NEH grants to publish a for-profit book, but then I realized rice farmers here get more from the government subsidity than they do for the rice. Oh well.
Josh Greenland - 3/19/2003
" Benny: If that is the case, NRA should be free to give money to whomever it wants, just like the Brady Bunch gave money to Bellesiles."
Frank, when and how did HCI/Brady Center give money to Bellesiles?
Josh Greenland - 3/19/2003
"I am not trying to portray Lott as being as heinous a liar as Bellesiles."
Oh? Pardon me and any others who might think that that is what you are trying to do. After all, you championed the NYT editorial cartoon here on HNN and on your Lott blog that equated Lott and Bellesiles, and you are arguing strenuously for Lott's substantial or total unreliability on a Bellesiles forum. Based on the few people you'd reach here, that isn't a good use of time, unless Bellesiles is somehow important to what you are trying to do with Lott.
"I really don't care who is the bigger liar out of Lott and Bellesiles. What is important is that no amount of lying about research results is acceptable."
From this, would I be right in concluding that your main reason for checking this Bellesiles forum is a principled interest in cases of research misconduct? If so, what do you think of Bellesiles and his situation? You may have offered an opinion on Bellesiles at some point, but I don't ever remember seeing one under your name.
Frank A. Baldridge - 3/19/2003
Benny: If that is the case, NRA should be free togive money to whomever it wants, just like the Brady Bunch gave money to Bellesiles. Ever think of joining the Sierra Club, and taking a hike!
Thomas Gunn - 3/19/2003
03-18-03 ~1935
Bryan,
I have personally felt the wrath of the HNN censors. I am intellectually unable to describe the incident with out reoffending the sensibilities of those originally offended.
It was a four letter word. The editor red lined the word and sent me a nice email explaining his position. For my part I appologized to him and the board for my lapse in good judgement.
thomas
Mike O'Malley - 3/18/2003
Well I'm on the Advisory Board of the Center for History and New Media (CHNM), which maintains the servers on which HNN resides. I also teach in the history dept. at GMU.
The NRA IS a local outfit and they have always been interested in GMU's famously, or notoriously, conservative law school. The gift to the law school has no impact on the center for history and new media, or, as far as I can tell, on the College of Arts and Sciences, the unit which partially funds CHNM. (CHNM's other operating funds, the bulk of its budget, in fact, come from grants). The Law School is twenty miles away in Arlington, on a different campus, and we have no contact with them.
The College of Arts and Sciences at GMU funds HNN (again, only partially) because it contributes to the mission of the Center for History and New Media, which is to explore the uses of digital media in the teaching, research and writing of history. I have never been pressured in any way on this issue, not, to my knowledge, has anyone else. In addition, CHNM exercises no control over Rick Shenkman, the editor of HNN.
In fact, CHNM's servers have been hacked into and attacked, apparently by supporters of Daniel Pipes who feel HNN has been unduly biased towards Palestinians.
For what it's worth, I have personally avoided the debate over Belliles here because of the nasty and partisan incivility. I conclude that A: Bellisles is guilty of some serious fabrication, and B: he has been the victim of a partisan witch hunt. But the point is, neither I nor anyone else at CHNM have exercised any influence over what appears on HNN, despite the fact that what appears on HNN has cost a great deal of time and trouble in terms of defending the server from attack
Richard Henry Morgan - 3/18/2003
"Rather than serve as an oracle for academics and historians, HNN, at least in the Bellesiles matter, has served as a right wing chatroom where the gun lobby and its allies have engaged in an orgy of mud-slinging, name-calling and "fun-poking" directed against Bellesiles and his supporters."
Interesting metaphor "oracle". Traditionally, the oracle was a medium for the pronouncements of the appropriate god -- at Delphi, Apollo. Personally, I wouldn't analogize the opinions of academics and historians to the pronouncements of gods, as I don't think that academics and historians stand in any special relationship to the divine. Somehow, though its not clear just how, the "gun lobby" (that vague yet ominous abstract beast) has apparently invaded the temple, and taken over from the gods and their chosen media, academics and historians. Is nothing sacred anymore? Look at the bright side. We no longer have to worry about what to do with all those goat entrails.
I would say, rather, that the problem has been that many major institutions of academia have acted precisely as oracles -- repeating (publishing) uncritically what was told them. No, real history, like philosophy, was born in the criticism of the mythos, not in its propagation by the Pythia. I salute HNN, which has acted as a critical forum that brought to bear the efforts of Clayton Cramer (whose article was held back for two years, and then not published, in service to the OAH's agenda) and others on the fictions propagated by Bellesiles and his equally intellectually dishonest supporters. History has proven Cramer right. Not NRA funding. Not the machinations of that perfidious, ubiquitous, amorphous thing called "the gun lobby". History.
Bryan Haskins - 3/18/2003
Perhaps I should have phrased my question clearer. My question should have asked whether there was anyone out there still willing to conduct "spin control" for Bellesiles by excusing or defending his behavior. Lott’s problems have certainly shifted some of the focus here away from Bellesiles, and there is of course a suspicion that the current troubles Lott is facing arise from some motive to “payback” to the gun lobby for Bellesiles’ downfall. I personally doubt whether this is true. I also feel that it distracts from the real issue, which is the search for the truth. I don’t care whether Mr. Lambert, for example, is or is not biased. The question for me is whether what he has said about Lott is accurate, and, if so, how were these issues missed in Lott’s case. Although Mr. Greenland raises an interesting premise, I don't think that either Mr. Lambert or Mr. Luker have actively defended Bellesiles in the sense my question was intended.
I guess what I am looking for is a replacement Mr. Smith. In our last conversation, he grew truculent and left me in possession of the field, and I fear that my gentle probing of his views drove him to silence. Mr. Smith may think I'm lying as I say this, but I did learn a lot from our discussions, and I am saddened that he refuses to talk with me anymore. I am merely hoping that there is someone else out there willing to defend Bellesiles who is also willing to talk about it here.
Bryan Haskins - 3/18/2003
I am pleased to see you return, Mr. Smith. Once again you raise an interesting issue: Is the HNN now part of the vast right wing gun nut conspiracy bent on destroying Bellesiles? Obviously you believe it to be, although you offer nothing more than mere conjecture and innuendo to support your argument. Yet your lack of citing supporting evidence for your argument is not what triggered this response. Unfortunately, I must instead take issue with your laying the blame for what individuals post here at the feet of the HNN:
“Rather than serve as an oracle for academics and historians, HNN, at least in the Bellesiles matter, has served as a right wing chatroom where the gun lobby and its allies have engaged in an orgy of mud-slinging, name-calling and "fun-poking" directed against Bellesiles and his supporters. The most hateful, hurtful rhetoric has been freely posted here under the sponsorship of HNN….”
Do you not understand that your quote amounts to an open attack on the HNN for allowing me to exercise my right of free speech? I had hoped you would agree with the premise that the internet is the essence of free speech. However, your attack on the HNN for allowing individuals to post views you do not agree with suggests your desire to have that organization act like your personal Big Brother. Do you really want the HNN to use a modified version of the “carnivore” program to weed out those whom you feel did not exercise a sufficient amount of politically correct thought control when composing their comments? Is it truly your desire to have, hidden somewhere within the bowels of the HNN’s Ministry of Truth, your distant relation Winston Smith reading and rectifying our comments before they are posted?
Many years ago Supreme Court justice Louis Brandeis gave us a prophetic warning: "Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding." Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 479 (1928) (dissenting opinion)
I understand, Mr. Smith, that your zealous defense of Bellesiles is well intentioned. Nevertheless, if speech is to remain free, then it cannot be censored merely because you do not agree with what is being said. Rather than attack the HNN because it has not censored views you disagree with, I think you should congratulate the organization for allowing all of us (including yourself) to express our candid and differing views regarding the Bellesiles saga. I see no evidence that the HNN has attempted to influence the content of comments posted on this site, and I fail to see how you can blame the HNN for the fact that no one else is willing to risk their reputations by vouching for Bellesiles’ credibility here.
Benny Smith - 3/18/2003
For me to have to produce a list of relatives and associates to share, presumably with a stranger trusted by members of the gun lobby, so that they can somehow cross-check this against a similar list of known associates and relatives of Michael Bellesiles--fifty dollars seems an extraordinarily paltry sum. I doubt whether Mr. Fought with his standards would even stoop to gather in a fifty dollar bill off the street. I'll tell you for free, Mr. Browning, that I'm not Bellesiles or anyone known to him. In fact, I consider Bellesiles only a small player in a much larger drama where the gun lobby and right wing zealots seek to control what you and I read and hear about issues that concern them. It is the issue of freedom that concerns me most.
Benny Smith - 3/18/2003
Mr. Fought has an opinion that a "mere million dollars" gift from the NRA to George Mason University is of minor consequence. Perhaps, to Mr. Fought's comfortable standards as a Yale-trained linguist, one million dollars is a trifling sum. However, I spoke with someone who has processed such gifts for a larger university for 25 years and he says that $1 million gifts are unusual. And a $1 million grant to buy a professorship is a very strange and remarkable animal indeed. Again I ask, what is the NRA expecting for its money? Or what has George Mason University already done to deserve such benefaction?
Josh Greenland - 3/18/2003
"The gun lobby’s gift to the sponsor of the History News Network should arouse suspicion among those in the academic community. The History News Network resides on George Mason’s server and George Mason University is prominently displayed and linked on this website, and throughout the investigation of Bellesiles, HNN here has been far less than objective in its treatment of the author of Arming America, the second edition of which is due to be published soon. Coincidence?"
What are you talking about? HNN just took Bellesiles off the hot seat.
John G. Fought - 3/17/2003
Oh, that's a good one, Squire.
I used to drive past the one in Springfield MA
every day, and didn't think to line it up with
its fellows. I did just notice yesterday that the
three buckshot in the traditional buck and ball
load for the .69 US musket were .31 diameter,
which I believe is exactly the same as today's
00 buckshot size. Things like that make me feel
all sentimental.
Frank A. Baldridge - 3/17/2003
Benny's back and the Gun Cult is in trouble.
(Hey la, hey la, Benny's back)
He's the only one who still believes Bellesiles' lies
(Hey la, hey la, Benny's back)
Now he claims the NRA's been spreading grants around
Look out now cause he's going after them
(Hey la, hey la, Benny's back)
The NRA's going to be sorry they were ever born
Cause Benny's completely clueless but he writes a lot
Now they're gonna get a beatin
(Aah-ooh, aah-ooh)
Wait and see.
Seriously, John G. Fought and others commenting on Bellesiles 1996 "Gun Cult" article might note the proliferation of shot towers in the U. S. during the Embargo Act. Try a google search for shot towers. Oh well, back to graduate studies in politically correct multiculturalism. Thanks for the break.
Ralph E. Luker - 3/16/2003
"we have "Benny Smith" and historian Jon Wiener running around claiming that all the critics of Bellesiles have no points and that Mr. Bellesiles is the best historian in the whole wide world."
Mr. LaCourse, gross exaggeration never adds weight to your argument. It undermines it.
"If you think Mr. Bellesiles was wronged, then have the OAH make a determination on the MERITS of his earlier work. Not the 'washing of the hands' type decision it appears they made."
Believe it or not, I do not tell the Organization of American Historians what to do. It has other members and a professional staff to give it direction.
Samuel Browning - 3/16/2003
Oops, donate, not "domate", but my offer still stands.
Samuel Browning - 3/16/2003
I have to admit John that I'm still partial to the theory that Benny is Michael Bellesiles, a member of his immediate family, or a close relative, at which point Benny's real identity would become relevant under the previously established John Lott/Mary Rosh rule. But I have an open mind on this so I'll make Benny an offer. I will eat crow and domate $50 to the Brady Campaign if Benny can prove to a neutral party, whom we agree upon, that he is not related to Bellesiles in the manner described above. What do you think Benny?
John G. Fought - 3/15/2003
Mr. Smith is not only unable to understand the Second Amendment but seems baffled by the First as well. A quick look at George Mason's website reveals that the endowed chair will go first to a law professor already on the faculty, one who already offers a seminar on the Second Amendment. This makes administrative sense, because the way endowments work, a mere million dollars won't pay for a whole salary. Usually only about 2% of an endowment's face value will be applied each year to the salary account. So this is like buying a share in a box at the stadium. I'm confident that the institution, which I have long admired, will not be corrupted very deeply at that price. Let me also note in passing that these comments are posted on HNN automatically, so even a notional person like the probably fictive Mr. Smith can put out even the stuff he writes without any editorial intervention or supervision. That's First Amendment rights for you, says I. Not at all like the database Mr. Smith supposedly administers, no doubt with an iron hand. For its own good, of course.
My own theory of Mr. Smith is that he's a disinformation operation created and run by an extreme right-wing militia group. There are probably four or five guys who animate him, with the help of a case of beer, a spell-checker, and a thesaurus. His recent absence probably coincides with a biker convention someplace in the Southwest. Any help on tracking this will be appreciated.
Ralph E. Luker - 3/15/2003
"Ralph Luker keeps insisting that we evil pro-gunners have taken enough "blood" from Bellesiles and should be satisfied by what has happened to him so far."
Professor Greenland appears to be so locked into his own assumptions that he can't quite read what people who may not agree with him have to say.
a) Except possibly when everyone but Professor Greenland understood that I was speaking in jest and even then I doubt it, I have never referred to "pro-gunners" as evil.
b) Professor Greenland takes the word "blood" from a question that I asked and still believe it is a legitimate one and makes it into a positive statement which he attributes to me.
Dave LaCourse - 3/15/2003
Mr. Luker,
I respectfully disagree that I want his "blood". While I am no fan of his, and disagree strenuously with his premise, I would gladly stop speaking on this issue if Mr. Bellesiles came clean, and admitted many of his key flaws. I have even posted that he should not be pursued to the ends of the earth IF this occurred.
However, Mr. Bellesiles still claims he did nothing wrong, that there are no major problems with the Travel Journals, key battle descriptions, etc, etc, etc outside of the probate records (which he says weren't that bad either!). In addition, we have "Benny Smith" and historian Jon Wiener running around claiming that all the critics of Bellesiles have no points and that Mr. Bellesiles is the best historian in the whole wide world.
With these facts still in play (no apology and remaining hard-core defenders), it is quite proper to ask if Mr. Bellesiles' first prize will (and should) be kept merely because OAH can claim 'we didn't know any better at the time' or whether a thorough review--beyond Emory's narrow focus (on his book)--should be conducted to either clear (although doubtful) or finally end this debate with a bad review.
So I must ask you, Mr. Luker, does Mr. Bellesiles deserve the award? Is the 'process' really over with the Soft-Skulled edition on the way?
If you think Mr. Bellesiles was wronged, then have the OAH make a determination on the MERITS of his earlier work. Not the 'washing of the hands' type decision it appears they made.
Another real point of my post was to bring this board properly back to Bellesiles. This dead horse is being republished, after all.
Ralph E. Luker - 3/15/2003
I'll ask Bellesiles if he mistakes what has happened for catnip.
Tim Lambert - 3/15/2003
Josh Greenland wrote: "Tim Lambert is making every effort to portray Lott as heinous a liar as Bellesiles, a position that would make Bellesiles seem like he isn't so bad after all."
I am not trying to portray Lott as being as heinous a liar as Bellesiles. Nor would a finding that Lott lied as much as Bellesiles somehow rehabilitate Bellesiles.
I really don't care who is the bigger liar out of Lott and Bellesiles. What is important is that no amount of lying about research results is acceptable.
Benny Smith - 3/15/2003
With the tempest surrounding Michael Bellesiles now abating, a small article in the Washington Times this week mentioned that the National Rifle Association has awarded a $1 million grant to George Mason University to establish a law professorship dedicated to the Second Amendment. The gun lobby’s gift to the sponsor of the History News Network should arouse suspicion among those in the academic community. The History News Network resides on George Mason’s server and George Mason University is prominently displayed and linked on this website, and throughout the investigation of Bellesiles, HNN here has been far less than objective in its treatment of the author of Arming America, the second edition of which is due to be published soon. Coincidence? Rather than serve as an oracle for academics and historians, HNN, at least in the Bellesiles matter, has served as a right wing chatroom where the gun lobby and its allies have engaged in an orgy of mud-slinging, name-calling and "fun-poking" directed against Bellesiles and his supporters. The most hateful, hurtful rhetoric has been freely posted here under the sponsorship of HNN and George Mason University. Even HNN’s own history of the Bellesiles affair has pandered to Bellesile’s critics. It would be difficult to find another forum on the internet, even among gun lobby websites, that has served so faithfully to unfairly discredit the former Emory University historian with gossip and innuendo. Even in its most recent contribution here, HNN briefly mentions a cartoon that it claims "ridicules" Bellesiles while declining to mention that the cartoon itself primarily lampoons John Lott, a recently discredited author and gun rights enthusiast. When universities allow political extremist groups to buy professorships to promote their cause, it betrays the hallowed halls of academia that they were built to protect and preserve. What does the NRA expect to get for its $1 million? What does George Mason expect itself by aligning itself with a right wing conservative group with such a dedicated following? As tax revenues for education shrink and our economy worsens, are universities going to continue to sell out to the rich and powerful to sustain their economic well-being? Could that be the reason that Emory and Columbia universities took the actions they did as well? Academic freedom should not be abused in such a manner.
Josh Greenland - 3/15/2003
"Finally, is anyone still defending/apologizing for Bellesiles here? It appears that “Bennie Smith” has gone silent. Is there anyone out there who will take up this fallen torch?"
Ralph Luker keeps insisting that we evil pro-gunners have taken enough "blood" from Bellesiles and should be satisfied by what has happened to him so far. And Tim Lambert is making every effort to portray Lott as heinous a liar as Bellesiles, a position that would make Bellesiles seem like he isn't so bad after all. It depends on what you mean by a defender.
Josh Greenland - 3/15/2003
"Landing on its feet may make no difference if a cat has landed in a snake-pit rather than a bed of catnip."
Mr. Laker, given that Bellesiles went immediately from one paid college teaching job in his field to another, given that his book was published by a new publisher perhaps as quickly as the new edition was to be printed by his old publisher, and given that he has kept the award given him by the OAH and that debate at OAH's next meeting will be controlled by his supporters, how is his situation more analogous to a snake-pit than a bed of catnip?
Ralph E. Luker - 3/14/2003
Mr. Mutschler,
I have no objection to John Fought's examination of the 1996 article. There are, undoubtedly, some things which can be learned from a close critical examination of it. It is important to keep in mind, however, that any close critical examination which is conducted of it now is inevitably done in the light of all the events and findings subsequent to the publication of the article. I agree with you that the story is one of a failed peer review process. It failed Bellesiles as much as, perhaps more than, it failed everyone else. Inevitably, I suspect, John will not have access to the peer review documents which could tell us a great deal. It would be interesting to know what the _JAH_'s policy in re evaluations of submitted articles is, i. e., whether they are archived or systematically trashed after a given period of time. It would be fairly rare for them to be of great historical interest. I do not know what its confidentiality stipulations may be.
Samuel Browning - 3/14/2003
I agree with Bryan Haskins, and if if Mr. Luker would be kind enough to pass on a suggestion to Mr. Bellesiles, I would argue that Bellesiles would do himself the most good at this point by removing all the clear errors or deliberate misrepresentations (insert one's preferred argument concerning intent here)from his revised text that others like Clayton Cramer have identified. It will not save his reputation on this site but it might limit the damage he does to himself in the future and will win more historians to his side.
Bryan Haskins - 3/14/2003
I applaud your discretion, Mr. Luker. The surest way to destroy a relationship you have with someone is to betray their confidence. Still, I would bet the substance of your talks is fascinating, and I envy your access to Bellesiles. I wish, for example, that I could ask him questions like: “If you could go back in time to research and write the book all over again, what would you do different to immunize yourself against the criticism you have received?” “Do you read what is posted here about you and your work?” “Do you have anything you would like to say to either your critics or supporters who have posted here?” I would dearly like to know what his answer would be to these questions.
I guess I find myself wishing to hear a lot more from Bellesiles about this controversy. I am not trying to suggest that he owes me any explanation for what he either has or has not done. Nor am I asking you to assume the burden of becoming his spokesman. This is just my own curiosity talking. If, Mr. Luker, there is anything in the future that Bellesiles tells you which he would not mind being made public, then I would certainly appreciate hearing about it here.
Bryan Haskins - 3/14/2003
Your tarred brush paints a rather wide swath, Mr. Lewis. I have not tried to defend Lott or his work. I have never read his work. I have, like Mr. Lambert, heard Lott’s findings repeated many times by those who seek to use them to justify their own views of gun control. I would not even be aware of the seriousness of the allegations against Lott if not for reading what Mr. Lambert has posted here. In that sense I would like to thank Mr. Lambert for bringing this issue to my attention.
Lest I “embarrass” myself before you, let me give you my own opinion of the Lott controversy: These allegations are serious enough that Mr. Lott should now bear the burden of providing satisfactory answers to them. I hope that he can. Yet, it appears increasingly unlikely that he will be able to do so. Like Bellesiles, Mr. Lott will find that with each new problem found with his work his burden of satisfying his critics increases.
In my opinion Bellesiles’ frantic attempts to salvage his work led him to lie about his research. Whatever the future holds for Mr. Lott, I hope that as he organizes his defense he will exercise sufficient self-restraint and avoid succumbing to the temptation of lying (as he has already done with the “something about Mary” issue). As with the Bellesiles saga, only time will tell.
I had originally objected to holding a discussion of Lott’s problems here on the grounds that this is a site dedicated to Bellesiles’ follies. I now admit that my objection was unfounded, however, and I am satisfied that there are enough issues linking the two problems to warrant a comparison here. In particular, I have a few troubling questions which arise from my own ignorance of the peer review process:
Is the burden imposed on an author to survive the “peer review” process consistent, or is that burden based on a sliding scale of proof which varies according to whether the premise of the book tracks with the reviewer’s own political ideology? (And, because I suspect that in reality it is a sliding scale) Are authors in the science of history able to manipulate the process to ensure that a review of their work will be conducted by peers who are known to be sympathetic with its underlying thesis?
I would certainly appreciate some comments upon these questions by those here who have experience with the process. In particular, I would like to know if anyone has any knowledge of whether Soft Skull Press will conduct a peer review of the “corrections” before publishing the “new” addition of AA.
Finally, is anyone still defending/apologizing for Bellesiles here? It appears that “Bennie Smith” has gone silent. Is there anyone out there who will take up this fallen torch?
Charles V. Mutschler - 3/14/2003
Mr. Luker,
I don't think anyone is asking for blood, but Mr. Fought is right on the money. Mr. Bellesiles is no longer teaching here, but this actions seem to suggest that there are serious problems in the historical community which remain. And Mr. Fought is making a point that should concern a lot of us. The professional historians, for the most part, seem to be studiously ignoring Mr. Bellesiles and his actions. I would argue that Mr. Fought is absolutely correct to start his study of this fiasco by looking at what went wrong first in the OAH / JAH review process that led to the publication fo the initial Bellesiles article in 1996.
My point is that peer review collapsed, and utterly failed during the consideration of Mr. Bellesiles' article that was published in the JAH, and has consistently failed throughout the sad history of the publication of _Arming America_. The resurrection of _Arming America_ by Soft Skull Press is not as much a triumph of independent thought as it is a continuation of the failed peer review process. What is interesting to me is how many historians, members of a profession which should prize careful research and good writing, have been so overwhelmingly reluctant to recognize that _Arming America_ is a case of bad scholarship.
Charles V. Mutschler
Samuel Browning - 3/14/2003
What a nasty little comment about gun rights advocates "embarrassing themselves". If you have an argument to make concerning Lott, you could provide facts and reasoning to support your position but claiming that this issue is just common sense neatly avoids having to meet such a burden.
Don Williams - 3/13/2003
1) Yes, we are in general agreement. I believe in rigorous adherence to scientific objectivity in matters of history -- including noting where the evidence allows multiple interpretations or is ambiguous. There are several practical reasons for this position,which I won't go into. In my opinion, Bellesiles crossed the line in Arming America and falsified history in many instances. While one or two occasions might be excused as a mistake, I think the trend is clear.
2) As I stated before, I am not as angry at Bellesiles as some. That is because I think Bellesiles was not working alone. He may have compromised professional ethnics to career pressures but he -- an untenured middle-aged associate professor with a family to support -- did not create those pressures. I find it hard to stay angry with someone who, perhaps inadverently, made gun control's
foremost intellectuals look like uneducated horses asses.
3) If any of the information I have dug up is of interest to you, please feel free to use it and don't worry about the formalities of footnotes, acknowledgement,etc. After all, we have been in an ongoing colloborative discussion on this matter for over a year.
4) As I've noted before, the intelligence world has a process for mapping events,actors,etc to identify covert partnerships, relationships,etc. One observable is unusual language/concepts being used by multiple , supposedly independent parties.
One thing I've not had time to investigate is the Joyce Foundation's support/funding for "violence studies". Bellesiles, of course, created the "violence studies" program at Emory.
5) A 2000 Salon article mentioned that Bellesiles' inspiration for the program arose from a discussion with Emory's Arthur Kellerman:
"One of its [Violence Studies} most passionate advocates is Michael Bellesiles, a brash young historian at Atlanta's Emory University. He came up with the idea of violence studies four years ago, "over a bottle of wine" with Arthur Kellerman, head of emergency medicine at Emory's medical school. As Bellesiles recalls, "We were having dinner one night and fantasizing about what a perfect program for undergraduates would look like." .."
Source: http://dir.salon.com/books/it/2000/01/31/violent/index.html
6) This 1999 article noted that Kellerman created a program to monitor "gun violence" --"Cops and Docs" and that the program received funding indirectly from the Joyce Foundation via the National Firearm Injury Statistics System (NFISS) at the Harvard School of Public Health. My understanding is that Mr Kellerman is a leading proponent of establishing gun control as a "public health measure" to treat the "epidemic of gun violence"--
see http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,7217,00.html .
7) I also thought it was interesting that Roger Lane, who gave the glowing review of Arming America in the OAH's 2000 edition of the Journal of American History ( see para 4-5 here:http://hnn.us/comments/3155.html )
also seem involved in "violence studies". See
http://www.haverford.edu/publicrelations/expertsdir/behavior/rogerlane.html
John G. Fought - 3/13/2003
Thanks for reposting this material, Mr. Williams. I hope to make good use of it. Am I right in supposing that you and I are in at least general agreement on these issues? In choosing the title of my previous post the two 'hands' I had in mind were Bellesiles on the one, well, hand, and the JAH editorial / peer review crew on the other. My focus is now on that one article, which speaks of its imagined implications for the Second Amendment near the beginning and at the end.
Don Williams - 3/13/2003
Sigh. My apologies -- I used some punctation in my previous post which was evidently interpreted by HNN as HTML control characters. Here is a
corrected version:
-------------------------------
1) In my 24 January H-OIEAHC post, I noted the following:
"... In the previous weeks, even Bellesiles' former allies --prominent
historians who had cited Bellesiles' work to support their gun control
arguments in the Chicago Kent Law Review, the Constitutional Commentary,
and the US vs Emerson Yassky brief -- had either seemed silent or had
thrown in the towel.
A Nov 20 Chicago Tribune article quoted Jack Rakove of Stanford as
follows: "It's clear now that his [Bellesiles] scholarship is less than
acceptable," Rakove said. "There are cautionary lessons for historians
here." (I blinked when I read this, given that page 583 of Arming America
has the following acknowledgment: "Jack Rakove kindly went through the
second draft with a keen eye and improved every page he read.") ..."
2) In his 27 January reply ( http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=lx&list;=h-oieahc&user;=&pw;=&month;=0301 ), Mr Rakove noted
"I make one last contribution to l'affaire Bellesiles. I supported Michael's
application for a fellowship from the Stanford Humanities Center, with the
truly prescient observation that this was a book destined to receive a
great deal of attention on a subject of great public interest, and hence
worth being associated with. "
3) In his 27 January post, Mr Rakove also noted
" My own principal interest in the subject revolves around its
implications for thinking about the Second Amendment, not "gun culture,"
and as I noted in my contribution to the William and Mary Quarterly forum
(which I had some input in conceiving and organizing while serving on the
editorial board), Arming America has relatively little to say on that
subject, though interesting salient inferences can be drawn."
4) To which I replied in my 30 January post :
" In his post on Monday , Jack Rakove of Stanford repeated an assertion that
he’s made several times --that Arming America has little to say re the
Second Amendment. I blinked (for the second time) when I read that
statement -- my understanding is that the keynote address at Jack Rakove's
Symposium on the Second Amendment (held in April 2001 at Stanford ) was a
speech by Michael Bellesiles entitled "How Americans Became an Armed
People" -- see http://www.rkba.org/research/stanford-law-conference.txt . "
Don Williams - 3/13/2003
1) In my H-OIEAHC post of 24 January, I noted:
follows: "It's clear now that his [Bellesiles] scholarship is less than
acceptable," Rakove said. "There are cautionary lessons for historians
here." (I blinked when I read this, given that page 583 of Arming America
has the following acknowledgment: "Jack Rakove kindly went through the
second draft with a keen eye and improved every page he read.") >>
2) In his reply on 25 January ( http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=lx&list;=h-oieahc&user;=&pw;=&month;=0301
), Mr Rakove noted:
application for a fellowship from the Stanford Humanities Center, with the
truly prescient observation that this was a book destined to receive a
great deal of attention on a subject of great public interest, and hence
worth being associated with. >>
3) Mr Rakove has argued several times that Bellesiles says little about the Second Amendment in Arming America. By way of reply,
I noted in my 30 January H-OIEAHC post :
>
Don Williams - 3/13/2003
Here is my H-OIEAHC post, Mr Luker -- I posted a link to it a few weeks ago, but that link seems broken as well (note,however, that the link works if you cut and paste it in the browser address box)
******************8
From Don Williams, small.corgi@verizon.net 29 Jan 2003
1) The Program for the 2003 Annual Meeting of the Organization of American
Historians (3-6 April, Memphis) has an interesting announcement on page 58
re a session to discuss how the historical profession should respond to the
Arming America incident. I assume that many subscribers to H-OIEAHC are
members of OAH, will be attending the general Meeting, and might be
interested in attending
the Arming America session. This is an initial session -- my understanding
is that a more formal one has been postponed to the 2004 meeting. I mention
here some problems that I see developing with this session.
2) Speaking as an OAH member, I think that the OAH leadership should have
chosen more neutral co-hosts for this session. Initially, Jon Wiener was
cited as sole host. Mr Wiener wrote an article in Nation magazine in
October 2002 (prior to Bellesiles' resignation) which was a very partisan
defense of Bellesiles. (See
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20021104&c;=1&s;=wiener .) In my
opinion, Mr Wiener’s article focused more on ad hominem speculations re the
motives and shortcomings of James Lindgren and Clayton Cramer than on
objectively examining the historical record, primary sources, and other
evidence.
Given the enormous amount of unpaid time Clayton Cramer has put into
investigating and revealing the shortcomings of Arming America, I would
have expected OAH Director Formwalt to have asked Mr Cramer to co-host the
session --to lend some balance. Instead, the History News Network recently
indicated that OAH Director Formwalt has asked Paul Finkelman , Chapman
Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Tulsa College of Law, to
serve as co-chair (see bottom of text at http://hnn.us/articles/691.html ).
Note that Mr Finkelman was one of the 11 scholars, including Michael
Bellesiles, invited to present at the Joyce Foundation's Symposium on the
Second Amendment,held at Chicago Kent Law School in April 2000. The purpose
of this Symposium was to develop defenses of the "collective right"(pro-gun
control) interpretation of the Second Amendment. Mr Finkelman's Chicago
Kent article was cited by the Ninth Circuit Court in it's recent ruling
that US citizens have no right to own firearms. Mr. Finkelman’s article has
several citations to Bellesiles' work to support Finkelman's arguments.
Hence, Paul Finkelman may have a bias against discussing findings which
further discredit Arming America because (a) Finkelman appears to share
Bellesiles’ blinkered view of the Second Amendment’s historical context and
(b) additional findings of errors in Arming America would also reflect on
Finkelman to a degree -- since such errors would suggest that Finkelman
showed poor judgement and scholarship in citing Bellesiles.
3) A look at recent history shows that Arming America was the spearhead for
a strong campaign by prominent historians to promote the gun-control
interpretation of the Second Amendment in the precedent-setting Supreme
Court case US vs Emerson. Jack Rakove’s and Paul Finkelman’s Chicago Kent
articles, with their citations of Bellesiles’ findings, were part of that
campaign as was Bellesiles’ contribution at Chicago-Kent-- a
slightly-rewritten version of Arming America’s Chapter Seven.
In his post on Monday , Jack Rakove of Stanford repeated an assertion that
he’s made several times --that Arming America has little to say re the
Second Amendment. I blinked (for the second time) when I read that
statement -- my understanding is that the keynote address at Jack Rakove's
Symposium on the Second Amendment (held in April 2001 at Stanford ) was a
speech by Michael Bellesiles entitled "How Americans Became an Armed
People" -- see http://www.rkba.org/research/stanford-law-conference.txt .
Recall that Roger Lane’s glowing review of Arming America in the Journal of
American History practically raved over the impact Arming America would
have on Second Amendment interpretation -- see the 21 June H-OIEAHC post at
http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list;=h-oieahc&month;=0206&week;=c&msg;=umI0VTNGvF%2bhn4r/TG2NJA&user;=&pw;=
. The jacket of Arming America has Michael Zuckerman’s statement that “our
understanding of the Second Amendment “ will never be the same -- that
“Michael A. Bellesiles is the NRA’s worst nightmare.”
4) I think that the OAH leadership needs to realize that the
Bellesiles/Arming America issue is far from over -- and that OAH is on the
hook to address the Arming America incident in a timely, transparent, and
objective fashion. There are three reasons for this:
One, OAH was directly responsible for giving Arming America credibility
before the courts and the public -- by publishing Bellesiles' seminal
article "The Origins of Gun Culture in the United States, 1760- 1865" in
the OAH’s 1996 Journal of American History (JAH) , by refusing to publish
Clayton Cramer's early critique of Bellesiles' 1996 article in the JAH , by
awarding Bellesiles the Binkley-Stephenson award for the 1996 article, by
publishing Roger Lane’s uncritical, glowing review of Arming America in the
JAH circa 2000, and by printing Bellesiles's letter "Disarming the Critics"
in the November 2001 OAH newsletter.
Note that the Binkley-Stephenson award probably helped Bellesiles get the
fellowship at the Stanford Humanities Center (where he wrote Arming
America) since the 1996 JAH article was the forerunner to Arming America.
Note that even the Emory Committee criticized the lack of editorial
checking at the OAH’s Journal of American History (JAH) for Bellesiles 1996
article. So when is the editor at the Journal of American History going to
respond to the events of the past year -- to the Emory findings, to
Columbia’s withdrawal of the Bancroft, Knopf’s suspension of publication, etc?
(See http://hnn.us/comments/1576.html ,
http://hnn.us/comments/1594.html
,
http://www.oah.org/pubs/nl/2001nov/bellesiles.html ,
http://www.emory.edu/central/NEWS/Releases/Final_Report.pdf )
5) A second reason for OAH to act is that Bellesiles' historical narrative
is heavily embedded within the case files of two recent precedent-setting
Second Amendment cases -- US vs Emerson (Fifth Circuit Court of federal
appeals) and Silveria v Lochyer (Ninth Circuit Court).
Note that the Fifth Circuit Court ruled that Timothy Emerson had to stand
trial on a gun possession charge, in spite of his Second Amendment right
--and that the Court noted their ruling was a close decision.
Since then, Emerson has been tried , convicted and is appealing his
conviction to the Fifth Court and probably to the Supreme Court. Timothy
Emerson is not facing academic sanctions --he is facing 2 1/2 years in
prison plus loss of civil rights as a convicted felon. Where the historical
narrative in the above two cases is false, OAH has an obligation to correct
it before Emerson's appeal is heard by the Supreme Court.
Moreover, future Second Amendment jurisprudence will depend on the files in
those two cases. While Knopf has ceased publication of Arming America, the
Chicago-Kent articles --with their extensive citations of Bellesiles work
and the slightly rewritten version of Arming America’s Chapter Seven -- are
being
promulgated as a book entitled “The Second Amendment in Law and History:
Historians and Constitutional Scholars on the Right to Bear Arms “ (Carl T
Bogus, ed.) --see
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1565846990/qid=1043910725/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/103-1494709-4919837?v=glance&s;=books&n;=507846
. It seems to me that publication of this book should be suspended and the
Bellesilesian content reviewed for possible excision, given that Knopf has
suspended publication of Arming America.
This past Monday, an embarrassed Ninth Circuit Court amended it’s ruling in
Silveria v Lochyer to delete two direct citations to Bellesiles’ work --
but the Court’s action was laughable given that it’s ruling makes
references to the Chicago Kent articles to support it’s reasoning --and the
Chicago Kent articles are studded in turn with references to Michael
Bellesiles’ historical narrative.
Plus the Ninth Court’s ruling shows that it took more from Bellesiles’
Chicago Kent article than what it cites. On page 214 of Arming America,
Bellesiles states that the point of Chapter Seven is “the historical
context of that [Second] amendment.” In his Chicago Kent article --a
slightly modified version of Chapter Seven, Bellesiles says "This Article
is concerned with capturing the social, legal, and military context of the
Second Amendment." Of course, if you define the context of the
Second Amendment's creation then you largely define it's meaning and
interpretation.
Like Bellesiles, the Ninth Court has a narrow view of the Second
Amendment’s historical context. Like Bellesiles, the Ninth Court speaks of
the Second Amendment in the context of Shay’s Rebellion --of the need to
prevent insurrection. Like Bellesiles, the Ninth Court ignores a larger
threat that the early Congress feared -- a coup within the federal standing
army , possibly led by some future President. Neither Bellesiles nor the
Ninth Court mention the Newburgh Conspiracy of 1783 -- the plot within the
Continental Army officer corps to overthrow Congress. Neither Bellesiles
nor the Ninth Court mention a later event in 1783 --when an unit of the
Continental Army surrounded Independence Hall with Congress in session,
forcing Congress to flee to the Princeton, New Jersey militia for protection.
(see “Letters of Delegates to Congress ,1775-1783”). Neither Bellesiles nor
the Ninth Court considers whether the militia --the broad mass of armed
citizens -- is an essential constitutional mechanism which protects
Congress from coercion by the Executive Branch and how a Second Amendment
interpretation needs to take into account that part of the checks and balances.
Paul Finkelman’s Chicago Kent article seems to share Bellesiles’ view of
the “historical context” of the Second Amendment -- Shay’s Rebellion,
insurrection,etc.
Note also that the Fifth Circuit Court cites Michael Bellesiles’ Chicago
Kent article -- the slightly revised version of Arming America’s Chapter
Seven -- as one of the canonical documents defining the “collective right”
interpretation of the Second Amendment.
6) A third reason for OAH to act is to provide justice to Michael
Bellesiles himself -- he has a family to support and he deserves a fair
hearing. For the sake of future employment, he deserves to have the
historical profession point out where he was correct, partially correct, or
honestly mistaken - as well as where he was wrong or misleading. My post of
24 January showed how Bellesiles’ probate record results
might have been the result of an honest mistake vice fraudulent research.
But why am I having to defend Bellesiles? Why is he not being defended
--where a defense is possible -- by those
prominent historians who brought his work into the public forum and into
the legal system: Jack Rakove, Garry Wills, Paul Finkelman and the other
presenters at the Chicago Kent conference, Don Higginbotham, Saul Cornell,
Carl T Bogus, signers of the Yassky amicus curiae in US vs Emerson, and the
historians who were on the editorial staff of OAH’s Journal of American
History in 1996 and 2000 ?
7) Recall how the Fifth Circuit and Ninth Circuit cases came to be
contaminated with Bellesiles’
now-questionable historical narratives:
a) Bellesiles wrote Arming America on fellowship at the Stanford Humanities
Center
b) In March 1999, Federal Judge Sam Cummings dismissed gun possession
charges against Timothy Emerson on the basis that the charges violated
Emerson’s Second Amendment “individual right” to own a firearm
c) In 1999, Northwestern historian Garry Wills released the book "A
Necessary Evil". Wills argued that advocates of an "individual right"
(anti-gun control) interpretation of the Second Amendment project a false
view of Revolutionary militias that the militias performed badly in
battle and that most people did not have guns. In support, Wills stated,
“In one of the most important (but neglected) studies of the colonial
frontier, Michael Bellesiles went through over a thousand probate records…”
d) Later, in October 1999, prominent historians Saul Cornell and Don
Higginbotham joined with Michael Bellesiles in writing articles for the
Constitutional Commentary which challenged the "individual right"
interpretation. Both Higginbotham and Bellesiles cite Bellesiles' 1996
article in the Journal of American History -- see
http://www.potomac-inc.org/higg.html and
http://www.potomac-inc.org/mbelles.html . Saul Cornell cited another
article by Bellesiles.
e) Around that time, the prosecutor appealed Judge Cumming's dismissal of
charges against Emerson, arguing "“The case law and history ignored by
Emerson are more than adequately set forth in the Government's opening
brief and the amicus briefs of the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence et
al. and the Ad Hoc Group of Law Professors and Historians, as well as by
countless legal and historical researchers. See, e.g., Michael A.
Bellesiles, Suicide Pact: New Readings of the Second Amendment….”
The prosecution also cited the articles by Cornell and Higginbotham, Will’s
A Necessary Evil, and an article by historian Carl T. Bogus, which also
reference Bellesiles’s work. See http://www.saf.org/EMERSONgovtrepl.html
f) The prosecution was supported by the Amicus brief filed by the “Ad Hoc Group
of Law Professors and Historians” --aka the “Yassky Brief.” Michael
Bellesiles was one of the 53
members of the Ad Hoc Group. The Yassky Brief argued: “Of particular
importance, historians specializing in the Founding period have rejected
claims made by the individual rights
theorists as anachronistic.” The brief cited the Constitutional Commentary
articles by Bellesiles, Cornell, and Higginbotham (see
http://www.potowmack.org/yass.html )
g) In February 2000, Handgun Control’s Center to Prevent Handgun Violence
and the American Bar Association sponsored a Second Amendment Symposium
at the National Press Club in Washington DC. Michael Bellesiles, Don
Higginbotham,
and Saul Cornell gave talks criticizing the Standard Model and Lois
Schwoerer criticized historian Joyce Malcolm’s arguments for the
Standard Model. The announced purpose of the Symposium was to “challenge
the gun lobby's on-going campaign of misinformation about the Second
Amendment." Note that the Center filed a gun-control amicus in US vs Emerson.
(See http://www.gunlawsuits.org/defend/second/symposium/symposium.asp and
http://www.saf.org/CenterToPreventHandgunViolencebrief.htm )
h) In April 2000, the Joyce Foundation, a gun-control advocacy group,
sponsored another Second Amendment Symposium with the Chicago-Kent Law
Review. In the introduction to the Symposium, Carl T. Bogus defined the
nature of the Symposium: “With generous support from the Joyce Foundation,
the Chicago-Kent Law Review sponsored this Symposium to take a fresh look
at the Second Amendment and, particularly, the collective right theory.
This is not, therefore, a balanced symposium. No effort was made to include
the individual right
point of view. Full and robust public debate is not always best served
by having all viewpoints represented in every symposium. Sometimes
one point of view requires greater illumination.".
i) The Joyce Foundation’s web site indicates that it had assets of about
$800 million in 2001and that it gives $millions each year in grants to
address "Gun Violence". See
http://www.joycefdn.org/programs/gunviolence/gunviolencemain-fs.html .
For example, the site indicates that the Joyce gave
$800,000 to the Violence Policy Center in 2002 ("To support research,
public education, communication, and advocacy efforts promoting public
health oriented gun violence prevention policies."),
$1,200,000 to the University of Pennsylvania in 2001 ("To strengthen the
Firearm Injury Center and to expand the Medical Professionals as Advocates
Program. "), and $1,000,000 to the Violence Policy Center in 2000 ("To
support its efforts to promote public health-oriented gun policy through
research, public education, coalition building, and advocacy ").
The Joyce's site indicates that it gave $84,000 in 1999 to the Chicago Kent
College of Law (at the Illnois Institute of Technology). The grant was "For
a symposium and law review on the Second Amendment" . The Chicago Kent
Second Amendment Symposium was held in April 2000.
j) the papers submitted at the Chicago Kent Symposium were published as an
edition of the Chicago Kent Law Review -- See
http://lawreview.kentlaw.edu/Articles/76.1/contents76.1.htm . As noted, one
of the articles was by Bellesiles. A search within the other articles for
keyword “Bellesiles” shows numerous citations of Bellesiles’ work by the
other authors. Bellesiles probate study results are cited frequently --
Michael Dorf notes, for example: “What of Madison's assumption that the
people would have arms? The short answer is that the assumption was
inaccurate. Historian Michael Bellesiles has discovered that fewer than
seven percent of white males in western New England and Pennsylvania owned
working guns upon their deaths. As Garry Wills effectively argues,
Bellesiles's discovery is consistent with other evidence tending to show
that the notion of founding-era militias comprising nearly all able-bodied
adult white males was never more than a myth … the historical work of
scholars like Bellesiles and Bogus substantially undermines the individual
right position.”
k) However, other historical findings by Bellesiles were also cited to
refute the “individual right” interpretation of the Second Amendment. In
his Chicago Kent article, for example, Jack Rakove explained the importance
of Bellesiles’ research:
“Bellesiles is evidently the first historian to examine the actual use of
firearms in
the colonial, Revolutionary, and post-Revolutionary eras.144 What he
discovers, among other things, is that many, perhaps the majority of
American households, did not possess firearms; that Americans
imported virtually all of their firearms; that the weapons they had
were likely to deteriorate rapidly, firearms being delicate
mechanisms, prone to rust and disrepair; that gunsmiths were few, far
between, and not especially skilled; that the militia were poorly
armed and trained, their occasional drilling days an occasion for
carousing rather than acquiring the military art; that Americans had
little use for hunting, it being much more efficient to slaughter your
favorite mammal grazing in the neighboring pasture or foraging in
nearby woods than to take the time to track some attractive haunch
of venison with a weapon that would be difficult to load, aim, and fire
before the fleshy object of your desire went bounding off for greener
pastures. (Trapping was much more efficient than hunting, and
hunting was a leisure activity for the elite.)145 All of these
considerations make plausible and explicable the concerns we have
already noted in describing the Virginia ratification debate of mid-June
1788: that without a national government firmly committed to
the support of the militia, the institution would wither away from
inefficiency, indifference, and neglect (which is pretty much what
happened in any case, for reasons both Federalists and Antifederalists
readily foresaw). “
(NOTE: As I’ve noted in several H-OIEAHC posts, I think that Bellesiles’
depictions of the early militias are false and misleading (Cowpens, 1815
Battle of New Orleans,etc.) )
l) Several of the Chicago-Kent Law Review articles were cited in the Fifth
Circuit Court’s ruling -- among those were Michael Bellesiles’s article
“The Second Amendment in Action”, the slightly modified version of Chapter
Seven of Arming America. (See
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/99/99-10331-cr0.htm and search for
“Bellesiles” )
m) The Chicago Kent articles are also cited in the Ninth Circuit Court’s
recent Silveira decision -- see
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/661116A4ECB1A7BE88256C8600544DCB/$file/0115098.pdf?openelement
and search for “CHI.”
n) Note that the Violence Policy Center (VPC) --recipient , remember, of
million dollar grants from the Joyce --is promoting the problematical
Chicago Kent articles without noting that the articles were funded by the
very same Foundation that funds the VPC "To coordinate a national media
strategy on gun violence" and without, to my knowledge, noting the
Bellesilesian content.
For example, in it's Dec 5, 2002 Press Release on the Ninth Court's ruling
(that the American people have no Second Amendment right to "keep and bear
arms"), the VPC noted the following:
" Citing cutting-edge scholarship such as the 2000 Chicago Kent Law
Review—Symposium on the Second Amendment: Fresh Looks, the Silveira
decision details the history and context of the Second Amendment, as well
as existing legal precedent, and makes clear that the Second Amendment does
not guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms.
o) Finally, note that Arming America was introduced to the public in 2000
with very favorable reviews by historian Garry Wills (New York Times ) and
Carl Bogus (American Prospect) -- see
http://www.nytimes.com/books/00/09/10/reviews/000910.10willot.html and
http://www.prospect.org/print/V11/26/bogus-c.html
8) The bottom line is that the Bellesilesian history introduced by OAH is
spreading throughout the legal system. Given recent events, OAH has a duty
to determine what part of that history is false and needs to be excised
from the public records so that it does not mislead judges deliberating on
the civil rights of Americans. OAH also needs to determine what part is
true and to Bellesiles’ credit.
Ralph E. Luker - 3/13/2003
Mr. Greenlund,
Landing on its feet may make no difference if a cat has landed in a snake-pit rather than a bed of catnip.
Josh Greenland - 3/13/2003
"May I ask what blood do you want that you do not yet have?"
What blood are you talking about, Mr. Laker? He's gone immediately to another college teaching job and his book has gone immediately to being printed by another publisher. Like a cat, Bellesiles always lands on his feet.
And would you say his book has been truly discredited among historians? Wiener and Finkelman both think it's fine aside from the few points examined by the Emory committee. OAH agrees enough to let Bellesiles keep his Binkley-Stephenson award.
John G. Fought - 3/13/2003
Both of you are right. I am concerned with both the Process (of scholarly writing, reviewing, and publishing) and the Product, which in this case includes both these particular works and their promotion and exploitation in the mass media and at the higher levels of the judicial system. In this case a very important constitutional issue was at stake. I believe the public interest was not well served by the uses made of Bellesiles and his work, and consequently, that the Process that certified his inaccurate writings and placed them in the hands of the public and the courts should be examined step by step. My attention is focused now on the 1996 article because it has received relatively little attention so far (except from Clayton Cramer, whose paper on it, now on his website, was held, I understand, for about two years before JAH rejected it). But the 96 paper was the pivot of the whole affair: without the reception it received, there would likely have been no book, or at least not the book that did come out. Let me note in passing that Bellesiles himself has suffered great personal harm from those who first embraced and then shunned him. That is part of the Process too: it includes protection for the academic politicians who run it. So, Mr. Luker, don't worry: nobody can cleanse a professional association or its journal. Not even me. I'm just going to connect a few more dots. It won't be much longer; until then, I'm signing off again.
Ralph E. Luker - 3/13/2003
Your link doesn't go to the post to which you refer. You keep closer track of these things than I do, but my recollection is that the references to Bellesiles's research were expunged in at least one of the cases to which you refer.
Details of my conversations with Bellesiles are confidential, but it would be fair to say that he is looking forward to the publication of the second edition of _Arming America_.
I'm not sure that the case files are what drives John's inquiry into the 1996 article. As an academician, I suspect, he may be more concerned about a fraudulent or grossly negligent review process than he is about the use of flawed research to sustain a legal decision. But, was it Pocahontas who is reputed to have said: "Speak for yourself, John"?
Don Williams - 3/13/2003
See my H-OIEAHC post here explaining the problem:
http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list;=h-oieahc&month;=0301&week;=e&msg;=5%2b8SY5LwwM8pBlTCpRhMcA&user;=&pw;=
In my opinion, OAH has a responsibility to correct the mess it helped create.
Plus there's the question of Carl Bogus' hardcopy book of the Chicago Kent articles (with the extensive citations to Bellesiles ) still being published after Knopf has ceased publication of Arming America. Is Carl Bogus going to change the Chicago Kent references to point to the Soft Skull edition? Or is he going to let future readers of his book (over the next 20 years) be misled by the Chicago Kent articles' frequent citations of Bellesiles' probate results.
I not advocating a wholesale expunging of every Bellesilesean assertion -- but it does seem to me that OAH needs to determine which of his assertions are historically valid, which ones are debatable, and which ones are false.
PS You indicated recently that you had talked with Bellesiles. Any word from him?
Ralph E. Luker - 3/12/2003
Your point would be to cleanse the Organization of American Historians and the _Journal of American History_?
george lewis - 3/12/2003
The gun rights advocates on this list are embarassing themselves trying to explain possible ways in which Lott did not lie, or only lied a little. Let's use a little common sense. Lott lied. This doesn't mean his whole book is crap, but it should encourage objective readers to read carefully and skeptically.
John G. Fought - 3/12/2003
Read my post(Bellesiles is Gone--The Problem Lingers). Remember all your invocations of the Process? I'm part of it.
Ralph E. Luker - 3/12/2003
Dave and John,
May I ask what blood do you want that you do not yet have?
John G. Fought - 3/12/2003
I think the final answer is in Formwalt's article on "Bellesiles, the OAH, and the Profession" in the Feb. 03 OAH Newsletter. It says, "After lengthy discussion, the board decided not to rescind the prize noting that the decisions of the organization to award a prize or publish an article are based on the best information available at that time." He then expresses appreciation in all directions. There are supposed to be little events at future conferences and perhaps a publication in JAH. In other words, now that they have come to a safe conclusion, they intend to continue talking it amongst themselves, every now and then.
Since the information available at that time included the article, I am now working on a piece on Bellesiles 1996.
Dave LaCourse - 3/12/2003
I sent an e-mail to the OAH requesting clarification as to whether Bellesiles will keep his award forever--regardless of what may occur--or if further review of the Bellesiles issue is needed as seemed to be noted by the OAH executive director Lee Formwalt here:
"We have an obligation to deal with ambiguity and tension in this matter and not simply wash our hands of it."
No response was given, and I have not heard any updates from others. Anyone get a final answer?
Thanks,
Dave
Clayton E. Cramer - 3/11/2003
"Having met Lott once, and watched him for several hours with others, I can tell you that while he seems smart, he is not a very personable fellow. I doubt he would remember names of most people he meets or even works with."
Dr. Lott has told me that himself--that he is often embarrassed to have to admit to people that he works with on a weekly basis at the American Enterprise Institute, that he can't remember their names!
One of the difficulties here is that there are people who are really only good with numbers, and others who are really only good with text. Dr. Lott strikes me as a "numbers guy," and so I don't find it hard to imagine that he has forgotten the names of the students who did this 1997 survey for him.
I can remember the names of several people that I worked closely with in 1997--but I can't tell you the full name of one of the two technical writers that I hired that year, and with whom I worked closely, day in and day out, for two years. I remember his first name was Gary. I saw his name on printed documents everyday, on email. We met for meetings several times a week, and we ate lunch together. What's his last name? I don't remember.
Dave LaCourse - 3/10/2003
This last post by Mr. Lambert highlights the REAL Lott problem. He used a false identity to praise his own work (and stupidly got caught at it) which makes a minor error on a chart easier to call a "lie" than a mistake and also begs more questioning on whether an alleged survey took place--even if Lott attempts to repeat (or initially conduct) it later.
Having met Lott once, and watched him for several hours with others, I can tell you that while he seems smart, he is not a very personable fellow. I doubt he would remember names of most people he meets or even works with.
Combine his personal skills and the Mary Rosh thing, and you get much more legs to these charges than would otherwise occur.
Bellesiles did far worse, yet the outrage seems to have faded despite the fact that he gets to keep one award and will be republished with an appropriate vender named "soft skull" aside other interesting works. For the Lott haters, sadly, this too will pass, and likely would have without Mary by now.
Concealed carry does not cause "blood in the streets." Even discrediting Lott won't undo that fact.
Compare Lott again to Bellesiles.... And there is none.
Tim Lambert - 3/10/2003
Why would Lott lie when it only gave him a small advantage? I don't know, but that is exactly what he did in another case. He wrote: "I have not participated in the firearms discussion group nor in the apparent online newsgroup discussions".
And when wrote the comment above, he was busy posting. as Mary Rosh, to variious online discussion group.
Samuel Browning - 3/10/2003
Hmmm, the last two data points as verses the last data point is incorrect? Eyeballing the chart on Mr. Lambert's website and Mr Lott's book I did not realize that data point fourteen was also out of wack. To the uninitiated, point fourteen looked like it was in the same location in both graphs, of course the graphs do not provide scale information that would allow the reader to precisely place each point, so my bad, but I plead mitigating circumstances.
However, let me play Lott advocate for a moment. It is a slight nonstatistically significant up turn (acording to Lott via Lambert's website) that occurred five years after the concealed carried laws were adopted. Every statistical drop in crime eventually bottoms out and there will be at least some rise from the absolutely lowest rate which may be caused by a factor other then the concealed carry law. Lott could have easily explained that such drops in the rates of crime were not static and still call the situation an improvement. So my question is why would he lie when the truth would have served almost as well? For this reason I tend to blame mistake rather that lie. It is also true however that I have not heard Lott's explaination for how this particular mistake came to pass, and if such an explaination was unbelievable it would reflect poorly on Lott. The parallel with Bellesiles is twofold. Bellesiles really got in trouble not only because of his "errors" but by his explainations which dug him much deeper into a hole. Secondly, most of Bellesiles mistakes appeared worse comparitively then Lott's error on this particular chart. Though it is always possible that Lott could have decided to lie to accomplish comparitively little.
Samuel Browning
Tim Lambert - 3/9/2003
The url for my page on figure 4.7 is actually:
http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/lott/figure4.7.html
Samuel Browning suggests that the incorrect graph might be the product of an error in plotting the last point. However, the last two points are incorrect. It is too much of a coincidence that the only errors are just where there was an upturn and the direction of the errors are just enough to erase the upturn. There are also four other graphs in that section that are drawn perfectly.
Samuel Browning - 3/8/2003
Mr. Lambert provides 10 examples of where Lott has supposedly lied, and I will address only one of these. I did go to http://www.csc.unsw.edu.au/_lambert/guns/lott/figure4.7htm/ and read his presentation on figure 4.7 in Lott's Book. In "More Guns Less Crime" p. 78 there is a graph in which the fifteenth or last data point is lower then it should be. On a scale showing the Number of Rapes per 100,000 population, the fourteenth and fifteenth data points are both between the 1.54 and 1.56 points on the vertical scale. The correct position of the final point should be slightly above the fourteenth point but still noticably below the 1.56 marker showing a slight upturn in rapes. Even though Lott made no other mistakes on his graph, he could have still made a honest error in recording or calculating the last point since the difference is slight and his work habits appear to be sloppy. (at least judging by the way he runs surveys!) Since a lie requires intentional commission or omission, while a mistake requires error, I believe that this problem could be consistant with either, but since it is equally plausible Lott screwed up, I do not think we can simply conclude he is a liar on this issue.
Samuel Browning
Peter Boucher - 3/8/2003
Another thing the cartoon glosses over is that the evidence that Bellesiles supporters said was what was fresh, new and important about his book is the evidence that was discredited, while Lott's 98% claim was on the periphery, and no one ever said it was one of the important parts of his book.
Samuel Browning - 3/8/2003
Actually there was a factual mistake or lie in the cartoon. The first edition of Lott's book was published in 1998, before "Arming America" was published. The cartoonist implied otherwise, perhaps, to provide more narrative structure to the cartoon, and not have to provide a detailed explaination of how these books could be linked together. I guess this letter would partially support Greenland's position in that the cartoonist did play fast and loose on one point, but it still doesn't bail Lott out of hot water.
Tim Lambert - 3/8/2003
Clayton, When Lott told me that he had done a survey, I *did* believe him. I thought it rather odd that he had got results so different from every other survey and that it was less than honest for him to report what his survey found and not mention what other surveys found, but I did not think that he had invented a survey until I found out the astonishing shortage of evidence that he had ever done the survey.
The survey would have produced a mountain of paper: tally sheets, phone bills, cancelled cheques, question lists and tax records. None of this can be found. It would also have dozens of witnesses: interviewers, interviewers' friends and people that Lott discussed the survey with in 1997. None of these can be found either. And if the 98% came from Lott's survey, why did he attribute it to other surveys and to Kleck's survey?
Lott has also told many more lies than just about who Mary Rosh was. He lied about participating in online discussions. He lied about his NY Post article. He lied when he attributed the 98% to Kleck. He lied when he said that he had always acknowledged that his 98% was based on small samples. He lied when he said that he didn't give a source for the 98% in op-eds. He lied when he changed his story about the students who conducted the survey while insisting that he was not changing his story. He lied when he altered figure 4.7 in his book to erase an upturn in crime rates. He lied when Mary Rosh claimed that Lott had a chair at Wharton. He lied in 1997 when he claimed to be a Professor at Chicago.
Tim Lambert - 3/8/2003
Lott's hard drive crash *is* equivalent to Bellesiles flood. Both events really happened, but in both cases it is not plausible that the events could have caused all the data to vanish. The cartoon did not imply that all pro-gun people supported Lott unstintingly, just that some did (which is true). Nor did it imply that the book had only on staunch defender.
So, the number of "lies" in the cartoon is zero. The fact that you somehow believed that there were some when there were none tells us more about you than the cartoon.
Richard Henry Morgan - 3/7/2003
Years ago I did some statistics coursework in a department that included (warning -- name-dropping approaching) Ralph Bradley and Wade Savage. I still think they were the best courses I ever took, and something has stuck with me over the years -- the sample size does seem way too small to generate a meaningful estimator of the population statistic.
On the other hand, I hold no brief for the methodology of competing studies, as I haven't the time nor the expertise at hand to evaluate them. I would just point out that survey methodology is one of the weakest areas within scientific methodology in general.
Back when dinosaurs roamed the Earth, and I was a student, my demography class took on a project from the '70 census. The census report color-coded counties (I believe -- I'm working from hazy memory here) by percentage of inhabitants with parents from South America, with the tipping point being something like 15%. We found a county in the sticks, in the mid-South, which stood out like a sore thumb -- it was the only county for hundreds of miles with the over 15% figure and color.
We visited the county on a weekend. No Hispanics. We tracked down the head of the Chamber of Commerce. The president of the local bank. The mayor. The sheriff. The religious leaders. The social services director. Nothing. We did find a 90 year-old Italian grandmother, though. So we called up the Census Bureau to make an inquiry, and we were met with an embarrassed silence.
Finally, the guy let the cat out of the bag. The Census Bureau hadn't done any pre-testing of the questions, and the 15% county mapped beautifully onto a distribution of illiteracy. Seems a whole bunch of good old buys had asked themselves if they were from the South (Yes!!), and then from America (Yes!!), and concluded their parents were also, so they responded positively to the question whether their parents were from South America. The Census Bureau promised to rephrase the question for the next census. As they say, you can look it up in the census reports.
Samuel Browning - 3/6/2003
I agree that the issue of exactly how many times Lott repeated a inaccuracy or unconfirmable statistic is not particularly important. What is important is whether he repeated such information after he knew that such a statistic was inaccurate or he knew he could not produce supporting data.
I am in reluctant agreement with Mr Lambert that the question of whether Lott actually conducted the 1997 survey is still open, but I am not seeking blood. Lott's notice was published by an alumni publication in February. I think in another three full months if a participating student or professor who has contemporanous knowledge of this study does not come forward, we can conclude the study did not take place.
I am basing my suspicions on life experience which I will briefly summarize. In late 1991 I organized a non-profit organization's efforts to call between one and two thousand people who received our newsletter as part of a telephone solicitation. I had to go to a separate person to get my list, who had to print such information out. I then had to organize at least seven or eight people including myself to make phone calls. Even though this was not social science research to make things work properly I had to talk to each solicitor to run them through the script so everyone understood what was going on. I discussed the phonathon with multiple members of my board of directors and our efforts were documented in our organizations newsletter. I also had the chaplan of Connecticut College provide me with several students and a phone bank for several evenings which he might remember to this day. Of course the checks that arrived made their way into our balance sheet which provided further documentation. in other words I left evidence all over the place of my activities.
Now Lott's story, if I understand it correctly, is that he had two students whose names he cannot remember, and cannot apparently find out, but he trusted them so much that he did not talk to any of the other callers, he let them ensure the quality of the response sheets that were collected. If any cash was handed out it was to, or through these two students, and they were not in any work study positions which would have resulted in records that could be checked. Any checks from this time havc been disposed of, and as of yet it does not appear that Lott had any casual conversations at the time with his fellow University of Chicago professors, about "hey, I'm doing this new study". He also did not talk to anyone else concerning study design for a 2,400 person sample, which was his option, but I'm surprised he didn't bounce ideas off someone before beginning the phone calls. One of the two students also had a CD rom with all the phone numbers Lott needed for his study. This is possible, but such items are hardly standard issue for graduate students.
What I'm saying is that it is not suprising that there would be several factors that would reduce any trail of evidence. It appears unusual to me that there would be so many, and that is why I believe the burden rests on Lott to provide some evidence from the surveyor, as verses the surveyee side that this study took place. If the study did not take place, it is difficult if not impossible to trust Lott's integrity when it comes to the discretionary decisions that his data modeling requires.
I don't as a rank and file member of the NRA, feel especially good about writing a letter like this, or disagreeing with people like Clayton Cramer who have simply done heroic work in exposing Bellesiles' fraud, but if we are more honest then the Violence Policy Center, (like their latest B.S. on the fifty caliber handgun)we will have to resolve whether John Lott did this study in the first place and for the reasons I have stated, it does not look good for him.
Samuel Browning
Dave LaCourse - 3/5/2003
I will not defend Lott on Mary Rosh.
Nor can I be certain he did the 1997 survey. That troubles me.
But the idea that this ONE survey (or non-survey)--that does not have anything to do with the rest of the statistics in his book--merits such attention because Lott mentioned it X number of times is amazing, particularly when attempting to equate this ONE potential lie (in his book) to Bellesiles' many.
What is worse, telling the same lie 50 times, or 50 different lies? We all know the answer.
In addition, since many other surveys found that the large majority of Defensive Gun Uses did not involve a wounding or killing of the attacker (although not 98%), again the level of attention here is surprising.
The Mary Rosh thing was and is both bad and stupid. The new survey may or may not have too small a sample. That is also a legitimate debate.
However, I suggest Lott's critics conduct their own survey of 3,000 to 4,000 households to settle this mess once and for all.
Have fun. Safe your work, and then let everyone debate the merits of your work when it is completed.
Lott is not Bellesiles. And the fact he made the effort to duplicate his work looks good to most observers.
So when will Bellesiles attempt the same?
Clayton E. Cramer - 3/4/2003
I suppose your standards may be different from mine. If someone tells me that they did X, I tend to believe them, unless X is quite astonishing, "I surveyed 10% of the population of the U.S. last week--that's why my confidence interval is +-.00003%" or unless they demonstrate a pattern of deception or lying.
At this point, Lott has lied about who Mary Rosh was. This is the only clear-cut lie (as opposed to confused and contradictory statements) that he has told--unlike Bellesiles, where the lie count is now in four figures.
I'll give someone (even Bellesiles) the benefit of the doubt when you ask them questions about stuff that happened years ago, and for which they must rely on their memory. I have repeatedly emphasized that the biggest problem Bellesiles has isn't the probate records that neither he nor anyone can find--it's the probate records and documents that can be found.
Josh Greenland - 3/4/2003
"Perhaps in the future, we might find Bellesiles himself at that bookstore salon, dressed as George Washington,"...
But we're more likely to find Benny there dressed as Napoleon.
Tim Lambert - 3/3/2003
Dear Mr Greenland,
The "50 times" claim comes from counting them. See:
http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/lottbrandish.html
Josh Greenland - 3/3/2003
Good stuff, Tim. I love the way the anti-gun rights New York Times' editorial cartoon makes it look like Lott's hard drive crash didn't happen, gee, making it equivalent to Bellesiles' flood damaged data, and tries to portray pro-gun rights people as supporting Lott unstintingly (not true as you know), while somehow at the same time his book only has "one staunch defender."
How many lies does this count for the New York Times on this subject, Tim, 2, 3? Do we multiply the number of lies in the cartoon by the number of issues of the New York Times sold plus the number of hits on this cartoon's web page?
It's an amazingly hateful little cartoon. Glad to know how you really feel about us, Tim.
Josh Greenland - 3/3/2003
"It isn't just that he advanced (on over 50 occasions) a figure based on a too small sample size. And he never told his readers or listeners that surveys with much larger sample sizes gave radically different results. And in his statements he made in his defence he just lies about it:" [snip]
I don't know where you get this "over 50 times" claim from, but you must know how UNimpressive it is to the people on this BELLESILES forum. Michael Bellesiles lied EVERY chance he got to explain his behavior. And he gave talks pushing his book, and told lie after lie after lie in those, because his talks were based on the book, which is 600 pages of mostly lies.
You're trying to puff up one maybe bad statistic, where Lott could actually replicate the data, with the +50x spiel. Really, Tim, it seems to me like you are desperate to find something, ANYthing, with which to discredit Lott, but it's obvious at least to me that you're working a little too hard for the little you have to show for your efforts. If this is all you've been able to come up with, with your BURNING desire to destroy Lott's credibility, I'd say it's unlikely you'll ever find enough to jeopardize his reputation.
And, Lott and Mustard put together large, complex data sets for all the 3054 counties in the United States at that time that are now used by the anti-gun academics you so admire. Completely discrediting Lott's work would eviscerate theirs as well, wouldn't it? Ah, the irony in that.
I do have to wonder why you haunt this Bellesiles forum. (Do you read every post?) I've been corresponding with a Londoner who has just finished reading Arming America. He didn't understand why the book was considered controversial or relevant to any present-day political matters. I realized in answering him that Arming America has NO present-day political relevance outside the United States. It is aimed at demonstrating that the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not guarantee an individual's right to arms. Britain and Australia do not have anything like our 2nd Amendment. More Guns, Less Crime I can understand your interest in, because Lott's book talks about the efficacy of different gun laws and their effects on crime, which could be applicable in Australia.
But why do you care about Arming America?
Josh Greenland - 3/3/2003
"We cannot be certain, but it is unlikely that Lott did a survey in 1997."
A while ago on your Lott blog, you said you accepted that he probably had done it.
Bellesiles and Lott - 3/3/2003
?????????
Tim Lambert - 3/3/2003
The sample size in the 2002 survey is too small to provide any support for the notion that he did a survey in 1997. The results are compatible with a 2% firing statistic as well as a 24% firing statistic. There is possibly a methodological flaw in the 2002 survey that would bias the firing number downwards -- if the interviewers were aware of Lott's desperate need to come up with a number compatible with his claims about the 1997 survey, then that produces a bias downwards. This flaw does not apply to the 1997 survey.
It isn't just that he advanced (on over 50 occasions) a figure based on a too small sample size. And he never told his readers or listeners that surveys with much larger sample sizes gave radically different results. And in his statements he made in his defence he just lies about it:
"As to so-called technical problems, I am have always acknowledged that these are small samples, especially when one breaks down the composition of those who use guns defensively. Even the largest of the surveys have few observations in this category."
He *never* acknowledged on any of the over 50 occasions that his 98% was based on a small sample size. And the large surveys have hundreds of DGUs in the sample.
Finally, I am puzzled as to why you think that the question of whether Lott did a survey should be laid to rest unless we prove he didn't do one. Lott has changed his story and changed his story about the origin of the 98% statistic until he has ended up with a story that is unfalsifiable. That doesn't mean that it is true. Given the wide publicity his troubles have been given one of the students interviewers should have come forward by now. Not one of them has. We cannot be certain, but it is unlikely that Lott did a survey in 1997.
Tim Lambert - 3/2/2003
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2003/03/02/books/20030302stamaty.html
Josh Greenland - 3/1/2003
If you go to the Instapundit URL and text search on the word Lott, you'll find the item below plus a link to the unfavorable editorial, posted on Feb 27:
http://www.instapundit.com/
THE RICHMOND TIMES-DISPATCH has a very unfavorable editorial regarding John Lott.
UPDATE: Prof. Dan Polsby emails:
"`Nevertheless, [wrote the Times-Dispatch] serious supporters of gun ownership would be wise not to cite Lott's work in the future.'
"Good luck! Numerous of Lott's opponents (John Donohue, Ian Ayres, Phil Cook, Jens Ludwig, and many others) use the Lott-Mustard numbers, subsequently updated by Lott, in their work because they have to; there is nothing else out there.
"Cast your mind back to what things were like pre-1997. Remember that (in retrospect hilarious) study by David McDowell and collaborators, that the New York Times made so much of, that looked at murder rates in five (!) counties for a few years? Stuff like that could be done (and touted in the newspapers as "science") because nobody had the sitzfleisch to clean up the boxes and boxes of panel data, that were just sitting there waiting to be analyzed, until Lott and Mustard did it -- and shared it, freely and immediately, with the whole world. Now there is a minor industry of free riders dining out on that work. There's just plain no chance that it wouldn't be cited in the future, no matter how how ludicrous Lott's displays of personal vanity might be."
Good point.
Clayton E. Cramer - 2/28/2003
What Lott tells me is that the 1997 survey was done for the purpose of validating the DGU numbers of other surveys; the brandishing number was not the intended output of the survey.
If you ask me, Lott should not have used the brandishing number, because the sample size is so small. He repeated the 1997 survey in 2002 to deal with the allegations that he didn't actually do the 1997 survey. Again, the brandishing numbers from the 2002 survey don't seem particularly meaningful to me; the only reason to discuss them is to demonstrate that the 1997 survey probably did take place.
I think we can put to rest the question of whether the 1997 survey took place, unless someone can demonstrate that it didn't take place.
The question of why Lott used the brandishing number when it is from such a small survey is legitimate. The number is very small, and I would argue that if used in a debate, it's worth what it seems: not much.
The question of why Lott used a pseudonym on the Internet is not legitimate; pseudonyms are widely used, and have a long and honored tradition in American political debate. Especially because gun control advocates have threatened Lott in the past, this use of a pseudonym is not surprising.
The question of why Lott lied, pretending to be someone else, is legitimate. This crossed the boundary into an unethical and inappropriate area, though it does not directly raise any questions about the integrity of Lott's research.
The equivalent would be Joseph Ellis's lies during lectures about his military service. These lies didn't show up in Ellis's published work. They don't reflect well on Ellis, but neither do they directly raise questions about his work. It might make you a little more careful to check Ellis's sources--or Lott's sources. But that, alone, isn't enough to discredit either Ellis's or Lott's work.
Tim Lambert - 2/28/2003
1) For measuring the brandishing percentage, it is the number of DGUs that matters, not the overall survey size. Of course, increasing the overall size will increase the number of DGUs found.
2) The 2002 survey sample size and design was too small to give a meaningful measurement of the brandishing percentage.
3) Lott's 2002 survey used a one year frame. He claims that the design was similar to his 1997 survey.
Samuel Browning - 2/27/2003
Hi Mr. Lambert:
Thank you for replying to my questions promptly. I do have a couple followups, which will probably seem very basic. But if I don't understand certain issues, then I bet there are other readers in the same boat.
1) From the answer to my first question, I understand that the sample size of defensive gun uses i.e. 13 or 30 gives the study more validity (if I am using this term correctly) than the overall number households surveyed. In other words, for what Lott was trying to discover, 2000 calls that discovered 40 DGU would lead to better accuracy on the brandishing issue then 4,000 households with 20 DGU? I also assume that there is a minimum number of households that would have to be polled though this is not particularly important to this question. In other words if Lott polled 200 households and discovered 30 DGU the 200 number would be just too small. If you could confirm whether this is correct, I would appreciate you doing so.
2)Secondly please tell me if on Lott's second 2002 telephone survey the 1,000 households he consulted, was too small of a sample size all factors considered.
3) I also noticed that you mentioned that Kleck asked about DGU over the last five years. Am I accurate in concluding that Lott's 1997 study only considered DGUs that had happened within the last year? Is there enough enough information out there to come to a conclusion over this aspect of his methodology?
Thank you for your attention to this matter. And if John Lott is out there I would also appreciate his answers to these questions as well.
Samuel Browning
Tim Lambert - 2/26/2003
I responded to Mr Browning's questions in a new thread since this one has run off the edge of the page.
Tim Lambert - 2/26/2003
Samuel Browning asks: "1) How many households would his students have had to call to make this a valid and reliable study?"
If you are trying to estimate the brandishing percentage the relevant sample size is the number of defensive gun uses you find. Statisticians usually won't even present a percentage if the sample size is less than 30. Lott would have had to have surveyed 3000 households to get even the minimal sample size of 30. To get more DGUs he should have done what Kleck did and asked about DGUs in the past five years. There really is no excuse for the design of his 2002 survey -- it was obvious fom the survey design that it could never have yielded a useful brandishing estimate.
"2) Would his surveyors have to have recorded the size of each household in order to have a valid and reliable study?"
Yes, though not weighting by household size probably won't affect the brandishing number much.
"3) Would there have to be a particular mixture of small and large households to ensure that there was no sampling error? And would the caller have to talk to a certain person in the household or would any adult do?"
You always have some sampling error. If the mixture was skewed that would increase the sampling error. The caller would want to talk to randomly chosen adult from the household.
"4) If say the magic number for a telephone survey was 4,000 households, and say 1,000 wouldn't completely answer all or any of the questions, would the 4,000 household number have to be reached by having 4,000 complete surveys or is it acceptable to count slightly incomplete surveys?
"
That depends on what information is missing.
"5) You have mentioned that 13 defensive uses in Lott's new study is inadequate to make any generalization. Assuming a properly sized and randomly selected sample,(ie. question #1) how many uses would be necessary to produce a valid and reliable 2% figure?"
That depends on how tight you want the bounds on the estimate to be. If you will accept a 95% confidence interval of 1%-5%, then you would need about 200 defensive uses.
"5) Is there a central text which is accepted by staticians for answering these questions?"
Pretty much any elementary stats book covers confidence intervals of a proportion. Any textbook on survey design should cover the rest.
Charles V. Mutschler - 2/26/2003
Hmmm, I guess I should have peer reviewed my own posting. I believe Mr. Bellesiles' article was actually in the Journal of american History, and not the American Historical Review. Sorry about that. I promise to go have coffee and not post any more until after I get a couple of peer reviewers to check my posts.
Charles V. Mutschler
Charles V. Mutschler - 2/26/2003
Frank, I think you have hit on a serious problem here. There seem to be two issues we as a profession might want to think long and hard about. (1) Are we looking at anything with some degree of critical thinking, or are we looking for something we want to see? (2) Are we giving critical scrutiny to works under peer review?
I think Professor Malcom, like most of us in the history profession, have tended to believe that the author is being honst with the reader. What has been utterly missing is an honest admission that peer review failed at every stage of this process. Had a genuinely rigorous peer review process existed, it seems possible that Mr. Bellesiles' first article would not have made it to the AHR. as I think I noted before, it would probably help the peer review process to have someone who is genuinely knoledgeable about the subject and the methodology review any article, and make an honest statement about shortcomings of research, methodology, or apparent logic of the author's manuscript.
Charles V. Mutschler
Frank a. Baldridge - 2/26/2003
Joyce Lee Malcolm's chronicle and analysis Disarming History (Reasononline March 2003) is elitist, inaccurate, and does not serve to advance the study of history. After discussing the sins of Ph.D. holding professional historians who got caught up in lies, she noted "Many early reviewers [in the popular media] seemed so eager to extol the book that they suspended their critical faculties," and continued on with "University presses and other academic publishers routinely put scholarly works through a rigorous peer review." So why did not "The Story" begin to "unravel" with Bellesiles' submission of his equally polemical and poorly documented "The Origins of Gun Culture in the United States, 1760-1865" to The Journal of American History in 1996. Could it be that the professional Ph.D. holding reviewers of that article also "suspended their critical faculties"? And why is not that stimulus to Arming America noted in the chronicle?
Those outside academia wondering why Bellesiles thought he could get away with it need to realize that the selective use of sources to argue personal agendas is common by Ph.D.s in the historical profession. Personal favorites are Limerick's The Legacy of Conquest and Faragher's Women and Men on the Overland Trail. Of course, the fact that the "most prestigious" academic journal, after "rigorous peer review" published his polemical "Gun Cult," and awarded the exalted B-S Prize, might have allowed Bellesiles to think he had got away with it. Money flowed in, people followed him around, and Emory gave him a chair. Life was good, until he emerged from academia.
Without intending to be overly demeaning, it can be argued that the major factors separating a M. A. or J. D. "amateur historian" and a Ph.D. "professional historian" or "scholar" currently primarily involves patience in looking for a parking spot and dealing with academic bureaucracies, willingness to devote thousands of hours and dollars to the study of political correctness, and one's "world view" regarding being a useful member of society.
Contributions to history should be judged on their merits by those qualified to judge without reference to the academic title or professional status of the contributor. I would personally like to thank the privately financed independent scholar Clayton Cramer for his role in debunking Bellesiles. Thank you.
Samuel Browning - 2/26/2003
Hi Mr.Lambert:
My (real) name is Samuel Browning and I am beginning to study criminology at the University of New Haven. Since I have not yet gone through a statistics course I wanted to ask a couple focused questions that I think would be informative for other readers as well. If Lott had actually done his 1997 phone survey properly, according to commonly accepted sampling proceedures:
1) How many households would his students have had to call to make this a valid and reliable study?
2) Would his surveyors have to have recorded the size of each household in order to have a valid and reliable study?
3) Would there have to be a particular mixture of small and large households to ensure that there was no sampling error? And would the caller have to talk to a certain person in the household or would any adult do?
4) If say the magic number for a telephone survey was 4,000 households, and say 1,000 wouldn't completely answer all or any of the questions, would the 4,000 household number have to be reached by having 4,000 complete surveys or is it acceptable to count slightly incomplete surveys?
5) You have mentioned that 13 defensive uses in Lott's new study is inadequate to make any generalization. Assuming a properly sized and randomly selected sample,(ie. question #1) how many uses would be necessary to produce a valid and reliable 2% figure?
5) Is there a central text which is accepted by staticians for answering these questions?
I am not trying to give you a hard time but to make up my mind on this issue it would be useful to know how far out of compliance with accepted statistical practices Lott was, assuming that the 1997 survey existed. As an aside, back around 1991 I ran a three or four night telephone solicitation for my local Habitat for Humanity chapter, and can still remember some of the people who helped out, it is difficult for me to believe that Lott cannot remember enough information to discover names that would lay this issue to rest. Best wishes.
Samuel Browning,
New Haven Connecticut
Samuel Browning - 2/26/2003
Testing
Clayton E. Cramer - 2/25/2003
"Sorry, Clayton. There are questions about Lott's surveys because the sample sizes are small, the statistic is far on the _high_, not the low, side of all previous surveys (even those he cited as substatiating his own), the statistic in question is laughable on its face, and, given the sample size, is statistically impossible."
I'm afraid that you need to spend some more time understanding the controversy. The objection to Lott's numbers is that they show only 2% of defensive uses involve firing a gun--as opposed to other surveys that show much higher percentages of defensive uses firing a gun.
The survey was originally intended to find out how many defensive gun uses, and the sample size was adequate. Trying to deduce the number of defensive gun uses in which shots were fired from the small percentage of those answering the survey is very questionable--but the overall survey was reasonably sized.
Statistically impossible? No, not really. Depending on the nature of the responders, it is possible, after weighting the raw data, to end up with those percentages--though the responder(s) would have had to be a most peculiar population to producing this sort of weighted result.
Jake Turner - 2/25/2003
Interesting summation of events.
http://www.reason.com/0303/fe.jm.disarming.shtml
Bryan Haskins - 2/24/2003
I retract my comment that the Lott controversy should not be discussed here. I originally thought that it would have little to do with Bellesiles. However, there appears to be a desire here to compare and contrast Lott with Bellesiles, and therefore these posts do have something to do with “How the Bellesiles Story Developed.” I have also found these posts fascinating, and (for purely selfish reasons) do not wish to stop them now.
I must also admit that these posts have helped to inform me of the current problems with Lott’s work. After all, my organization, the evil empire that is the NRA, has remained silent about this issue. (Contrast this conduct with their offer of near daily links to Bellesiles’ demise) Before posters brought the Lott subject up here, I had to try and find this information at the Brady Campaign’s web sight. Not surprisingly, Lott’s problems have become “flavor of the month” there. After all, the BC has plenty of web space for Lott since it exiled Bellesiles and struck his name from every tablet there.
I agree that “liberals” do not have a monopoly on political orthodoxy, and I did not intend to suggest otherwise. Ideologues can be found everywhere in the political spectrum. They are actually very easy to spot, for they allow the objective truth to be enslaved by their political views. For them, statistics or facts which conform to their beliefs are accepted on faith. Anything which contradicts their ideology must be a lie, and is best ignored. If it cannot be ignored, then it is to be attacked as a partisan lie. Mr. Smith, for example, has dipped his foot into this pool on occasion here. I try very hard not to give in to this all-to-human weakness, but I am sure that somewhere out there I have allowed my own ideology to color my ability to correctly perceive reality. For example, I have never read Lott’s work, but I have heard the 98% statistic quoted and attributed to his work many, many times. I have to admit that I never thought to question the validity of that figure until now. The point is that we should be honest enough with ourselves to admit our own prejudices, and we should be wary of placing a blind acceptance in facts which track our own political views, whether published by Bellesiles or Lott.
Frank A. Baldridge - 2/23/2003
The 98% is ONE statistic. No matter how many times it enters into the author's arguments, it is still one statistic (the mean is used repeatedly to determine the standard deviation in quantitative analysis). The questions should involve the author's sampling methodology and his statistical analysis, as they affect his hypothesis. Why do his results differ from other studies?
Tim Lambert - 2/23/2003
There were only about 13 defensive gun uses in Lott's new survey. This is not enough to make any generalization about the percentage that involved firing the gun. The 98% statistic is not just one statistic in his book. It is a statistic Lott has repeated over and over and over again to argue against gun control. See
http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/lottbrandish.html
for a list.
Now, would you care to tell us exactly who these "gun control apparatchiks" are who are trying to make a tit-for-tat example of Lott?
Josh Greenland - 2/23/2003
"Now, suppose Bellesiles was claiming that he had proved he had
done the probate research that people are, err, sceptical about
by replicating that research and getting similar numbers. And
that this replication involved a sample of just 13 inventories.
What would you say?"
You mean what if only one set of probate numbers in Bellesiles' 600 page book were under question of falsification, and he came up with the same percentages of guns in probates, but only had 13 inventories in that one data set? I'd say he didn't have enough probates to make this kind of generalization (but then I'm not just taking your word that 2000 respondents isn't enough for Lott's supposed phone survey). I won't have known what he did, but would have to guess that he screwed up and, if he gave contradictory explanations, that he had forgotten where he got his data, or he was covering up something worse than forgetfulness. On ONE statistic in his book.
It would make me more skeptical about the rest of his book, but as it is ONE statistic in the book, it wouldn't automatically cause me to reject the whole.
But Tim, Bellesiles did a lot worse than this. He "looked at" multiple sets of probates that no other living human can find. He claimed base numbers of inventories, not just resulting statistics, that were flat wrong and highly checkable. James Lindgren demonstrated that Bellesiles came up with probate statistics that were grossly wrong just by checking arithmetic. Gloria Main all but stated in her critical article in the February 2002 William and Mary Quarterly that Bellesiles had to be lying when he claimed to gotten all his claimed probate data in the inadequate amount of time he had for such a large task.
This is only the probate data. The Emory external committee found Bellesiles had misrepresented militia census records. Randolph in his W&M; Quarterly article concluded that Bellesiles thoroughly screwed up homicide statistics in the colonies and early America, and that the mistakes always favored his thesis. Ira Gruber in his W&M; Quarterly article found Bellesiles' work on combat during the 1700s and 1800s to be profoundly flawed. Don Williams has written many posts for the Chronicle of Higher Education colloquy on Bellesiles detailing where MB had butchered the history of American militia combat to favor his subthesis on their ineptitude. Clayton Cramer has detailed instance after instance on his website of Bellesiles rewriting colonial and early American statues to favor his thesis, often completely reversing their meanings, and ignoring and misinterpreting traveler accounts to support his version of history. According to Cramer, very few of Bellesiles footnotes actually reference works that support his claims.
Bellesiles would be in great shape if he had only as much wrong with his book as you and others claim Lott has with his. There IS NO COMPARISON. Not yet, anyway. The matter of the 98% statistic and of Mary Rosh bring up questions of Lott's integrity, but a lot more needs to be proven before you and Rulph and Robert and Benny can take Lott's scalp in return for Bellesiles'. Parts of Lott's work have already been gone over by pro-gun control academics immediately after it's came out, and it's been out for years, so I'm a little skeptical that his work will be totally discredited.
But you know what? I'll respect you if you honestly can prove, not that a little mud sticks, but that Lott's work is largely or wholely unreliable. If due to dishonesty or incompetence, Lott's work comes to false conclusions, I'd like to know, and sooner rather than later. It's always a bad idea to base decisionmaking on lies. I for one don't want to be relying on a liar, or naively accepting his falsehoods as building blocks for my view of the world.
And I think this is how the great majority of gun rights supporters feel. If Lott comes to conclusions that support our political beliefs, we might naturally be somewhat reluctant to believe those conclusions are wrong, but in general we don't like being lied to, even by someone "on our side," or to have bad stats fobbed on us by an incompetent that anti-gunners could use against us. Quite a contrast to gun control apparatchiks, whose response to the profoundly fraudulent content of Arming America is to ignore the increasingly strong evidence against the book, to refuse to the last moment to acknowledge problems with the book, and then to do so reluctantly, to be silent about the book's content and to try to turn discussions away from that to the character and actions of the books critics or a subset of the book's critics. And in an amazing show of tit-for-tat immaturity, to try to immediately "make an example of" a pro-gun rights academic whose work is as influential as Bellesiles' would have been if it hadn't been exposed as a total fraud.
Tim Lambert - 2/23/2003
I have a summary of the nine surveys at
http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/lottduncancomments.html#surveys
I include links so you can review the methodology.
We don't know what the methodology of Lott's 1997 survey was
since there is no documentation of any kind. I have webbed Lott's
description of his 2002 survey, which he claims is similar to the
1997 one, here:
http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/lottreply6.html
Differences in methodologies clearly do not explain the differences in the results.
Now, suppose Bellesiles was claiming that he had proved he had
done the probate research that people are, err, sceptical about
by replicating that research and getting similar numbers. And
that this replication involved a sample of just 13 inventories.
What would you say?
Richard Henry Morgan - 2/23/2003
I can't fault your logic Ralph, accepting your premises (as I don't know the conclusions of the other nine studies, and so I can't know what "much lower" means). My only quibble is with this vaguery:
"The only way it can be salvaged is if another scholar with no obvious self-interest in the finding conducts a survey which vindicates Lott's claim."
If the claim is that he did the survey, then reproducibility of results by others salvages his reputation vis-a-vis the charge of fabrication. That could be true without the reproduced results vindicating the claim of 98%, as the methodology could be extraordinarily bad. But I quibble yet again, if only to demonstrate how ambiguities can creep into our statements.
Donald Duck - 2/23/2003
Never read Lott, and know absolutely nothing about statistics. But I do no that ducks don't roost.
Donald
Ralph E. Luker - 2/23/2003
Tim Lambert has the skinny on Lott and the previous surveys. I notice that you try to mock my responses whenever possible. I don't know whether I've made a new friend or not. Maybe he thinks I've savaged him so it's his turn to savage me.
Thomas Gunn - 2/23/2003
02-22-2003 ~1850
Ralph,
Those comments were not for Michael, they were for you. Did you notice they followed the same general blueprint as yours to Mr. Morgan?
In regard to the variance in surveys of which you speak, can you be more specific? And were the surveys similar enough in nature and methodology to be useful in camparison to the one in question?
I am happy though that you seem to have made a new friend.
thomas
Ralph E. Luker - 2/22/2003
Thomas,
I don't have the expertise necessary to conduct such a survey. I know enough about survey methodology to know that when a finding is as much at variance from 9 previous surveys as Lott's was, there is good reason to be skeptical of its finding.
As for your question about Michael's work, perhaps I'll ask him. You have any other messages for him? He's acknowledged that there are errors in the first edition of his work. We'll see what the second edition looks like. He's been put on notice about where the problems seem to be.
Thomas Gunn - 2/22/2003
02-22-2003 ~1655
Nice try Ralph,
Hows about this then: Can we agree that Michael Bellesiles and his book is a fraud; that Michael used non-existant sources; that he not only misinterpreted some sources but lied about what those sources said; that the whole point of his tome was to antaganize pro rights folks, and disparage the NRA; that he misused and abused his friends; that he has done a disservice to both the pro rights and anti-gun, victim disarmament coalitions?
No? Well it was worth a try.
I don't have the expertice to defend or criticize Lott's figures. What I find fascinating is no one seems to want to do a study to find the facts surrounding DGU's that has not been open to some claim of fraud.
Maybe you'd like to tackle that?
thomas
Robert Simonds - 2/22/2003
Curious a a good case of EMPHASIS can do to how one reads a statement:
Frankly, any time I read a statement that begins with "98 percent of the time" IT IS REASONABLE TO SUSPECT THE CREDIBILITY of the statement that follows. 98 percent affirmative or negative on any poll SEEM PRETTY UNLIKELY. You can always count on a good five or six percent "don't know" answers after all. [emphasis revised]
I'll watch my absolutes more closely in the future.
Ralph E. Luker - 2/22/2003
Richard, This does help to clarify things. Can we agree that Lott's claim that 98% of the time the brandishing of a gun was sufficient to resolve a situation is dubious because: a) he occasionally attributed that finding to other surveys which did not show that figure; and b) 9 previous surveys showed considerably varying but in every case much lower figures? Because Lott did not allow the previous survey findings to give him pause about this figure and because he has cited it 50 times, it really makes little difference whether he conducts another survey which finds a similar figure. He has undone his own credibility. The only way it can be salvaged is if another scholar with no obvious self-interest in the finding conducts a survey which vindicates Lott's claim. I think that is unlikely to happen.
Richard Henry Morgan - 2/22/2003
Ralph, I could have been much more clear had I quoted the larger context of Simonds' remark (and had I stuck to counterexamples clearly not relevant to the substantive issues), thus showing that he was making a wider, general claim -- and that I was responding to that wider claim. Here's the larger context of Simonds' remark:
"Frankly, ANY TIME I read a statement that begins with "98 percent of the time" it is reasonable to suspect the credibility of the statement that follows. 98 percent affirmative or negative on ANY POLL seems pretty unlikely. You can ALWAYS count on a good five or six percent "don't know" answers after all. [emphasis added]
Richard Henry Morgan - 2/22/2003
Ralph, I didn't offer it as directly relevant to the 98% figure, any more than the diagnosis of cancer or receipt of a military draft notice examples I offered were intended as directly relevant. I offered it as relevant to the a priori claim that the 98% figure given must be wrong because you "can always count on a good five or six percent "don't know" answers after all."
I'm not aware who rehired Bellesiles (perhaps simply "hired" would have been a better choice), as I'm relying on the press release by the gun control group, cited above, that Sternstein happened upon (it's in his Feb. 15 posting). It says, simply:
"I challenge anyone to show how the revised paragraphs addressing probate materials undermine in any way the thesis or logical structure of this book," said Bellesiles, who is currently teaching in the U.K.
http://tinyurl.com/5vjj
fRANK a. bALDRIDGE - 2/22/2003
With an introduction by Benny Smith. Printed on periforated single ply tissue rolls. Coming soon from Soft Skull Press. 39 cents (pink or scented tissue edition 69 cents).
Thomas Gunn - 2/21/2003
02-21-2003 ~1740
Ralph,
Maybe you'd like to explain what you consider a DGU and we can go from there.
As I mentioned before there is some confusion and differing opinion to just what constitutes a DGU. They would be difficult to count and then interpret if the counter and the respondant were unclear precisely what they were discussing.
The question, "Have you ever used a gun to defend yourself?", takes in a lot of territory. All the way from getting your gun out of the closet b/c you hear a noise to pluggin an assailant.
thomas
Ralph E. Luker - 2/21/2003
Richard,
You have misunderstood, I think, what the 98% figure refers to. Lott puts it this way:
"I also found a significantly higher percentage of them (98 percent) involved simply brandishing a gun."
John Lott at http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/lottduncan.html
Other studies found a varying, but considerably lower, percentage of cases in which respondants had only to show a gun, rather than shoot it, to resolve a problem.
Your point, that it may not be reasonable to think that five or six percent of people could not remember whether they had ever been shot, is not relevant to the question posed in Lott's survey.
Oh, and by the way, if Michael Bellesiles has been rehired, I am sure he would appreciate your telling him who has rehired him.
Richard Henry Morgan - 2/21/2003
I don't account for the other studies because I don't know the results of the other studies. I don't know their methodologies, and I don't know Lott's. The question of fabrication rests not on differing results, but differing results arising from the same methodology (and differing to a point outside the realm of chance). Of course, this is an entirely different question from whether any similar methodology can reach valid conclusions (I believe Simonds runs the questions together).
I am interested in the outcome of this whole thing, and will be paying attention to developments, but I'm not about to assimilate an entire literature in order to make a substantive contribution to any such debate, or take sides on the substantive questions -- I'm content to point out where I think others are over-reaching in their conclusions. I await attempts to reproduce his numbers using his methodology, which I think will dispose of the issue, and if it runs against Lott, will dispose of him too. I will add that Bellesiles has apparently been rehired. Perhaps the comparison to Bellesiles was not salutary.
Ralph E. Luker - 2/21/2003
I believe I understand it all. Of course, Lott's finding of 98% is not credible if he is, as until now at least he is, the only investigator who says that he finds that figure. How do you account for the finding of much lower figures in 9 previous studies?
Even so, as I say, there is no accountability structure for Lott as there was for Bellesiles. That's an observation, not a recommendation that he be hired by anyone.
Richard Henry Morgan - 2/21/2003
Ralph, I daresay it's easier not to hire somebody than it is to fire him once he has tenure. I hope you're not suggesting that Lott be given an academic post as the only means to visiting discipline and accountability upon him (that's an unserious suggestion on my part).
As for defending Lott, I don't believe I have. In fact, I'd be most grateful if you could point me to where I have. I have responded to Mr. Simonds claim (which I quote):
"98 percent affirmative or negative on any poll seems pretty unlikely. You can always count on a good five or six percent "don't know" answers after all."
Mr. Simonds offers no evidence for such a claim (the second one being categorical, and defeasible by a single counter-instance). It is speculation, and I answer in kind. I speculate that at least 98% of the American public when surveyed will answer no to the question of whether they had ever been shot. I also speculate that there will not be 5 or 6 percent who offer that they don't know whether they have ever been shot. If you disagree, please say so. If you agree, then any a priori speculation based on an unsupported categorical statement seems to me jejeune. The question is then an entirely empirical one. Does repeating the survey generate the same numbers, within the bounds of chance, as Lott supposedly got? If not, the guy is toast.
I hold no brief for fictional statistics, or even for statistical claims made for data that are not released to the public. Bellesiles' stats and data were not reproduced -- in fact, they couldn't be, as the San Francisco Court House probate records have the slight empirical disadvantage of non-existence. Kellerman was still "cleaning up his data" three years after publishing claims about them (God only knows what 'cleaning up' means in such a context). The parallel would be had people (and some no doubt did) concluded that Bellesiles had fabricated data based solely on it supposed incompatibility with prior data, and his inability to release his own. He was, in the end, defeated by non-repeatability. And so will Lott, if non-repeatability is his fate.
Now, which part of the above don't you understand?
Ralph E. Luker - 2/21/2003
Thomas,
My understanding is that Lott does not hold a tenured position in an American college or university and, therefore, is not subject to much of a reliable review process -- on which you ask me to wait. Where's the accountability structure that you defend?
Thomas Gunn - 2/21/2003
02-2102003 ~1110
Ralph,
You are being deliberately obtuse. Neither myself nor Mr. Morgan (AFAIK) are defending Lott's work, I'm simply asking that you wait on the process without attempting to muddy the waters with a load of unsubstantiated rumour mongering. You certainly must know from whence I come, it is in the same vein as the spirited though misguided defense that you provided for Bellesiles. Turns out Michael wasn't deserving of your loyality, Lott's worthiness remains to be seen.
thomas
Ralph E. Luker - 2/21/2003
Thomas,
I'm not demanding answers to anything. I simply observed that you and Richard need not feel obliged to defend Lott on this score.
Thomas Gunn - 2/21/2003
02-21-2003 ~1015
Ralph,
I'm not sure what kind of response you are looking for here, we've been over this ground already, and as I have stated before the # of times a certain fact is mentioned should have no bearing on the validity of the fact. (Personally, I have problems with both the fact and the interpretation for reasons other than whether the survey was actually done. And isn't that the question being asked? Stats are so easily manipulated.) That you continue to beat this dead horse leaves me wondering if you have anything else.
You sound very much like all those pro gun folks you were disparaging a few monhs ago over their criticism of Michael Bellesiles and you were cautioning, "wait on the process". You claim to be waiting, "I'm waiting I'm waiting", but you continue to demand answers concerning one sentence in a very big book while the jury remains out.
The chickens have come home to roost, and it is not a pretty sight.
thomas
Richard Henry Morgan - 2/21/2003
We're bound to disagree. To me the best evidence that he fabricted the figure is the fact that he doesn't have the data to back it up. Future surveys will tell if he was in the ballpark or not, with a critical examination of the question asked, the survey techniques, and the randomizing algorithm also lending support or not. I suspect the figure will be over 80%, no matter what method is chosen, but I don't have a dog in the fight. Lott's "survey" shares the problems of all such self-reporting, but self-reporting seems the only way to go (unless you can track down the person on the receiving end and get his cooperation). The problem with trashing the whole procedure is that you can't then use differing survey results to trash Lott. What will be less susceptible to the "don't know" phenomenon is whether a shot was made (though, here again, as with all such surveys, there may be reasons to under-report things -- a problem shared by Kellerman's studies), though the relative proportions will be open to other problems. I don't subscribe to theory that 5% to 6% percent respond that they don't know whether they shot or not, though I realize such figures are themselves unstable as proportions if the ambiguities of data-gathering are large enough. In any case, I haven't endorsed the statistic in question. I'm perfectly willing to see what similarly designed surveys turn up. But then, I'm an empiricist.
Van L. Hayhow - 2/21/2003
To Mr. Cramer:
There is another possibility. In my occupation, I deal with people every day who have some type of problem, often self-created and very serious. Some people (not most in my personal experience, but some) have an enormous capacity at self-deception. They can convince themselves either that what they did was not that serious after all, they it was not their fault, or that they are the wronged party. I suspect he fits into this last category. I think its likely that he cannot face the fact he has blown up what once was a promising career and has convinced himself he did nothing wrong so that while he is wandering in the wilderness he can blame someone else instead of himself.
Robert Simonds - 2/21/2003
Come on, Mr. Morgan! Only Saddam Hussein gets numbers like 98%. Certainly brandishing a gun in self-defense is a memorable event. But certainly the reality of "gun brandishing incidents" is that many have ambiguous results. First, there is the serious problem of using self-reporting to count "defensive gun uses." Did the person on the other end perceive it as a defensive brandishing? Did the person on the other end perceive their previous actions as threatening? The whole premise creates a cookie-cutter image of these incidents--something like this: Joe Citizen walking down the street. Bad guy jumps out and shouts "Your money or your life!" Joe brandishes gun. Bad guy runs away. You can bet a number of these DGUs were much more complicated than this--for example, incidents that begin with verbal exchanges that escalate to verbal threats that lead to situations where one or both parties perceive a physical threat and brandish a gun.
The end result of gun brandishings must also certainly be ambiguous in more than 2 percent of cases. Common sense suggests that Lott either completely fabricated the 98% result or created a survey so fundamentally flawed that it should be met with great skepticism by any open-minded reader.
Ralph E. Luker - 2/21/2003
"I also found a significantly higher percentage of them (98 percent) involved simply brandishing a gun."
John Lott at http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/lottduncan.html
He has, apparently, cited this percentage as many as 50 times, sometimes claiming it as his own finding, sometimes attributing the finding to others, when 9 previous surveys had all found widely varying, but in every case much lower, percentages. Instead of repeatedly citing it, a scholar, whose work was _not_ thesis-driven, would take that variance from all previous findings as reason to question the reliability of his or her own survey.
Thomas Gunn - 2/21/2003
02-20-2003 ~2245
Ok Ralph, which bogus fact did Lott give us? And why is it bogus? What is it I'm defending that is indefensible?
thomas
Richard Henry Morgan - 2/21/2003
"Mr. Morgan seems ready to do backflips to accept a statistical truth that common sense should tell him is not reasonable"
I'm still looking for a spot where I accepted, or urged acceptance of a statistic that has no data to back it up. There is a gulf the size of the Grand Canyon between finding fault with your (and Ralph's) a priori rejection of a statistic, and urging acceptance of it.
Richard Henry Morgan - 2/21/2003
Ralph, I think you misread me a little. The best evidence against Lott's statistic is that he can't produce the data, and nobody else has produced data that would support it (though, reportedly, he has a yet-to-be published survey that is not too far off the first -- but since I don't know the number, I can't evaluate what too far off really means in this context). My point is that these objections are better than the general objection that most surveys have a significant "don't know" response rate. I would hope that firing a weapon is self-defense would be a memorable event. Wouldn't you expect so? Do you really believe that 5% to 6% of Americans can't remember if they ever fired a weapon in self-defense?
john horst - 2/20/2003
I was doing some reading the other day and found an interesting passage that led credence to Bellesiles assertion that the weapon of choice for defence and assault was the axe, not the gun. In 1846, Melchoir Fordney of Lancaster Pennsylvania was murdered by a crazed man with an axe. "Apparently, he was working at gunsmithing to the end, for his estate inventory lists gunsmithing tools as well as unfinished rifle parts." Oh crap, never mind...
Bryan Haskins - 2/20/2003
I hope, Mr. Smith, that your mentioning of my name in your latest post implies a thaw in our relationship. I could not help but notice your recent complaint that “[n]obody appears to be interested in discussing the substance of my posts anymore.” Do you fear that the tide of events has swept your views into some backwater fringe of the Bellesiles’ debate? Let me allay your fears, Mr. Smith. All is not lost, and I at least have not abandoned you.
Six times, Mr. Smith, have I directly offered to pull you from your comparative backwater to discuss the “substance” of your issues here:
On December 3, 2002 http://hnn.us/comments/5375.html
On December 4, 2002 http://hnn.us/comments/5412.html
On January 2, 2003 http://hnn.us/comments/6487.html
On January 14, 2003 http://hnn.us/comments/7177.html
On January 20, 2003 http://hnn.us/comments/7445.html and finally
On February 14, 2003 http://hnn.us/comments/8265.html
Six times you have refused the life-line I have cast in your direction. You have certainly demonstrated a remarkable proficiency in abandoning threads I enter in favor of starting new ones. However, you have never accepted any of my offers to discuss “substance.” Indeed, you have refused to even comment upon my many offers save once. To your credit, you did throw the rope back to me one time with the explanation that your refusal to accept my offers arose from your fear that others here would use these “substantive” discussions as a springboard to further bash you and Bellesiles. I am reasonably certain, however, that you have not forgotten my original offer included the unprecedented step of exposing my private e-mail address so we could take the discussion off-line. I had hoped this offer to discuss “substance” in that sheltered harbor secure from the storm which you continue to feel rages around you here would have overcome your reluctant attitude. I am disappointed that you have refused this offer as well.
Let me therefore clarify this point. If you fear to disclose your arguments on the validity of Arming America’s thesis here, then I once again offer to discuss the matter off-line with you. If you accept my offer, then I will certainly report that event here and give you credit for having done so. Now, to allay any fears you may have that my latest life-line is actually a cleverly concealed bait-hook, let me say this: I agree to maintain the confidentiality of whatever return mail address you chose to use, and I will not distribute either it or any portion of your off-line e-mail content to anyone without first asking and securing your permission here. This request for “substantive” discussion is a sincere one, Mr. Smith, and I know not how to state it any plainer than I just have.
I have read the recent posts that compare responding to you with the arcade game “whack-a-mole.” I can understand how this “fun-poking” might upset you. Still, everyone here knows the “biased gun lobby smear campaign” hole is the only one you use, and you have certainly lured your critics into crowding around it with their mallets. If you are tired of getting bashed by some of your critics, then might I suggest you try coming out of a different hole for once. Leave exploration of the predictably slow circles of your backwater to other, less worthy mariners. Get back out into the mainstream of the Bellesiles debate by offering us some “substance” to chew upon.
Ralph E. Luker - 2/20/2003
Thomas, I'm waiting! I'm waiting! Meantime, this isn't an emotional appeal. "Gun rights folk have the facts. Gun control folk only have emotion." I've heard it from you before. Lott gave you and Richard a bogus "fact." You need not defend the indefensible.
Thomas Gunn - 2/20/2003
02-20-2003 ~1403
Ralph,
What diff does it make how many times the cite is mentioned? Should you be judged on the number of times you've cited the greatness of MLK, in the same breath as the word plagiarism?
You are making an emotional appeal on one fact that may or may not be bogus. It *is* an interpretation after all.
thomas
Thomas Gunn - 2/20/2003
02-20-2003 ~1402
Ralph,
You seem to be rushing to judgment with too much too late or too little too soon. Whyn't you wait on the process to complete before making ill founded judgments of Lott's work (or lack there of) and disparaging those who would discuss the quality of the work in question?
Lott has been questioned from the very first day. Until recently the questions centered on his interprtation of his facts. There arises now questions about one fact. Your making a mountain out of a mole hill. Are you gonna follow your own admonitions and wait out the process or are you intending letting your emotions get in the way?
thomas
Ralph E. Luker - 2/20/2003
Thomas, Lott is known to have cited the 98% figure 50 times!
Thomas Gunn - 2/20/2003
02-20-2003 ~1400
Mr. Lambert,
Has Lott made as big a deal about the 98% # as you have?
What does *that* say about you?
thomas
Ralph E. Luker - 2/20/2003
"This suggests that there might be a methodological flaw in the 1997 and 2002 surveys, because they agree with each other, but are low compared to other surveys that have asked similar questions."
Sorry, Clayton. There are questions about Lott's surveys because the sample sizes are small, the statistic is far on the _high_, not the low, side of all previous surveys (even those he cited as substatiating his own), the statistic in question is laughable on its face, and, given the sample size, is statistically impossible.
Clayton E. Cramer - 2/20/2003
"Other surveys DO NOT SHOW SIMILAR RESULTS. His alleged survey gives a number markedly different from all nine published surveys."
Lott's 2002 survey gives roughly similar numbers to the 1997 survey. This suggests that there might be a methodological flaw in the 1997 and 2002 surveys, because they agree with each other, but are low compared to other surveys that have asked similar questions. This doesn't mean that the 1997 survey didn't take place.
Clayton E. Cramer - 2/20/2003
I am perplexed by ex-professor Bellesiles's continuing defense
of his falsification of colonial gun control statutes, and of
early Republic travel accounts. The possibilities that I can
imagine to explain this seeming masochism are:
1. The mark of an ideologue is his unwillingness to even consider the possibility that evidence contradicts his grandiose theories. Bellesiles probably didn't look up the sources he cited, and therefore he honestly doesn't know that large numbers of them directly contradict his claims.
2. Bellesiles is suffering from some form of mental disturbance that means that when he reads a colonial statute that requires "that noe man shall go two miles from the Towne unarmed, eyther with Gunn or Sword; and that none shall come to any public Meeting without his weapon" that he honestly thinks that this means the guns were kept locked up in central storehouses.
3. Bellesiles knows that the OAH is still working hard to protect him from the consequences of his lies, and believes that over time, as his generation moves up and takes over the professional associations and faculty departments, he will be quietly allowed back into the priesthood.
Ralph E. Luker - 2/20/2003
Richard's back flips to justify accepting the statistic Lott gratuitously cited and may have made up out of whole cloth and Thomas's misinterpretation of the issues suggest that they've made up their minds before the discussion took place. So much for the even handed search for what is true.
Tim Lambert - 2/20/2003
Lott did not advance his 98% number in response to interviewers asking him questions. He advanced it him self over and over again to argue against gun control and in favour of concealed carry laws. Lott himself made a big deal about the 98% number.
Other surveys DO NOT SHOW SIMILAR RESULTS. His alleged survey gives a number markedly different from all nine published surveys.
Thomas Gunn - 2/20/2003
02-20-2003 ~0030
Hi all,
First let me state for the record and with all honesty my name is actually and truthfully "Thomas"!
Mr. Lambert, suppose for a moment you were intervieiwed repeatedly and the same question cropped up. I suspect you would answer it pretty much the same way. I would not presume to judge the validity of the response or the fact in question based on the number of times you responded. There are myriad numbers bandied about re DGU's, and there is even some question what makes a DGU. Taking the max # of surveyed DGU reports and the max # of shootings, the 98% # doesn't seem out of the realm possibility. Taking the min # of DGU's reported in the surveys, and the min # of legit DGU shootings, again the 98% # doesn't tax credulity.
It seems an insignificant point to me to take exception when conventional wisdom tells us very few DGU's will end in gun fire, and of those that do, mostly they will be crim on crim shootings. (Is that so terrible?) The important thing to remember in all this is the rules of engagement and what is taught those that legally aspire to CCW. It is also important to remember there are very few mistaken DGU shootings from the amateurs.
Mr. Simonds, from my perspective the investigation of Lott has been almost exclusively driven by the gun rights side of the debate. If Lott has falsified the data he needs to be delt with severely. The jury is still out on the fact of the survey in question, but the interpretation of the results of many other similar surveys is not evidence of a failure to do this survey. That other surveys show similar results strengthens the case the questioned survey was done, not-with-standing the vagarious interpretations.
thomas
Robert Simonds - 2/19/2003
Apologies for "the silence is DEAFENING" comment. It did get me the result I hoped for--some real discussion of the issue. Please note that by suggesting that there were parallels between Bellesiles and Lott's books and responses to them, I was NOT suggesting there is equivalent evidence of fraud.
Mr. Haskins objects that this is not the forum to discuss Lott's research, but this discussion has gone well beyond the statistics used in Bellesiles' work. It has explored a range of related issues, including the problem of scholars' responses to Bellesile's work. Many contributors have suggested that the bigger problem is not one dishonest historian, but the failure of historians in general to review Bellesiles' work critically because his thesis too nicely dovetailed with their own liberal political views.
I think this was largely the case, although it ignores several other important reasons: 1)historians are notoriously bad statisticians, and thus most are extremely ill-equipped to evaluate statistical evidence and 2)Mr. Cramer met an unreceptive audience because of two other types of bias--credentialism (he has no PhD) and the profession's fear of the internet (the primary medium Cramer had available to him.)
As for the issue of politics clouding critical judgement, I'm not convinced conservatives are any less susceptible to this. Mr. Morgan seems ready to do backflips to accept a statistical truth that common sense should tell him is not reasonable. And if the facts so effectively outlined by Mr. Lambert are correct, than all of the conservative respondents to this thread are at least a little guilty of minimizing Lott's dishonesty.
Editor - 2/19/2003
test
Bryan Haskins - 2/19/2003
I’m sorry, Mr. Simonds, but as one of the “active gun-right’s contributors” here I did not realize this had now become a forum on Mr. Lott. I would have posted something on this issue earlier if I had known.
It may be that we will find parallels between Lott’s case and that of Bellesiles. If, for example, it is proven that Lott has lied about his sources and his inability to replicate his data, then that would be one parallel. If he gets caught lying in his attempts to explain problems with his research, then I guess that would be another parallel. The problem with Lott’s assuming a false identity while posting is troublesome to me. In my opinion, this alone should cause several of us to look upon his research with a more critical eye than we have in the past. I certainly have no problem with subjecting Lott’s work to the same scrutiny Bellesiles’ work has faced here (an easy thing for me to say since it is not my work or reputation in jeopardy). In fact, I believe that Lott’s work deserves such an analysis now that these questions have been raised about it. It will either clear his reputation as a scholar or, as has been the case with Bellesiles, destroy it.
This should help, Mr. Simonds, to illustrate a critical difference between myself and some of Bellesile’s most ardent supporters who post here. Unlike them, I will not seek to shelter an author or his work from penetrating critical analysis merely because his conclusions conform to my own political ideology. I also believe it cowardly to use an attack on a critic’s motivations as an excuse for the inability to address his factual allegations. Facts are facts, regardless of how discomforting they may be or from whom you hear them. My impression from my own line of work leads me to believe that the non-lethal use of a firearm in self defense constitutes around 90-95% of all reported defensive use of firearms. Still, we owe it to ourselves to find out if Lott has lied about his research. If it is proven that he has done so, then he would indeed share something in common with Bellesiles, and he would equally deserve as much censure as Bellesiles has already received.
Nevertheless, Mr. Simonds, I do not think that this site is the place to conduct a critical analysis of Lott’s research. Tell me, is there some other venue where web space has been devoted to comments on Lott’s issues? If so, then please post a link here for me. I would like to discuss and learn more about Lott’s “troubles” (if this is the right word). After all, I dearly need someone to talk to since Mr. Smith got mad at my analysis of his postings here, picked up his football, and went home.
J. Merrett - 2/19/2003
"'I challenge anyone to show how the revised paragraphs addressing probate materials undermine in any way the thesis or logical structure of this book,' said Bellesiles, who is currently teaching in the U.K."
Does this mean that he is asking to be pilloried over his abuse of the travel records and other anecdotal sources in AA? Does he want to be run out Britain, too?
Tim Lambert - 2/19/2003
1. There were legitimate questions raised about the 1997
survey, most notably by Tim Lambert. Proving that the survey
didn't take place is impossible, unlike Bellesiles's
problems, which often involved documents that were easy to
find.
It's also easy to find out what "national surveys" and Gary Kleck's study say. Lott's claim here are wrong nad he won't even admit to making them.
2. Lott has managed to scrape together enough evidence now
(including replicating the 1997 survey results with a new,
better document survey) that I think even Mr. Lambert
recognizes that the 1997 survey probably did happen. Mr.
Lambert's criticism now is that the survey size is so small
that the 98% number is meaningless, and I generally agree
with him on this.
Lott's new survey does not replicate the results of the alleged 1997 survey. The sample size is too small for it to be evidence for anything. Since no students have come forward after the Chicago Tribune article, it looks increasingly likely that there was no 1997 survey.
3. The parallel between Lott and Bellesiles is strongest in
that Lott lied when he posted as Mary Rosh, and claimed to be
a former student. Pseudonyms are fine on the Internet, and
part of a proud American tradition; lying about who you are,
is not.
I actually don't have much problem with Rosh claiming to be a former student of Lott's. It's the other lies he told, like this one.
4. The 98% number is ONE SENTENCE out of Lott's book. If
Bellesiles's problems had been one sentence, or one
paragraph, nothing would have happened to him. I wouldn't
have pursued the matter, and neither would anyone else.
If the 98% claim had just been one sentence I don't think that anyone would have pursued the matter either. The problem is that Lott repeated the claim over 50 times.
Don Williams - 2/19/2003
eom
Frank A. Baldridge - 2/19/2003
Benny: Your posts have no substance. And what exactly do you not understand about "To everyone except Benny." How come you are plural? Have an imaginary friend?
I believe Clayton is right, and it extends beyond guns to such myths as John Muir, who talked to rocks, shot his traveling companion, was a real estate promoter for the railroad, and urged the expansion of automobile traffic in National Parks. But a check of the editors of academic environmental history publications leds one to the conclusion that an objective look at Muir and his real legacy will not be published.
Which is perhaps all the more reason to pursue this further......
Will J. Richardson - 2/19/2003
http://www.softskull.com/cgi-bin/SoftCart.100.exe/store/browse_history.shtml?L+scstore+uhix5786+1045644135
Benny Smith - 2/19/2003
"The big question is, do you have any content?"
An excellent point, Mr. Whitelaw, as I’ve yet to see Bellesile’s critics move beyond the fun-poking, gossip-mongering and unproved charges in this matter. Remember, it was I who long ago suggested that Bellesile’s critics compose their own tome on the subject of our gun culture, or lack of one. Clayton Cramer’s conspiracy theory notwithstanding, I believe there are publishing houses out there willing to give new authors a break, provided their material is fresh and relevant. Please do not subject us to yet another website for gun lovers. Or just another hackneyed book on gun control. And might I suggest bringing the prosecutor, Mr. Haskins, into the fold as well. He certainly appears to have the time to devote to such a project.
I hope I didn’t offend anyone by responding here. Nobody appears to be interested in discussing the substance of my posts anymore, which gave me some time to browse the board.
Benny Smith - 2/19/2003
By the responses to my post, I gather that "Soft Skull Press" tickled the "fun-poking" genes of more than Mr. Morgan here. However, for those interested in substance, there is a very good article on the effervescent New York literary scene in a New York Times article "Authors Give More Than Autographs."
http://www.xnet2.com/patti/archives/0212/msg00100.html
It describes an avant garde bookstore salon where established mainstream authors mingle with more grassroots poets and novelists, all of whom entertain patrons in sometimes unconventional ways. Soft Skull Press organized an event for one of its authors who wrote a spoof on the US war on terrorism. The author came dressed as Abraham Lincoln and read to 150 people, after which the bookstore sold his book out in 20 minutes. I imagine it is this devotion to its authors as well as its progressive independence that drew Bellesiles to Soft Skull. Perhaps in the future, we might find Bellesiles himself at that bookstore salon, dressed as George Washington, and lamenting over his poorly equipped, poorly trained militia. Regardless of whether it is a small independent publisher, or a large mainstream publishing house, New York does remain the literary hub of the nation, much like Hollywood is the film capital.
Ralph E. Luker - 2/18/2003
Nothing. Nor do her mother or I endorse some of the titles published by Soft Skull Press.
Clayton E. Cramer - 2/18/2003
Lott's book isn't history, which may be why it isn't much discussed here. The parallels really aren't that strong for the following reasons:
1. There were legitimate questions raised about the 1997 survey, most notably by Tim Lambert. Proving that the survey didn't take place is impossible, unlike Bellesiles's problems, which often involved documents that were easy to find.
2. Lott has managed to scrape together enough evidence now (including replicating the 1997 survey results with a new, better document survey) that I think even Mr. Lambert recognizes that the 1997 survey probably did happen. Mr. Lambert's criticism now is that the survey size is so small that the 98% number is meaningless, and I generally agree with him on this.
3. The parallel between Lott and Bellesiles is strongest in that Lott lied when he posted as Mary Rosh, and claimed to be a former student. Pseudonyms are fine on the Internet, and part of a proud American tradition; lying about who you are, is not.
4. The 98% number is ONE SENTENCE out of Lott's book. If Bellesiles's problems had been one sentence, or one paragraph, nothing would have happened to him. I wouldn't have pursued the matter, and neither would anyone else.
Clayton E. Cramer - 2/18/2003
A corrected version of Arming America would either require removing 2/3 of the book, or changing the title: _Armed America: We Always Had a Gun Culture_.
Clayton E. Cramer - 2/18/2003
Few objective works about firearms history are published, or will be published. Columbia University Press is the latest to reject my book about guns and hunting in early America. I am despairing of ever finding a publisher for a serious academic work. _Arming America_, however, has a new publisher, the aptly named Soft Skull Press of New York City.
One of the difficulties we are running into is that the publishing industry, including the academic publishing industry, is not terribly interested in objective history anymore. If it doesn't serve a political purpose in support of gun control, it won't be published.
Dave LaCourse - 2/18/2003
Many of us have already made a comment or two on Lott's mess--so you are a little late to attack people here.
Nobody in the "gun-rights" field blindly defends Lott, especially for posting under another name! In fact, I mentioned that the burden is on Lott to prove he did a survey.
http://hnn.us/comments/7217.html
But regardless of Lott's outcome, Bellesiles was far worse in faking MANY records, misquoting MANY others, ignoring yet others, etc., etc, etc. Lott would have to do far more than fake a survey to equal such lows.
Now compare our alleged conduct to that of the blind loyalty of the Bellesiles believer(s?). Will some organization write an official proclamation against "attacks" on Lott?
I won't hold my breath. Again, no comparison. Lott is not Bellesiles.
Charles V. Mutschler - 2/18/2003
No, it is not a parody, though I confess to having the same thought you did when I first saw the publisher's name. However, the whole book seems to need a lot more than fixing one table. A complete re-write would be a good start.
Charles V. Mutschler
Richard Henry Morgan - 2/18/2003
No, I just think your reason for not believing it is not the best. There are certain areas of human experience that burn memories into the mind. Try asking people if they have ever received a draft notice (don't ask Bill Clinton, though). I doubt that you'll get a 5 to 6 percent "don't know" response. Or ask them if they have ever been diagnosed with cancer. Again, the 5 to 6 percent "don't know" response would seem unlikely to me. 98 percent is high in most areas (except perhaps the question, have you ever been shot?, in which case a 98 percent negative would actually seem on the low side), but there are some areas of experience where the 5 to 6 percent "don't know" response seems unlikely.
Robert Simonds - 2/18/2003
Mr. Morgan,
Sounds to me like you REALLY want to believe this statistic. As for the rest of the most active gun-rights contributors to this list, the silence is DEAFENING. Perhaps the parallels to the Bellesiles case are a bit too discomforting?
WmWhitelaw - 2/18/2003
This is very easily done. You could use a blog format such as the one offered by BlogSpot but I suspect that a few lines of HTML written for the job would be more satisfactory.
There are a large number of free servers available, any of which would be suitable hosts. There are no costs involved until multiple megabytes are archived (and that's a lot of text). I have put sites on Tripod and Netfirms, and they both work reliably. I've used Freewebs successfully also, although I have some reservations about their technical performance.
The big question is, do you have any content? If so, a suitable site could be up within an hour.
wfw
John G. Fought - 2/18/2003
I like the idea of a place on the net where we could place not only short items but others of greater length. A group weblog
like the celebrated Volokh Conspiracy might work; it could be used for short newsy postings and as an archive for more detailed pieces. The necessary software may be there for the taking, though I'd gladly put up a reasonable share toward getting Clayton Cramer to launch it properly. I'd like to hear from you others about the notion. By the way, Richard has my email address; why don't we take all this up among ourselves?
Ralph E. Luker - 2/18/2003
Thomas,
A friend tells me that the nice thing about having grandchildren is that you have a common enemy.
Josh Greenland - 2/18/2003
Ralph,
I'll be the one to ask the obvious question: did you and/or your daughter have anything to do with Bellesiles getting his book reissued at Soft Skull?
- Josh
Thomas Gunn - 2/17/2003
Ralph! Can you believe it? We've each of us raised daughters, alike, in at least two respects.
Mines a nurse currently caring for mentally and physically challenged adults.
Her tats include a unicorn on her shoulder (no backless gowns) and symbols less conspicuous. She has a tongue stud and earings and other piercings I'll mercifully never have to see.
She listens to her ole mans advice (humours him?) but makes up her own mind.
I can't wait for her to present us with grand kids we can spoil and tell em, "do what you want your ma did!" :-)
thomas
Ralph E. Luker - 2/17/2003
Thomas,
My beautiful daughter has "tats" also. As you might imagine, she hid them from me for years. I was horrified, but it was her skin, after all.
Thomas Gunn - 2/17/2003
Ralph,
Look on the bright side. Piercings grow closed on their own when progeny come to their senses. She could have a bunch of tats. :-)
After a brief perusal of your web site hats off to your daughter. I'm looking forward to your blog, I may finally get an idea of what you *really* feel. I might suggest links to articles mentioned otherwise interest is wasted. Best of luck on your new adventure.
I still think you need to put your blog on HNN. Are you listening Rick?
thomas
Richard Henry Morgan - 2/17/2003
Here's the web address for Softskull's contribution to western civ, Cunt-Ups:
http://www.softskull.com/cgi-bin/SoftCart.100.exe/store/bellamy/cunt_ups.html?L+scstore+fyyf3579+1045543439
I didn't write the promotional material. I'm just the messenger. Don't shoot me. I think what's important to keep in mind is that Cunt-Ups "resists principles of formal ordering, is polyvalent in its voice and range".
Ralph E. Luker - 2/17/2003
Thomas,
Your wish is my command. It is done.
In fairness to HNN's conspiracy theorists, I confess to having recently had a conversation with Michael Bellesiles and that my daughter is an intern at Soft Skull Press. Make of it what you will. Fire away. I have told my beloved, many pierced, multi-talented Green daughter that her proclivity for "alternative culture" could condemn her to unwanted poverty, but she is so much the daughter of a hard headed, soft skulled father that she is immune to persuasion. She's also the technician for my new website, http://www.ralphluker.com.
Frank A. Baldridge - 2/17/2003
Gentlemen:
Excuse me, I might be presumptuous, or clueless, here. It has been both educational and interesting participating in our ongoing discussion, and playing "Whack a B," through the courtesy of George Mason University and our host. It seems that several of us have different reasons for participating, so be it. Based on the pending "resurrection," I believe it might be useful for some of us to refocus our efforts.
Having noticed that few objective works regarding firearms is published in the academic press, might I suggest the creation of an organization or forum where those so inclined could share ideas on research, publication, funding, etc. concerning scholarly articles of firearms related topics. Just from my own limited perspective I see possibilities in exploring the validity of probate records in documenting firearms usage by checking the probates of known "users," the role of German immigrants in the "gun trade" and westward expansion, and the role of the "Gun Cult" in establishing several American traditions. John F. Reiger's American Sportsmen and the Origins of Conservation serves as an example of the latter. The "Gun Cult" also played major roles in the establishment of the dog fancy, and to a lesser extent California's women's movement.
Perhaps we could slip Clayton a couple bucks to set up a site. Lets try being proactive, while also being reactive. Regards, Frank
Ralph E. Luker - 2/17/2003
Mr. Greenlund,
In privileged institutions, such as Haaavaahd, we assume the doctorate and refer to our male peers as "Mr." Some of my dialogical partners here don't hold the doctorate, so I prefer the democratic "Mr."
The inclination to see conspiracies here is so strong that sensible people will resist it.
As many people have pointed out, a 98% statistic in any poll worthy of citation is so unlikely that it should provoke scepticism as soon as it is uttered. As for "statistics," check Tim Lambert's website again. The process for Lott is on-going. Mary is out of her closet. I didn't notice much restraint on the gunners' part while _AA_ was being re-examined.
Thomas Gunn - 2/17/2003
Dr. Luker, did you ever get back to Dr. Greenland re his comments here:
[http://hnn.us/comments/8422.html ]?
Maybe I missed 'em.
thomas
Ronald Best - 2/17/2003
I bought my copy from a book seller in Florida named Cheap Books. This has been so much fun that I had to have my own copy to remind me that reason can prevail.
Jake Turner - 2/17/2003
"company with lacking any standing with mainstream America."
should read
"company lacking any standing with mainstream America."
Sorry; I couldn't stop laughing long enough to adequately proof my post.
Jake Turner - 2/17/2003
Well, it certainly puts the proper perspective on Arming America.
A radical fringe thesis, pursued through unacceptable methods, to support an unpopular agenda, now only published through a company with lacking any standing with mainstream America.
I do also find humor in that they are correcting "some" of the errors. Only "some"? Would correcting the rest take too much time? Completely defeat the thesis? Besides, Bellesiles apologists argue there exist only "a few errors" in a "tiny" portion of the overall book. Is Benny finally accepting the view of academia that many issues exist with AA?
Frank A. Baldridge - 2/17/2003
Richard is right. Based on Soft Skulls booklist and Bellesiles exile to the UK, it appears Benny's leader has fallen in with the folks he deserves. However, Mush Head Books might have best published Bellesiles under their "Red Rattle" youth book imprint.
http://www.softskull.com/cgi-bin/SoftCart.100.exe/store/index.shtml?L+scstore+ulkm5058+1045506126
Richard Henry Morgan - 2/17/2003
"However, Bellesiles has come up with some grassroots freedom fighters of his own who are standing tall against the gun lobby. Independent publisher Soft Skull books, whose website describes its literature as "fearless, progressive, independently minded" is publishing a second edition of Arming America, correcting some of the errors that would normally occur in the first edition of such a voluminous work."
Also brought to you by the grassroots freedom fighters of Soft Skull: a biography of the Liverpool punk band Echo & the Bunnymen; What the Fuck?: an Avant Porn Anthology; and a book called Cunt-Ups. I kid you not. This is better than anything I could have imagined. Well, not quite. It could have been serialized in Hustler Magazine.
Don Williams - 2/17/2003
I find it hilarious that Benny is casting himself as a freedom fighter. The real freedom fighters who established this country --the Southern militias who won the Revolutionary War --would spit on Benny with contempt if they were here today.
Freedom in this country was created by ordinary citizens who owned guns -- that's the real "bedrock this country was built on." Benny's tirade about freedom masks the fact that Bellesiles, the Chicago Kent authors and the signers of the Yassky brief are trying to destroy freedom --by advocating a policy where ultimately people who exercise their Constitutional right to own a firearm will be thrown into prison and will lose all civil rights as convicted felons. Indeed, where US citizens are disarmed and made powerless to resist any despotism that arises in the decades to come.
Gun control advocates are not fighting for freedom -- they are fighting for the "dictatorship of the majority" --where any civil right can be destroyed if you tell enough lies, promulgate enough deceitful sophistry, and convince enough morons to support you.
No one has said that Bellesiles should not speak -- what they have said is that he can be challenged if historical records show that his narrative is false and deceitful.
Benny has been asked countless times here to support his defense of Arming America by citing historical evidence and facts -- to the best of my knowledge, he remains too cowardly to do so. Curious that he fights for the right to "say what they want" when he evidently has nothing to say.
Benny Smith - 2/17/2003
When NRA President Charlton Heston declared in 1999 that Arming America author Michael Bellesiles "clearly has too much time on his hands," he effectively intellectually fatwa'ed the Emory history professor by unleashing the grassroots animosity of hundreds, if not thousands of militant gun rights activists. In the Bellesiles affair, grassroots activism is something that the NRA and other gun lobby organizations have relied upon to fiercely lobby educators and bureaucrats in an attempt to destroy Bellesile's reputation. In fact, pairing the word "Bellesiles" with "grassroots" in a Google search provides a list of gun lobby organizations seemingly obsessed with opposing Bellesiles and his book, including the NRA, the Gun Owners of America and the Second Amendment Foundation
Bellesiles himself acknowledged the lobbying effort in an article "Disarming the Critics", saying that many letters calling for his firing had been sent to the university's administrators, the board of trustees, his colleagues and those in other departments, and even to technical support staff. "These letters tend to repeat the same language, as the senders appear to just download a model letter from an advocacy website." Prolific Bellesiles critic Clayton Cramer pleaded in a gun politics forum (twice when his first message was strangely canceled) for gun rights activists to stop harassing and threatening Bellesiles. It is an open question as to whether Cramer's effort was sincere or for show since Cramer later tipped his own hand to the hatred he feels for Bellesiles when he compared the events that transpired at Emory with Bellesiles to "watching a killer executed."
Immediately after the hostile atmosphere at Emory led to Bellesile's departure, an article in the Washington Times stated that Columbia was feeling the heat of pro-gun groups. It contained statements from two groups representing the gun lobby that demanded that Columbia revoke the literary prize the Bellesiles had won for Arming America. At a gun advocacy web-site, a letter bitterly remonstrating Bellesiles was posted, along with e-mail addresses of Columbia administrators and trustees. Even now, a gun lobby web-site posts a "how to" link to aid those interested in getting libraries to remove "Arming America" from their shelves.
http://www.nraila.org/ActionAlerts.asp?FormMode=Detail&ID;=143
However, Bellesiles has come up with some grassroots freedom fighters of his own who are standing tall against the gun lobby. Independent publisher Soft Skull books, whose website describes its literature as "fearless, progressive, independently minded" is publishing a second edition of Arming America, correcting some of the errors that would normally occur in the first edition of such a voluminous work. "This is not the first time it has fallen to Soft Skull to ensure the American public can read books the Right doesn't like," says publisher Richard Nash. "It is imperative that we stand up to the NRA smear machine."
And at least one library has told an NRA member who said he represented the NRA to hit the road when he came gunning for Bellesile's book. A library director in Scott County, Iowa, said, "No citizen in a democracy has a right to prevent another from reading a specific book by demanding its removal from the library shelves. I think the danger here is when somebody feels strongly about a topic, if they go to the public library to take that opinion away from the collection and make it unavailable to you or anyone else, that is censorship." The library voted unanimously to keep "Arming America" available to the public.
I do believe independent publishers, straight-thinking librarians and people like myself are fighting the good fight. This country is always in need of freedom fighters who stand up so that all Americans can say what they want, write what they want, read what they want, and think what they want--despite the oppression of ideologically driven despots. After all, those freedoms provided the bedrock this country was built on.
Frank A. Baldridge - 2/17/2003
Ronald: You bought Arming America? For two dollars? I hear Benny has been trying to give his 932 signed copies away. Oh well, you get what you pay for.
Ronald Best - 2/16/2003
I recently bought a copy of Arming America for $2.00 over the internet. I can't wait to find the new edition by the Soft Scull Press a few years from now for less than a dollar.
Kasper - 2/16/2003
Apparently it is legitimate:
http://www.softskull.com/cgi-bin/SoftCart.100.exe/?E+scstore
Also it appears that HNN was part of a conspiracy to bring him down. ; )
..."the book and its author were subjected to vicious attack by the pro-gun Right. In an orchestrated series of web and print articles, organs such as the History News Network and the National Review furiously denounced the book."
http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/alerts/reader/0,2061,556656,00.html
Robert Simonds - 2/16/2003
Soft Skull Press? Is this real, or a parody from the right? Please tell me its parody!
Tim Lambert - 2/16/2003
While it is true that there are more questionable statistics in "More Guns, Less Crime" than just the 98% one, the discussions have
focussed on the 98% number.
Professor Duncan first tried to make this matter public in 1999.
The fact that it has taken longer for this to get into the press than it took the Bellesiles affair is certainly evidence against
claims of "liberal media bias".
The other question is whether the academic community should have
noticed sooner. There are two reasons why it didn't. The first
is that academics have to trust each other or building on each
other's research will be impossible. When Lott told me in 1999
that he had done a survey, I believed him and did not investigate
at all. The second one is that Lott bypassed the normal
processes of peer review. He advanced his 98% figure over 50
times, but never in a peer reviewed publication. His 98%
claim was never taken seriously for even one second by real
criminologists, but it was ignored rather than questioned
because of the places where he presented it.
For more information about Lott and his survey see:
http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/lott98update.html
Richard Henry Morgan - 2/16/2003
I'm having a hard time believing this is not just some sort of elaborate hoax -- Soft Skull Press? That's just too delicious for words. Pinch me. And now they're abandoning the myth that this had nothing to do with the Second Amendment (you know, the fallback position adopted after saying it dispensed with the Second the first time around). Somebody a few months back said a deal had been worked out to have Bellesiles teaching in exile in Britain. Somebody knew what they were talking about, apparently. I wonder if it is at the institution of the Brit historian that gave Arming America such a positive review? St. Andrews, wasn't it?
Richard Henry Morgan - 2/16/2003
"Frankly, any time I read a statement that begins with "98 percent of the time" it is reasonable to suspect the credibility of the statement that follows. 98 percent affirmative or negative on any poll seems pretty unlikely. You can always count on a good five or six percent "don't know" answers after all."
It would seem to me that your point has a general validity, but the exceptions are more relevant in this case. I would imagine that if you had to use a gun to defend yourself, or if you had to actually shoot it, would be memorable events. Something like the question have you ever been shot? Or had cancer? Or been drafted? Just a thought.
Dave LaCourse - 2/16/2003
Thought of the Wills issue halfway through. My second edition will read: "amazing on three fronts" :-)
Dave LaCourse - 2/16/2003
This is amazing on two fronts:
1. If Bellesiles corrected his probate data, then one of these must be true: a) most of the records are gone; or b) he quickly redid in two years what had taken over a decade previously; or c) he suddenly he refound his statistics? Weird... Wonder if the San Fran records became unburned for the new printing?
2. Gary Wills is still cited as a supporter.
3. Like Mr. Smith, Bellesiles still claims that it is only the probate records that got him in trouble. This continued denial will force OAH and others continued embarrassment as this sad saga continues.
Can't wait for the new work, and the proper refocus on the rest of Bellesiles' mistakes!
Frank A. Baldridge - 2/15/2003
Glad to see Bellesiles has found a niche teaching revisionist history in the U. K. They deserve each other, but I wonder if the Brits let Bellesiles bring his guns into their country.
Perhaps "Soft Skull Press" says all that needs to be said regarding their decision, and the political agenda is obvious.
Jerry Sternstein - 2/15/2003
Here is a link announcing the publication of a second edition of Arming America. Bellesiles is quoted as "daring" anybody to disprove his thesis, based on his "revisions" of the probate materials.
http://tinyurl.com/5vjj
Soft Skull Press to Reissue Controversial History Book Revised Edition
of Michael Bellesiles' Arming America
"We believe in allowing readers to evaluate for themselves how
Bellesiles has responded to the legitimate criticisms and whether the
core thesis of the book-the undermining of the creation myth of the
Second Amendment-stands up."
Robert Simonds - 2/15/2003
According to the History Grapevine, Lott wrote "98 percent of the time that people use guns defensively, they merely have to brandish a weapon to break off an attack." Frankly, any time I read a statement that begins with "98 percent of the time" it is reasonable to suspect the credibility of the statement that follows. 98 percent affirmative or negative on any poll seems pretty unlikely. You can always count on a good five or six percent "don't know" answers after all. As for the hard-drive blow up story and the defense that at least one person has come forward to acknowledge they were interviewed . . . well, there are many folks that can confirm the Bellesiles' office was indeed flooded--but that hardly confirms the veracity of his statistics.
Unfortunately, I have neither the time, nor the dedication of Mr. Cramer to devote to examining Lott's statistics. But there do seem to be some interesting parallels between the Lott and Bellesiles books. Both put forward theses that overturn popular conventional wisdom (most folks, correctly or incorrectly, assume that more guns means more danger; most folks take it for granted that our forefathers depended upon guns as much as we depend on cars). Both books' theses were very useful to parties committed to one end or the other of the gun rights/gun control spectrum. Then there's the revelation that Lott and family members were self-reviewing the book under anonymous names. Doesn't seem like a very honest thing to do. But he's in good company here, I guess. Walt Whitman published two anonymous self-reviews of his first edition of "Leaves of Grass." One of them said something like "At last, we have discovered an American Bard!"
Josh Greenland - 2/15/2003
"Mr. Greenlund,"
That's Dr. Greenland to you, esteemed colleague.
"Consider the possibility that Formwalt and Berlin are not in disagreement or that you only see disagreement where there is none. The research for the Emory Wheel story may have taken place over an extended period and the quotation attributed to Berlin actually date from prior to 8 November 2002. There are undoubtedly a variety of opinions within the OAH Executive Committee; there are no apparent "splits"; and there is no particular evidence that anyone is trying to "hide" anything."
I'd thought of that, but what threw me there was the Emory Wheel knowing when the November 8 meeting would be in its earlier rumor that the award would be reconsidered then, but subsequently the Chronology had the Wheel quoting Berlin saying the award would be considered at the next meeting but not knowing when that would be.
Regardless, if there was no announcement in the board's statement at the time, and Formwalt's column is the first official announcement, months after the fact, that the Binkley-Stephenson Award was not rescinded, then yes, dear fellow, I'd say OAH is trying to hide something. (Real collegial type college professors says things like "dear fellow" to each other, right?)
"Have you been aggressively denouncing the fraudulent statistics in John Lott's work?"
Fraudulent statistics, as in more than one statistic? I understood as I said to Robert Simonds that only one statistic was in question, and it hasn't been established, it's only been alleged, that Lott didn't to the survey that he claims supported that statistic. I see one statistic that is not clearly fraudulent. What would you have me do about that?
Oh, I need to "await the process"! Isn't that what you were advocating that we all do with Bellesiles?
Richard Henry Morgan - 2/15/2003
Write an article on it for HNN, Robert. I'm sure the subject will then get the attention you feel it deserves (or at least your article will get attention, welcome or not).
Ralph E. Luker - 2/15/2003
Mr. Greenlund,
Consider the possibility that Formwalt and Berlin are not in disagreement or that you only see disagreement where there is none. The research for the Emory Wheel story may have taken place over an extended period and the quotation attributed to Berlin actually date from prior to 8 November 2002. There are undoubtedly a variety of opinions within the OAH Executive Committee; there are no apparent "splits"; and there is no particular evidence that anyone is trying to "hide" anything.
Have you been aggressively denouncing the fraudulent statistics in John Lott's work?
Josh Greenland - 2/15/2003
Robert,
Where have you ever read that More Guns, Less Crime is "filled with questionable statistics"? My understanding of the current controversy is that it concerns ONE statistic. As far as I know, no one has proved that Lott didn't do the survey from which he claims to have gotten the supporting data for that statistic. Some believe that he did the survey and some find it doubtful but new information on it keeps dribbling into the blogosphere.
A number of academics recently confirmed that Lott's hard drive did crash in 1997. That doesn't prove he did the survey, but already his story has more support and credibility than does Bellesiles' pulped legal pad tale.
If you're curious, Clayton Cramer has talked about this on his blog.
Robert Simonds - 2/15/2003
Forgive me if I've missed this. I'm an irregular reader of this forum. but over the last year, there has been an enormous amount of ink spilled here and in the national media about the Bellesiles fraud. But recent revelations that the pro-gun rights book "More Guns Less Crime" (which sold vastly more copies than Bellesile's book) is also filled with questionable statistics. Why is that story generating so little attention? We all owe a debt to Cramer, Lindgren, Roth and others who exposed Bellesiles' fraud. And I understand that Lindgren has been engaged in exposing the "More Guns, Less Crime" fraud. I'd love to hear from those more ideologically committed to gun rights on this latest controversy. Many of them have fairly castigated the historical profession for its liberal bias and suggested that is why historians had no interest putting Bellesiles data to the test, because it so neatly fit their own positions on gun control. But can the charged be turned on Cramer and others, regarding the "More Guns, Less Crime" book? And does the fact that the fraud committed by this pro-gun rights author has received so little attention undermine the constant complaint of "liberal media bias?" I'd especially love to hear from Mr. Cramer on this subject. While I might not agree with his views on gun rights, his commentaries on this HNN have always been thoughtful and well-reasoned.
Frank A. Baldridge - 2/15/2003
"...to some of my contributions." And what exactly might they be Mr. Smith.
Bryan Haskins - 2/14/2003
I can't answer the question of why Mr. Smith won't address the "real" issues here. I do believe that he has the ability to address our issues if he would only choose to do so. I have tried to draw him out into an honest debate, yet he has refused every offer of mine. He has aggressively sought to take offense at what I have said on this site as his excuse for refusing to engage in a dialogue with me; and in his last post directed at me he chose to leave me in possession of the field.
However, I remain convinced that patience is the key in dealing with the reluctant Mr. Smith. I have now offered him an apology for my posts, which I admit have clearly vexed him. I have also offered him a chance (on 2/12/03) to make a fresh start with me in a fair-minded question and answer process designed to directly address each other's issues. I hope he will respond to my new offer, yet I fear that his history here demonstrates that he will not summon the courage to engage either myself or anyone else in honest debate. Only time will tell.
Frank A. Baldridge - 2/14/2003
"One can't help but be [p. o.] by the tactics of the [lunatic BS] here," ... yuk yak quack
"Once again," yuk yak quack
Please, give us a break Benny!
Josh Greenland - 2/13/2003
"The decision about the Binkley-Stephenson Award seems to have been made: that it will not be rescinded."
The way you word this makes it sounds as though you're guessing from the same information that the rest of us have. Is that true, or do you know more about this?
"The larger issues of: a) how and in what form the _JAH_ responds to the debate; and b) the future direction of historical research on the subject seem both yet to be seen."
On a), a few things suggest themselves. OAH is either struggling to decide how to handle l'affaire Bellesiles, is apprehensive about reaction to its decisions, or both. With Ira Berlin and Lee Formwalt saying two different things at two different times about whether or when the decision over the Binkley-Stephenson prize was or would be made suggests OAH is having trouble coming to a course of action, and may have 1internal splits that it doesn't want outsiders to see. The fact that Formwalt quietly announces well after the fact that the Binkley-Stephenson award was not rescinded suggests OAH is trying to hide from reaction to that decision.
As to b), Bellesiles and Wiener have already lets us know that they aren't going to let this go. Clayton Cramer already knew, and others I think will see that more work will need to be done to drive the wooden stake all the way through the body of Bellesiles' fraudulent work. I would guess that others might join Cramer in publishing research to debunk Bellesiles. I mean, do you actually believe along with Wiener and Finkelman that Arming America has validity aside from a few probate (and militia census record) questions and that further research might actually confirm anything Bellesiles has asserted?
"Professors Greenlund and Williams [....]"
Don and I are professors now? Ooh, does that mean the three of us are colleagues?
Frank A. Baldridge - 2/13/2003
Thanks Richard. But tell me more about that trigonometric substitution in calculus thing. My performance on the low house bird when shooting doubles at station 4 has been decling, and perhaps that subject might help me out. Or maybe I should buy a new gun?
Don Williams - 2/12/2003
is that they are attempting to modify the intricate mechanism of the Constitution and they show no signs, in my opinion, of understanding that mechanism or of wanting to understand that mechanism.
The people killed each year from gun violence is a tragedy -- but one that is minor when compared to the millions of innocents killed by legal governments in the 20th century. As my quote from Jefferson showed, the Founders recognized that the national circumstances would change and they tried to allow for it. It's up to us to do as they did -- to look at history, to see the patterns of social forces, and to maintain the mechanism that preserves liberty and peace. What in Jack Rakove's displays of showy but irrelevant learning indicates that he understands that mechanism?
Bryan Haskins - 2/12/2003
Let me begin with an apology, Mr. Smith. I have read your “Last word” post of 2/1/03, and I am sorry if anything which I have previously said has vexed or angered or insulted you. I admit that in my last post I did take a tone which can be considered patronizing. However, you must admit that you had patronized me for weeks prior to this (in particular, your suppositions regarding my work habits). Therefore, I hope that you understand that I innocently thought it acceptable to respond in kind, and I do crave pardon if by doing so I have offended you. I went away for a while to put a man on death row, and I come back to see that you are still fighting what you believe to be your good fight. Since you are still here I would like to try again at engaging in a dialogue with you.
I see that there are many complaints that each party ignores the other’s issues. For example, you have complained (correctly) that the “gun lobby” will not answer your questions: “Curiously, none of the ensuing responses on the thread, of which there were a great many, addressed directly either the remarks of the outdoor columnist or the sportsman's attack on a university's website.” As another example, Mr. Morgan has presented a very detailed analysis of Mr. Weiner’s article, and he complains (forgive me, but I feel correctly) that you will not address the substance of his analysis. Finally, I am sure that you remember my past comments alleging your failure to respond to the issues I have raised.
Therefore, I offer this solution: Let us take turns asking and answering questions of each other (limited, of course, to issues considered germane to this site’s content). We could take one question and answer at a time. For example, you ask me a question, and I respond as best I can to your question in my next post. At the end of my answer I pose a question for you. You then respond to my question in your next post, and you pose another question for me. I would suggest that we limit our answer to the one post which follows the question raised, and that we do not comment upon each other’s responses. If a particular question is felt to be too broad or really a combination of several questions, then I suggest that the answering party could ask for the question to be rephrased or narrowed. The opposing party could then rephrase the question and allow the process to continue from there. If you or I wished a return comment upon or clarification of a particular answer, then we could use our next question for that purpose. I feel that adherence to this process would prevent us from bogging down by feeling it necessary to respond again and again to the same question. I truly believe that this process would force each of us to examine in more detail the other’s concerns about the saga surrounding Bellesiles and Arming America. At any time either of us could stop the process by saying that it is not helpful and we would end up no worse than we are now. As a show of good faith (and trusting that you will reciprocate in good faith), I even offer that you start this process by posing a single question to me. If you chose to do so, then I will use my next post to answer your question as best I can, and I will ask one question of you in return.
I have given this a lot of thought, Mr. Smith, and I can think of nothing that would be more equitable. Of course, I am willing to consider any other method of exploring each other’s views which you might offer. Please respond and let me know whether you will take up this offer.
Richard Henry Morgan - 2/11/2003
I see now that there is very little new under the sun, after all. I had read Veit some years back, so I must have read the Randolph letter then, but not realizing its significance, forgot about it until I recently read Cogan's The Complete Bill of Rights. The letter is completely at odds with the states' rights interpretation of the Second.
I just reread Reinhardt's decision, and sure enough (as Cramer pointed out, I believe) Reinhardt pulled a Bellesiles -- he carefully chopped the quote from Adams' Defence, in order to construct an Adams that was against an individual right to keep arms. He had to chop it, as Adams quite explicitly exempts weapons for personal defense in his condemnation. Then again, Reinhardt might never have read the materials. In fact, his whole opinion looks like he took it verbatim from the Chicago-Kent issue and Yassky's amicus brief. Add the risible fact that Reinhardt cited Bellesiles two months after he resigned ...
I read your links, Don, and found nothing I could disagree with. I note that Reinhardt quotes Rakove favorably, in particular on this one point. Rakove makes the point that the individualist Second Amendment 'right' is defined intratextually by reference to the other individual rights in the Constitution, but that the interpretation of 'militia' flies outside the text. This is, supposedly, a great revelation, and a refutation of the individualist view. Rakove is no legal scholar of the law, just a part-time constitutional historian -- those familiar with Gordon Wood's definition will know what I'm talking about.
The problem with Rakove's view is best appreciated when you recognize that almost none of the rights find their full interpretation within the four corners of the constitutional text. Freedom of speech and press were constrained by common law precedent (outside the text), just as today they are fleshed out by Supreme Court opinions that find no authority within the text itself (I defy anyone to find Times v. Sullivan in the text of the Constitution). Ditto for due process. Under Rakove's standard, turned against him, almost none of the individual rights are indeed individual rights, as they have no Constitutional flesh to their meaning. It never ceases to amaze me the weak arguments put up in favor of the collectivist interpretation. Or should I say that it no longer amazes me since, nearly five years later, I'm still waiting for Rakove et al to show me the quote where the Framers explicitly limited impeachment to official government acts.
Clyde Howard - 2/11/2003
Those who support Bellesilses (or perhaps his thesis) will never be convinced of his perfidy. Those who are interested in historical fact and honest analysis (whether pro-firearms or not: to be certain that I am not accused of writing from ambush, i am a gun owner; have been a Life Member of the NRA since I was a new-caught second lieutenant in the Army back in 1966 and had some money to pay the dues with; and believe that the 5th Circuit accurately and correctly found that the Second Amendment protects individual rights) will never be convinced that Bellesiles made "honest" mistakes - or that his defenders are acting with candor. Sad, but an example of the way human beings act. Escpecially when thhy get caught with their hands in the cookie jar.. what was it Flip Wilson used to say? "The Devil amde me do it?".
Don Williams - 2/11/2003
dangers, based on his study of history: foreign attack, despotism of the many ( mob rule/insurrection), despotism of the few (oligarchy in the Congress), and despotism of the one ( creation of a dictator by a conspiracy within the Executive or standing army.) As I've noted, I think the Founders (especially Jefferson and Madison) studied history deeply when setting up the republic because (a) 7000 years of history indicated that freedom was rare and republics even rarer (b) The Greek democracies and Roman republic had fell.
I think the design of the US Constitution becomes much clearer if you read Polybius's (120BC) discussion of how all three forms of government (rule of the one, the few, the many) degenerate into despotism and why a mixed government with checks and balances is necessary. (Michavelli plagarized Polybius' ideas in the Discourses). Madison went beyond Polybius, of course, with federalism (to allow a large republic) and representative democracy (holding elections in the countryside so that people do not have to travel several hundred miles to "Rome" (the capitol)--they can let their representatives do so.
Threats one and two were dealt with by allowing Congress to give command of the militia to the President. Threat three was handled by allowing Congress to control who ( state governors or the President) was in command but not allowing Congress to command.
(Thomas Jefferson actually indicated to James Madison in a letter that he feared despotism arising with Congress more than despotism within the Executive -- although he noted that a threat within the Executive would arise in time. Jefferson, in my opinion, was remembering Roman history: After the Tarquin kings were overthrown circa 500 BC, the patricans in the Senate became increasingly dictatorial until the plebians in the Army went on strike and the plebian assembly changed the laws of Rome --creating the tribunes to protect the common people,etc. It was not until several hundred years later (circa 120 BC ) that the threat of dictators like Julius Caesar arose. In 1789, the US was in a situation similar to Rome in 500BC --today, our situation is more akin to Rome in 120 BC.)
The fourth threat was handled by keeping the militia under the command of the state governors and the discipline of Congress --so that the President could not assume command without the consent of Congress.
I explain this further in H-OIEAHC posts here
http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list;=h-oieahc&month;=0206&week;=a&msg;=aN/jQb0GM4%2bsreh2LgfPNQ&user;=&pw;=
and here
http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list;=h-oieahc&month;=0205&week;=b&msg;=NRdnf9Xb81oNjBY%2b/Xd6oA&user;=&pw;=
and here
http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list;=h-oieahc&month;=0207&week;=b&msg;=yJZ/PMkWrSLapQ8nNCV0EA&user;=&pw;=
Richard Henry Morgan - 2/11/2003
BTW Don, your interesting note vis-a-vis Bellesiles' possibly inadvertent underestimate of gun ownership in Virginia touched on some thoughts I'd had on related subjects.
You've detailed the use of militias to defend the legislature in other posts, and I think I remember you bringing up the Newburg Conspiracy as a counterbalance to collectivists' emphasis on Shay's Rebellion. I had long thought (and it's in manuscript preparation right now, with a short note going to HNN this week on Garry Wills' philological gymnastics) that Madison could plausibly be have been influenced by the goings-on in Virginia.
I too had read Jefferson's Notes on Virginia, and Merrill Peterson's book where he explicitly says that Jefferson seized arms to equip the regulars (thereby practically denuding the state of arms), sent them out of state to South Carolina, where the Virginia line arrived just in time to surrender themselves and their arms to the British. Jefferson also sent a band of Rangers to the western border to protect future land claims, right in the middle of the war!
In any case, Virgina was laid bare for the depradations of Tarleton and Arnold. Granting a personal right to keep arms would prohibit the federal government from similarly denuding a state by arms seizures, without giving the state a right to arm their militias -- a mark of sovereignty the Federalists were determined to avoid. There's an interesting letter from Randolph to the legal authority St. George Tucker, right after Madison introduced his amendments to Congress, stating that a majority of Senators were for denying weapons to the states, and if they had had the votes necessary, they would have written it into law (presumably the Constitution, requiring a supermajority?). How can one square that with an interpretation of the Second as a state's right to arm the militia? Can't be done.
It seems to me that the militia, in Federalist ideology, were a double-edged sword. They bought into the neo-Harringtonian doctrine of the militia as an alternative to, or a check on, standing armies, but they also saw them as a possible weapon of state-led insurrection, or even popular rebellion -- perhaps even the majority of Shaysites were militia, who couldn't be called out to put down themselves. The question became how to have a militia that performed the good roles assigned it by Federalist ideology, without creating the monster feared by the Federalists (hence the emphasis on federal control and appointment of officers). Of course, Madison had a legislative agenda. With federal elections coming up, he was quite explicit in his goals -- to make the populace see that the federal government was the friend of individual liberty, and to mark the enemies of liberty (the Anti-Federalists?) as such.
Richard Henry Morgan - 2/11/2003
One can't help but be amused by that the fact that Benny seems to think that repeating the mantra "gun lobby" over and over again creates a reality, or is itself an argument. As usual, Benny simply whips out his iteration machine, and moves on to a new charge (the intellectual equivalent of the painting technique called impasto).
Now I'm charged with "distortion" and "unproven accusation", but, of course (and would anyone expect something different?) the charge is not fleshed out, or documented by Benny (sort of Like Bellesiles' work?). Compare to my posting, where I provide quotes and links. I guess, in Benny's book, it's "fascist" to actually expose bad argument by evidence, which would explain his aversion to evidence (and it is censorship to refuse to print bad argument). Of course I'm waiting for Benny's evidence of "the gun lobby's involvement in the sham investigation conducted by Emory University" (then again, I'm still waiting for tyhe tain that dare not speak its name). But wait, the evidence is nothing more than Wiener's own bald assertion!! That's right. The "Gun rights groups" opposed Arming America, Bellesiles was investigated, ergo Wiener's article "focuses" on the gun lobby's "involvement" (mercifully vague, I'd say). Conquest by assertion certainly beats honest labor. Again Benny sallies forth into battle recycling others' charges, and again without evidence. Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.
Don Williams - 2/11/2003
1) My point re NEH grants is that taxpayers are under no obligation to support the history profession if they feel that the history profession is intentionally generating false history to serve some political agenda. Nor are they obliged to support two-faced sophistry.
2) How do we tell the difference? By looking at the primary sources -- real scholarship stands up when subjected to strong scrutiny. Even if we disagree with how a scholar chose to interpret the facts, we understand their reasoning and value a viewpoint different from our own. My greatest enjoyment is not in reading someone who confirms my opinions --it is in reading someone who differs with me but who is so intelligent that he or she makes me wonder if my opinions are wrong. But such a person makes clear when they are discussing actual facts and when they are speculating.
3) By contrast, it greatly annoys me to double-check a work against the actual historical record and to discover that an author is a form of con artist -- that he is misrepresenting what his sources say, that he is ignoring major sources because they conflict with his thesis, or that he technically telling the truth but telling it in a way which greatly misleads the average reader.
4) It is futile for me to discuss this with Bennny -- as far as I can tell, Benny cannot even conceive of using his own intelligence to critically evaluate a work. Evidently, he's happy to accept any work if it (a) confirms his prejudices and (b) has a certificate (Phd,etc.) attached to it. My feelings for him swing between contempt and deep pity. It is truly sad that Benny does not have enough confidence in his own brain to look at Arming America, to look at the historical record, to form an intelligent opinion, and to defend his conclusions in conversions with others.
To simply be a yapping lapdog, endorsing the opinions of the right people, is a very demeaning role --but one that insecure people are happy to assume.
5) I have explained why I consider some parts of Arming America to be false and misleading. Yet I have also made excuses for Bellesiles when I thought the facts and fairness demanded it. Maybe Benny can explain why a fascist gun lobbyist would do such a thing -- or why Peter Hoffer --signer of the pro gun-control Yassky brief -- would compliment my defence?? See
http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list;=h-oieahc&month;=0301&week;=d&msg;=lhUfZFG4qIR8iBfMk8aoDg&user;=&pw;=
and
http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list;=h-oieahc&month;=0301&week;=d&msg;=FaCnw5zZm1EyRsuYsD6X5A&user;=&pw;=
5)My defense of Bellesiles is of no great merit --My reason for pointing my post out to Benny is to illustrate that a small amount of critical analysis is far more valuable than mindless sycophantic yapping. But then I guess they don't teach critical thinking at the database administrator trade school?? --simply cookbook formulas /procedures??
Benny Smith - 2/11/2003
One can't help but be amused by the tactics of the gun lobby here, frustrated that they can't play their familiar role as persecutor, and now forced to dodge uncomfortable questions about their involvement in a campaign of harassment and intimidation that led to the intellectual lynching of a tenured history professor. Mr. Morgan and Mr Williams have played this forum so long as a venue for bashing Professor Bellesiles and his book Arming America, that they apparently feel it can serve no other purpose.
Once again, I presented my argument, tied to the most recent entry here at HNN by historian Jon Wiener that focuses on the gun lobby's involvement in the sham investigation conducted by Emory University. And once again, Mr. Morgan danced around my quest for academic freedom in order to launch his own personal attack on Professor Wiener, using the same tired tactics of ridicule, distortion and unproven accusation. I am mystified as to why Mr. Morgan used my post as his platform to pontificate. He could have begun his own thread to explore the major differences he apparently has with Professor Wiener. Certainly, nothing has before stopped the gun lobby, right wing zealots and a scant few others from posting their hateful, hurtful rhetoric here.
However, in their zeal to lash out against their critics, Mr. Williams and Mr. Morgan have buttressed my argument that the gun lobby here has been anti-freedom in its campaign against Arming America. In his "hatchet job" on Professor Wiener, Mr. Morgan implies that the OAH had a duty to edit (censure?) Mr. Wiener's remarks, apparently to conform to what the gun lobby regards as the truth. It is remarkable how Bellesile's critics feel they have a monopoly on the truth in this matter. Mr. Williams goes even further, offering the chilling proposal that the gun lobby through the NRA should pressure the Republican controlled legislature into withholding grants from the OAH until it performs the will of the gun lobby in the Bellesiles matter. Why would the gun lobby, as represented by Mr. Williams and Mr. Morgan, have to resort to such use of fascist tactics? Can either Mr. Morgan or Mr. Williams answer that question directly? Or is it maybe, as it appears, their own motives and tactics are simply indefensible.
Ralph E. Luker - 2/10/2003
The decision about the Binkley-Stephenson Award seems to have been made: that it will not be rescinded. The _Journal of American History_ will undoubtedly pursue the issue in some way. The larger issues of: a) how and in what form the _JAH_ responds to the debate; and b) the future direction of historical research on the subject seem both yet to be seen. Professors Greenlund and Williams will have to pardon me if I don't see the threats to funding of historical research and demands for veto power over who shall chair sessions of organizations of professional historians as terribly weighty.
Josh Greenland - 2/10/2003
Correction:
In the 4th paragraph of my original post,
"which he and his publisher just "had a parting of the ways"!"
should read
"when he and his publisher just "had a parting of the ways"!"
Richard Henry Morgan - 2/10/2003
Benny didn't have to look far for an example of setting the terms of debate -- it's right there in Wiener's latest article. Benny of course picks it up, even as he decries the setting of terms by others. Here's the money quote from Wiener's OAH article:
"The context of the debate over Arming America is crucial to understanding the problems with the committee's report. Gun rights groups have been working to discredit the book and destroy Bellesiles's career since before the book was published--they see it as "anti-gun," partly because the introduction criticized Charlton Heston and the NRA."
When somebody tells you what "the context" is, and then summarizes it in a sentence, then your critical faculties should be primed. The context is the entire world of facts, and the infinite number of different descriptions that can portray it. When an author gives you "the context" you may rest assured you are getting that thin slice that most supports his thesis. You might even say he is attempting to "set the terms of debate". Where have I heard that expression before?
Josh Greenland - 2/10/2003
The Chronology says OAH's executive board met on November 8. But the Emory Wheel has a November 19 story reporting that OAH's President Ira Berlin said the executive board will consider rescinding Bellesiles' Binkley-Stephenson prize when they next meet, but no one knew at press time when that would be:
http://www.emorywheel.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2002/11/19/3dd99ce649c3c?in_archive=1
In the February newsletter, OAH Executive Director Formwalt says the board decided after lengthy discussion at the November meeting not to pull Bellesiles' prize
http://www.oah.org/pubs/nl/2003feb/formwalt.html?emtm0203e
and President Berlin says nothing about it
http://www.oah.org/pubs/nl/2003feb/formwalt.html?emtm0203e
So does this mean that OAH still intends to discuss pulling the prize at the next meeting of the executive board, after having had a lengthy discussion about it at the November meeting?
Brett Bellmore - 2/10/2003
On the one hand, you've got houses in which some sort of homicide have taken place. Presumably searched by police. One suspects that if a gun was owned in those households, that was determined in a high percentage of cases.
On the other hand, you've got houses in which no crime has taken place, no police search has occured, and thus you are relying on the people living there to honestly and accurately report gun ownership.
Assume for the moment that there's absolutely zero correlation between gun ownership and homicide, but that the reporting rate for gun ownership in the latter set of homes is substantially less than 100%. Isn't this going to automatically generate an apparent correlation between gun ownership and homicide? When all that's really been demonstrated is a correlation between homicide and knowing whether somebody owns a gun?
Don Williams - 2/10/2003
JL Bell on H-OIEAHC has objected to some of my past critiques of Arming America on H-OIEAHC. However, even he sees shortcomings with how academia has reviewed Arming America --
see http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list;=h-oieahc&month;=0302&week;=a&msg;=v2qvDqvHMEOJ1mXHtnipzA&user;=&pw;=
Don Williams - 2/10/2003
1) In his Nation article last November, Wiener,in my opinion, spent most of his time on slimy ad hominem attacks on Lindgren and Clayton Cramer -- rather than attempting to objectively examine the historical records, sources,etc and explain where Bellesiles was right or wrong. There are a lot more things wrong in Arming America than just the probate record study -- but you wouldn't find those errors mentioned in Wiener's piece. I also thought that Wiener's quotes of character references from Jack Rakove and Michael Zuckerman --without mention of their past relationship with Bellesiles -- was hilarious.
2) Anyone notice how Benny Smith seems to have a similar paradigm? In the past 8 months , I don't recall Mr Smith ever making an attempt to examine the contents of ARming America , comparing those contents to the historical record, and making a reasoned defense of Bellesiles based on the facts. It seem to me that Benny Smith simply broadcasts a continual series of unfounded allegations against Bellesiles critics -- and then whines when his misstatements are challenged.
3) It seems to me that the nature of Wiener and Smith would be more of an embarrassment to Bellesiles than any kind of a defense or character reference.
Don Williams - 2/10/2003
1) I've put up some comments re OAH's responsibility to address the Bellesiles affair on the historians' listserv H-OIEAHC: see
http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list;=h-oieahc&month;=0301&week;=e&msg;=5%2b8SY5LwwM8pBlTCpRhMcA&user;=&pw;=
2) Historians' responses can be seen here:
http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=lx&list;=h-oieahc&user;=&pw;=&month;=0301
3) If you look at the message log in (2) you can see my 1-24 post
"In Defense of Bellesiles" (under user name vze2t297 ). Stanford historian Jack Rakove deigned to respond to my comment re him in a 1-25 post -- although he has not responded to a follow up comment re him in my 1-30 post.
4) IF you look at the bottom of Mr Formwalt's recent letter in OAH, you can see that he requested comments re the Bellesiles matter and OAH's handling of it -- see bottom of http://www.oah.org/pubs/nl/2003feb/formwalt.html (reference to sending comments to oah@oah.org )
5) The OAH newsletter --with several Bellesiles articles -- is here: http://www.oah.org/pubs/nl/
6) By the way, Bush's recent budget has a big increase in funding for the historical profession via NEH grants ,etc. Maybe NRA members should ask Republican members of Congress to put 20% of that funding on hold until OAH shows more willingness to address the Bellesiles incident in a fair, impartial , and transparent fashion. In my opinion, appointing Wiener and Finkelman to be co-hosts of the Arming America session is not stepping up to their obligation.
Josh Greenland - 2/9/2003
I noticed in going over some of Benny's recent posts that he borrows heavily from Jon Wiener's discredited Nation article in attempting to divert HNN posters from the real issue of the quality of Bellesiles' work. Wiener's Nation and OAH newsletter articles are full of "howlers" and are about as reliable as anything written or said by Bellesiles.
In his OAH article, Wiener claims the external committee members made a "serious mistake," in agreeing to limit themselves to only five (difficult to research) questions about Bellesiles' work, and to not comment on the significance of their findings and the possible punishments for it. (He also misleadingly only mentions the probate questions. The committee looked at MB's handling of militia census records as well.) But if they had not agreed to do what Emory asked them to, would Emory have been willing to have them on the committee? And how is it their business to speak officially about punishment? They weren't Bellesiles employer, Emory was.
Wiener claims that the committee found "evidence of falsification" on only one page (question 4), but he's ignoring or didn't notice in question 5c that the committee found Bellesiles was guilty of "misrepresenting evidence or the sources of evidence" "with respect to probate records or militia census records." Wiener notwithstanding, the committee found that Bellesiles had falsified at least once and misrepresented in multiple instances.
This one is particularly slimy: Wiener said that Bellesiles was fixing his errors, which he and his publisher just "had a parting of the ways"! Wiener never bothers to mention that Knopf dropped Arming America precisely because they had decided his proposed corrections weren't enough to salvage his book.
So Wiener conveniently won't have to deal with why Bellesiles' corrections might be insufficient, and later mentions but completely avoids discussing the contents of the William and Mary Quarterly criticisms, which were much broader than those of the external committee, and which would if honestly looked at by Wiener have hobbled his claim that Arming America is just fine without the five probate (and militia census) questions looked at by the committee.
Wiener claims that gun rights supporters have been attacking the book before it was published, but then he says they were attacking it partly because of the foreward which criticized Heston and the NRA, an apparent attempt to bring the NRA into the story. Where was the foreward in those years Bellesiles work was being criticized before publication as a book? In any case, gun rights people didn't care much about the foreward or book jacket or whatever it was mentioning Heston or the NRA. Anyone who knew what he was talking about would know gun rights supporters opposed the book's entire contents. Wiener also claims that an argument over when "the gun culture" started won't decide the gun rights debate, ignoring the fact that EVERYTHING in Bellesiles' book bore on the question of how the Second Amendment is to be interpreted.
Wiener is out to lunch or outright lies when he says that it has been the strategy of gun rights supporters to focus criticism on a very small part of the book. I haven't seen or heard a single good thing about the narrow focus of Emory's committee from gun rights supporters, only criticism.
Hey Benny, you've been repeating this statement from Wiener. Can you find any evidence that gun rights supporters have pursued a strategy of narrowly focusing the criticism of Arming America? Can you find any posts on this board by any one of us suppporting your and Wiener's claim?
Josh Greenland - 2/8/2003
If you all look at OAH Executive Director Lee Formwalt's article,
http://www.oah.org/pubs/nl/2003feb/formwalt.html?emtm0203e ,
You'll find out that OAH's Executive Board decided last November not to rescind Bellesiles' Binkley-Stephenson award.
Did this just escape me at the time, or did OAH never bother to announce it? All I find in the Chronology above is that OAH was rumored to be considering rescission, and then an excerpt of a statement from the Executive Board's meeting in November that says nothing about the award.
Richard Henry Morgan - 2/8/2003
I wish to apologize for not including this little howler by Wiener (who owes it to Bellesiles):
"Bellesiles in his reply explained that he omitted 1774 and 1775 not to deceive readers, but because those years were not relevant to his thesis: "the colonial governments were passing out firearms to the members of their militia . . . in preparation for the expected confrontation with Great Britain" therefore these two years give "an inaccurate portrait of peacetime gun ownership" by individuals. If Bellesiles had stated that in a note to Table 1, would the committee have found no "evidence of falsification"? They decline to answer."
The problem with this has been explained elsewhere, by Cramer and others, so I'll just briefly hit the high points here. How exactly would the colonial governments' distribution of government-owned militia arms turn up in the probate records of private individuals? They weren't owned by the militia members. And the militia members weren't particularly dying pre-war. In fact, the mortality of pre-war militia members, I would imagine, would be lower than that of the general gun-owning population, given the lower average age of militia members. Simply a literally incredible explanation.
Richard Henry Morgan - 2/8/2003
I'm still waiting for the "taint" that dare not speak its name. Such concern for our delicate sensibilities is no doubt commendable, but some people might get the impression that Benny just makes things up.
As for Wiener, his piece follows a tried and true structure. Here are three quotes from his piece, the last following almost directly on the heels of the second:
Q1: "Indeed, Bellesiles had conceded serious problems in his probate data, and was working on correcting those errors when he and his publisher parted ways in early January."
Q2: "Instead of focusing on the book's thesis or claims made about its contemporary significance, their ["Gun rights groups"] strategy has been to try to discredit it by focusing attention on errors in a tiny portion of the documentation."
Q3: "By accepting the terms of debate set by others, Gray, Katz, and Ulrich abdicated their intellectual responsibility to work independently and to consider the significance of their findings."
Q1 is called, in rhetoric, the concession. The concession is made as a sign of reasonableness, as evidence that the author is scrupulously fair in debate, considering all the facts, and not just those that support his thesis. But what exactly is being conceded here? Not much, really. Yeah, you could say there are serious problems in the probate data when, first, the data no longer exist (if they ever did), as opposed to Bellesiles' statistical summaries thereof and conclusions based thereon. As Wiener has it: "If Bellesiles had omitted all of the probate data that the committee and others have criticized, the book's argument would remain a strong one ..." This is an interesting conflation by Wiener of data and statistical conclusions. Moreover, the non-existence of Bellesiles' data (as opposed to his conclusions) is just one type of non-existence. The other type is more serious -- the actual non-existence of San Francisco probate records. This is considered by some to be a serious problem (but, just as obviously, not by all).
Q2 is the classic bait and switch, with the broad brush added. Critics are reduced to "Gun rights groups", and their criticisms are reduced to a small, manageable scale ("errors in a tiny portion of the documentation").
After this mischaracterization of critics' complaints, and painting them with the rubric "Gun rights groups", Wiener proceeds directly to Q3. There, the Emory committee is charged by Wiener with "accepting the terms of debate set by others". Coming as it does on the heels of Q2, it leaves the impression that "the terms of debate" were set by "Gun rights groups". This linking by paragraph construction is another tried an true technique of rhetoric. The impression is made, yet the proposition that "Gun rights groups" set the terms of debate is never asserted. In fact, Wiener elsewhere directly refutes that assertion: "They [the Emory Committee] agreed to limit their report to answering five narrow questions posed by the Emory University administration ..." Or, then again, perhaps it isn't really a refutation -- Wiener could mean that "Gun rights groups" were operating through Emory to set the terms of debate.
Once again, the OAH has hit a home run. Having given its prize to Bellesiles, and turned over its newsletter to Bellesiles in order to facilitate his attack on his critics (and largely ignore their criticisms), the OAH has now given us a scholar of John Lennon (yes, there apparently are such people) to give us the lowdown on Arming America and the Bellesiles imbroglio. Unfortunately, his OAH article doesn't bear any marks of intelligent editing. Did anybody at the OAH actually read this article before publication, or was it printed not despite its bad arguments, but because of them?
http://www.oah.org/pubs/nl/2003feb/wiener.html
Benny Smith - 2/8/2003
Jon Wiener's most recent comments in the OAH and excerpted here on HNN are particularly relevant in light of the gun lobby's responses here to some of my contributions. Wiener says the authors of the Emory report "'abdicated their intellectual responsibility' by letting the pro-gun crowd--which has tried to discredit the book by 'focusing attention on errors in a tiny portion of the documentation'--set the terms of the debate." This appears to be the pro-gun lobby's agenda here on HNN as well.
My last thread began by describing a post by an outdoors columnnist who sought to discredit academics--historians in particular--for not supporting the gun lobby in its attacks on Professor Bellesiles' Arming America. I also included a sidebar item about a sportsman's group's attempts to seek removal of a university's website that focused on animal rights. Curiously, none of the ensuing responses on the thread, of which there were a great many, addressed directly either the remarks of the outdoor columnist or the sportsman's attack on a university's website. Instead, Bellesile's critics attempted to once again inject another forum for making their ad hominem attacks against Bellesiles, his book, and myself. When I refused to let the gun lobby set the terms of "the debate", they engaged in a series of belittling, trifling remarks--"fun-poking" as one described it. This has been going on for a week since my last response. As one observer remarked to me, "Boy, those guys don't have much to do."
Gun rights activists need to take a long look at themselves. As a group that purportedly supports the freedoms granted by our Constitution, it is hypocritical of them to try to inhibit the voices of their own critics, while also continuing to use distortion, innuendo and gossip-mongering in an attempt to sabotage Bellesile's own academic freedom. If it is true that Bellesile's critics "don't have much to do", perhaps they can collaborate on their own scholarly book, one that maintains that our "gun culture" was not borne out of the wild west, but has been here all along. I certainly would not lobby universities, libraries, and publishers in an attempt to obstruct or disparage pro-gun writers their right to put their views into print and before the court of public opinion.
Dave LaCourse - 2/7/2003
Mr. Greenland,
You raise a few good points, especially now that Weiner has done it yet again. I agree that as long as the people are not frustrated, long posts are fine for them. And the keeping the minds sharp argument is good too. I just don't want frustrated people trying to force BS to do anything.
I believe that the following paragraph is being misunderstood, so I want to (try to) clarify.
"And when is someone going to argue about the power of the "tree huggers" on that environmental issue? Imitating Mr. Smith should be fun!"
All I meant here is that an imitation of BS (as you correctly cite him) would be fun to imitate on the environmental debate he brought up. Not attacking anyone's politics here--only wanted someone to parody BS.
I know BS took the OTHER side on this issue, but his posts seem to fit the other position better. The mindless defense of one.
For example, A BENNY SMITH TYPE ARGUMENT MIGHT READ:
The Skeptical Environmentalist Lomborg has finally eliminated the main argument of the "tree-huggers"--that man has always been destructive to the environment. As expected, the environmental lobby took the truth hard and launched an all-out assault on this fine man.
Using sympathizers throughout the academic community and fear mongering, the "tree-huggers" engineered a biased panel to look only at a small portion of his book that assured the outcome they desired before starting (We all know he had to rely on memory for that one table). There are now unproven allegations against Lomborg and his supporters--who know he is right--are scared into silence.
It is censorship to allow the radical left, "tree-huggers" and those with an axe to grind against Mr. Lomborg to dictate public policy and have his book pulled. If the book is pulled, the whackos will have won again.
I will read The Skeptical Environmentalist again as I could not find such problems with it the first time. I don't have to read anyone else or cite his or her work. Lomberg responded to them. Everyone else in the field is wrong, biased or ignorant.
In addition, anyone posting against him is making a personal attack, is biased, and does not have proper credentials to be debating this important topic.
BTW, I will tell you nothing about me, nor my credentials. I wouldn't let the radical left try to destroy me as they did Lomberg.
I also don't understand how a ___________ has the time to respond so many times, so I will attack his job and family life just as I condemn others for doing to Lomberg (even though they have not).
At the same time, I will also plead, "Can't the 'tree-huggers' at least be civil?"
And finally, anyone challenging my position is also making a personal attack as I can't tell the difference between a debate of the issue and being called an "idiot"--even when some of you have now done both to highlight the difference. Be civil, you biased, attacking creeps.
In three days, I will post almost the same message and have everyone attack us all over again. I will act outraged, and be nonspecific in my defense of the work.
Now where was I--oh, yes, you're all biased, influenced by those with an axe to grind, blah, blah, "tree-hugger" blah...
To all: This was only a parody of how BS argues, and not a real position. Sorry for the confusion and the length, but a lot of material out there by BS!
Dave
Josh Greenland - 2/6/2003
"Yet those who actually quote more than Bellesiles (Mr. Smith even quoted Bellesiles to cite the very few errors in his critics work--again showing shallow knowledge of this subject) feel compelled to force Mr. Smith into a debate or counter his absurd posts."
No, we enjoy trying to get BS to respond to the actual issues. It's amusing to see how he will next avoid doing so. And it's fun to take him to task for his hypocritical and unethical debating tactics. It isn't hard to do, so responding to him is like sitting down to a relaxing, predictable, uncomplicated novel. But it also allows us to keep thinking about l'affaire Bellesiles and to keep its facts in our heads at least to the degree necessary to respond to BS. He's like a scratching post that a cat uses to keep its claws sharp, one that squeaks satisfyingly in protest like some toy mouses.
"Simply post little responses, such as "Your post is not reflected in the facts, and no historians defend Bellesiles"."
Unfortunately the last clause above is not true. Jon Wiener does and so does Paul Finkelman to some degree.
"And when is someone going to argue about the power of the "tree huggers" on that environmental issue? Imitating Mr. Smith should be fun!"
You're assuming that we (Bellesiles critics) are all anti-environmentalist conservatives. But we don't all agree on environmental issues, and we aren't all on the political right. (I have no use for ideological generalizations in the present debate like "those on the gun control left" or "when the right wing first attacked Michael Bellesiles....")
Richard Henry Morgan - 2/5/2003
Frank, some time back I gave up talking to BS (having a conversation) as the signs of monomania were all too clear ("gun lobby, gun lobby, gun lobby, gun lobby..."). Instead, I just do a little fun-poking now and then, in between trying to master trigonometric substitution in calculus (I know it shouldn't be hard, but I keep screwing it up). Here's a site if you get bored:
http://www.attleborokids.com/gopher.htm
Frank "Whack A Mole" - 2/5/2003
Richard, if you enjoy what you are doing and have the time I guess its cool. Personally, dealing with the academic buracracy takes up far too much of my time, and is about as productive as a dialog with BS. Maybe you could get the graduate office at CSUS to coordinate with the records office so I don't have to wait two months for corrected copies of my transcripts (they indicated I did my undergraduate work at some place I have never been, even though I was reqired to give them transcripts from where I was. Now they want new transcripts from where I have never been). Or perhaps that would be a good job for Benny, he is on their wave-lenght.
Are you sure Whack A Mole is p. c. Sounds kinda violent to me, and no doubt the animal rights folks are headed over as I write. Better hide it. Regards, F.
Dave LaCourse - 2/5/2003
Mr. Baldridge is correct. Mr. Smith keeps everyone going around in circles, because he never gets anywhere, and repeatedly posts the same garbage over and over.
Yet those who actually quote more than Bellesiles (Mr. Smith even quoted Bellesiles to cite the very few errors in his critics work--again showing shallow knowledge of this subject) feel compelled to force Mr. Smith into a debate or counter his absurd posts.
When Mr. Smith claimed he would reread Arming America to look for errors, I rightfully called him an "idiot". Not only did accurately reflect my opinion of him, but also showed a real personal attack (truth hurts).
Simply post little responses, such as "Your post is not reflected in the facts, and no historians defend Bellesiles".
Any attempt at a debate is fruitless at this point.
And when is someone going to argue about the power of the "tree huggers" on that environmental issue? Imitating Mr. Smith should be fun!
Richard Henry Morgan - 2/4/2003
Whack-a-mole has it's attractions, too, even though you know it's just going to pop its head up through another hole. I wouldn't be doing this if I weren't having fun also.
Frank A. Baldridge - 2/4/2003
Cracks me up how you guys keep letting BS jerk your strings. Have not you figured out yet that you can never win. Ignore him!
Alec Lloyd - 2/3/2003
I just find the entire title of the post amusing: he insulted people while, in the same sentence, asking why they aren't polite.
You just can't top arrogance of that magnitude.
Richard Henry Morgan - 2/3/2003
What I object to is the appeal to, and engagement in, a faux civility of a type that says you can launch charges indiscriminately as long as you do it politely. Benny speaks of the W&M; issue being tainted by "personal attacks", but can't document just where the taint occurs in the articles. In fact, he can't even say how the issue was influenced by Lindgren, yet he is sure that it is tainted. Apparently even the most tenous contact with Lindgren is capable of transmitting an invisible, undetectable contagion. This reveals a lack of ambition. If you're going to make a claim based on tenuous contact, then aim high -- play the six degrees of separation game, and lasso a big name. Say, for instance, that Gloria Main knows someone, who knows someone, who knows someone, who knows someone, who knows someone, who once petted Hitler's dog. That's the ticket.
Other Benny-claims merit examination. Roth actually has two nice things to say of Bellesiles, and is otherwise indistinguishable in his criticism from that of Gruber, so Gruber's article is "far less patronizing in it's tone". I kid you not. Is this the influence that goes unnamed?
As far as I know, one historian has said he felt pressured by Lindgren (perhaps he misinterpreted something said, perhaps not). Yet this is ginned up to a Benny charge that Lindgren has been "twisting the arms of historians" (note the plural -- If I'm wrong, just please quote the report and cite it). It is said by Benny to be documented in the CHE, yet the only thing reported there is the charge -- the easy slide from reporting a charge to the substance of the charge being documented is all too apparent. This is the same CHE that turned its Sept. 29, 2000 issue into an unpaid advertisement for Bellesiles. Others are charged by Benny with "character assassination". Yet he has no response to the report (in the Emory Wheel) that Bellesiles denied authorship of e-mails to Lindgren -- e-mails whose purported content matches a claim that Bellesiles made in a radio interview (available on-line as an audiofile). It seems to me that if anyone is a victim of character assassination, it is Lindgren.
This seems to be the tactic perfected by Bernstein, and ridden into the ground by Benny. Call for vigorous debate, and when it ensues, rather than contribute to a discussion of the merits, shift the topic to charges of lack of civility or due process. If it weren't so transparent, and so transparently funny, it would be sad. Benny claims disappointment in me. I'm not disappointed in him, as it would be folly to expect a one-trick pony to suddenly develop a broad repertoire.
Ronald Best - 2/3/2003
I am a shooting and hunting enthusiast that objects to being called a "gun hugger." The classic term I prefer is "gun nut." When I first become a serious student of firearms, it was a term of respect. I expect the same degree of respect from the gun control left that I have for them as Americans.
Josh Greenland - 2/2/2003
"What I did say is that Main and Roth were influenced by Lindgren. That is fully supported and documented by the evidence."
By what evidence, Benny, that they REFERRED TO HIM in their articles? If that's all you have, your charge that Main and Roth were influenced by Lindgren is pathetic.
"What I did say was that Lindgren has become an ally of the gun lobby in this and other affairs which is documented as well. In fact, just recently he intervened in the defense of John Lott, a champion for the anti-gun control forces, when Lott's scholarship was threatened. Again, these facts are abundantly evident."
So how had avowedly pro-gun control James Lindgren become "an ally of the gun lobby"? By coming to conclusions contrary to those that would help the gun control movement in two situations. But could it possibly be, Benny, that instead of cynically saying whatever would help the evil "gun lobby," Lindgren examined the evidence in both cases and came to the conclusions he believed were right? Lindgren's work on Bellesiles' probates is well-known and he has published an article on it. There's a link to it from this site. Can you criticize the SUBSTANCE of Lindgren's work in ANY way?
"I don't believe that Professor Bellesiles relished moving his family out of harm's way, changing the surname of his daughter or being forced to resign out of respect for Emory University."
Based on the evidence, I don't believe he did any of these things. Wasn't it pro-gun control Jerome Sternstein who established that Bellesiles' move from Atlanta had been arranged BEFORE all the supposed threats (which were never documented by any police department or security organization)? And I've read that Bellesiles' daughter CHANGED HER OWN NAME, with no publicly known motivation. I'd like to see your evidence that Bellesiles changed her last name for her. And how can you claim that Bellesiles resigned his position "out of respect for Emory University"? I've been following L'affaire Bellesiles for a while and I've never heard that one before.
You're a good one to attack those who disagree with you for "lying" when you play so fast and loose with publicly known facts. Or are my facts wrong? If so, please prove that.
"If the gun huggers can't show civility here on a public forum of some academic repute when discussing Arming America [....]"
Benny, doesn't it seem hypocritical to you that in the very sentence where you take pro gun rights people to task for incivility, you refer to them using an insulting phrase ("gun huggers")?
You can talk about the "tone" taken in by Roth, Main and Gruber all you want, but that does not address the substance of their criticisms of Bellesiles' work, on which the academic community subsequently judged him. Are you able to refute ANYthing written by ANY of these people in the January 2002 William and Mary Quarterly?
Richard Henry Morgan - 2/1/2003
Now I'm getting lectures on civility in a post that contains the expression "gun huggers" (however much it may be in scare quotes). Too rich. Benny is right, he didn't use the terms 'bad' or even 'nasty' -- that was my characterization of his post. In fact, to give him his due, he offered the much more florid phrase: "the most ignoble intentions by an army of ideologues bent on intellectual character assassination." From that general point he then proceeded to characterizing the W&M; issue as tainted by "personal attacks" -- yeah, that's a quote there). Of course, this was merely asserted, again, without example. I took Benny to mean that he was against "personal attacks", and that therefore they are "bad" or "nasty" (I'm not a hypocrite -- I certainly intended to be nasty to Benny). As usual, Benny is very, very disturbed by tone -- and Gruber, despite his many criticisms of Bellesiles, has struck the right tone in Benny's book. Good. But I submit Gruber's effort is indistinguishable in tone from Roth's. But again, all this discussion of tone, and me, relieves Benny of the burden of discussing the substantive criticism in the W&M; issue -- what he claims to be most intertested in. Strange, but substantive criticism never seems to come up in his posts.
BTW, I don't own a gun, and I'm not a member of the NRA, or any other gun group. And I'm not a spokesman for any such group, or a lobbyist of same. I guess that makes me a gun lobby ally. Could be worse. I could be a contributor to the Chicago-Kent symposium.
It also would be nice to put a little meat on the assertive bone -- where exactly does the W&M; issue descend into "personal attacks"? Just wondering. I know it's old-fashioned, but they call that 'evidence'.
I hope Benny isn't going to say that the "personal attacks" weren't actually in the W&M; issue, which was merely influenced by "personal attacks" from others (say Lindgren? -- he does immediately proceed to a consideration of Lindgren after his charge of "personal attacks"). But I ask myself, what am I to make of a charge of "personal attacks" when none are quoted, and how can "personal attacks" from outside the W&M; issue taint a W&M; issue when Benny himself says (and yes indeed I do quote him here) "Although we don’t know for sure how Gloria Main and Randolph Roth were influenced by Lindgren ..." That does seem to pose a conundrum.
Benny Smith - 2/1/2003
How ironic it is that the same representatives of the gun lobby who feel that Professor Bellesiles should be damned to hell for his alleged sins of distortion, bias, inaccurate quotes, etc., so freely employ those tactics here themselves. I did not use the words "bad" or even "nasty" to describe the William & Mary Quarterly articles by Gloria Main and Randolph Roth anymore than the Chronicle of Higher Education used the word "evil" to describe Professor Lindgren. However, Mr. Morgan by distorting my remarks can then conjugate a rebuttal based on an inaccurate take of what I said.
What I did say is that Main and Roth were influenced by Lindgren. That is fully supported and documented by the evidence. What I did say is that Professor Lindgren at the time was engaged in strong-arming historians who showed favor to Professor Bellesiles. That is documented in the Chronicle of Higher Education and right here on the History News Network. What I did say was that Lindgren has become an ally of the gun lobby in this and other affairs which is documented as well. In fact, just recently he intervened in the defense of John Lott, a champion for the anti-gun control forces, when Lott's scholarship was threatened. Again, these facts are abundantly evident.
Yet the gun lobby here does not want to deal with these issues directly and, instead, prefer to misquote or selectively quote, distort, lie, and resort to cheap innuendo and gossip-mongering. Then they congratulate themselves on "refuting" another charge and merrily parade along to launch the next assault. I admit particularly that I overestimated Mr. Morgan. After he offered a spirited defense of the discredited Danish author Bjorn Lomborg in response to one of my other threads, I expected a similar informative response on this thread. Instead, he likens his rebuttals to a somewhat violent arcade game with me as the target. Then he fashions a crude but simple insult using my name. Perhaps the restraint of civility proved too burdensome this time around.
Unfortunately, this pattern of hateful, hurtful attacks has typified the gun lobby's assault on Professor Bellesiles, his supporters and his family. If the gun huggers can't show civility here on a public forum of some academic repute when discussing Arming America, then we can only imagine what tirades they directed in private towards the ivory towers of Columbia and Emory Universities. Perhaps they are of Mr. Haskins persuasion, that Bellesiles and his supporters "relish" all the name-calling, harassment and ridicule. I don't believe that Professor Bellesiles relished moving his family out of harm's way, changing the surname of his daughter or being forced to resign out of respect for Emory University. But in the internet arena that the gun lobby calls its own, the tactics do not matter, only the agenda.
Benny Smith - 2/1/2003
The strain of our correspondence is beginning to show in the patronizing tone of your posts, Mr. Haskins. Although I said I did not wish to go to war with you, you appear to be farther down that road than our dear president. To continue to draw parallels between the behavior of Professor Bellesiles and that of a rapist is unjustifiable, regardless of how you try to rationalize it to yourself. But to additionally proffer that I enjoy the abhorrent name-calling directed at me is just short of bizarre. I certainly do not "relish it" and to corroborate that for you I will engage that freedom of speech we talked about and refrain from responding to your posts further. I wish you well in your chosen profession. If you show half as much attention to the criminals there as you've show to me here, then I'm sure you will make a fine assistant prosecutor.
Josh Greenland - 2/1/2003
Benny, there is one connection you failed to make: how is avowedly pro-gun control James Lindgren a minion of "the gun lobby"?
Bryan Haskins - 1/31/2003
Does this mean that although you still refuse to answer my questions you are now suddenly interested in my opinion on handling expert witnesses? This is a refreshing change, Mr. Smith. Alright then, here it is…
My judge would think me an idiot if I did not try to talk to an opposing expert witness before trial, for only a fool tries a case blind. And when I talk to my opposing expert, he would do more than constantly lash out at his critics. Indeed, he would gladly tell me what his opinion is and the facts which support it. If after hearing his opinion I still thought the expert wrong, then I would tell him so. I would offer to show him what my experts found, and I would ask him to consider their facts as well. He would not shrink away and cry out that I am trying to intimidate or silence him. Rather, I am certain that he would look at what my experts have to say. His confidence in his own knowledge of the subject would then permit him to comment on the substance of their different opinions. Now I suppose that he could refuse to discuss the uncomfortable facts I confront him with. I suppose that he could even try to claim the high ground by suggesting that my expert’s opinions were tainted by “attack scholarship” or are nothing more than “a soap opera of who said what to whom.” Yet his past experience would have made it clear to him just how hollow these evasive responses would ring in the jury’s ears. Therefore, he most certainly would not seek to dismiss my expert’s opinions merely because they come from people he does not like. Yes, Mr. Smith, he would know that his credibility would be shattered if I could reveal to the court that he refused to review and discuss any scholarly opinion merely because it happened to be critical of the position he has adopted.
This is how things work in the real world, Mr. Smith. People with different opinions actually share and debate them. Others view this debate, offer their own views, and we all remain free to pass judgment on the veracity of each position. If you truly wish to enter this debate, then be aware that it requires you to do more than constantly snipe at Bellesiles’ critics. In order to have a true debate, we need to hear your opinion on these matters (like, for example, the thesis which underpins Arming America). I remain hopeful that you will find the courage to share your opinion with us one day.
By the way, Mr. Smith, your “attack scholarship” post is still not an answer to my request to discuss the critics in the W&M; Quarterly. You cannot credibly expect us to ignore the uncomfortable facts contained in their complaints merely by claiming that they are stooges of the gun lobby and its allies. However, I am encouraged by your mention of Gloria Main and Randolph Roth. If I understand you correctly, you believe that their facts and opinions were “influenced” from a partisan source. This then is your explanation of HOW they came to what you believe to be erroneous conclusions about Bellesiles’ research, and it is a good first step. Now would (or could?) you take the next logical step and tell me exactly WHAT they got wrong?
Rick Schwartz - 1/31/2003
"...and we can have a Smith-like character as his defender"
Ohh, Ohh. Let me cast it. Steve Buscemi as Benny Smith, doing a reprise of his Carl Rolvaag charecter from "Fargo."
Bryan Haskins - 1/30/2003
I never realized that you were so thin skinned, Mr. Smith. I have already answered your criticism of my accurate comparison of your methods of attacking the messenger with those used by Dr. Goebbles, as well as my equally accurate comparison of the pattern of lies told by Bellesiles with those told by a rapist. I encourage you to go back through that post and quote me where you feel I am wrong.
Now let me directly answer your latest question you have posed for me: “Why is diversity of thought and freedom of speech so threatening to you and your allies in the gun lobby?” This is a disingenuous question, Mr. Smith, for you know well that I have never said anything which can be rationally construed as criticizing diversity of opinion (indeed, your inability to cite any example from my posts confirms this). You are certainly welcome to any opinion you wish, no matter how absurd others may find it. I am also entitled to my opinion, Mr. Smith, and you should feel free to criticize it all you want. Unlike you, I realize that criticism does not equal censorship.
You are also familiar with my many attempts to seek your opinion on matters related to Bellesiles and Arming America. It is by your own choice that your opinion on these important matters is not heard. Now you suggest that you fear being called names as your reason for refusing to discuss these issues. Please, Mr. Smith, do not lie to me again. Such conduct is beneath you. You clearly have no fear of being called names. In fact, you seem to relish being called names because you feel that it further makes your point about character assassination. Therefore, isn’t your real fear that of exposing your own opinions to ridicule because you can not or will not support them with objective facts? Is this why you can do nothing but attack Bellesiles’ critics?
Your free exercise of speech does not threaten me, Mr. Smith. On the contrary, I had hoped that you would find your voice so we could actually talk about the subjects you complain we ignore. I argue by profession, and I enjoy the give and take of a lively debate. This is why I was so intrigued when I came across your small stall here in the free marketplace of ideas. I thought that I had finally found a man who could not only write well but was also willing to discuss with me the merits of Arming America from an opposing viewpoint. After browsing your wares, however, I find that the only thing you have to sell is your hatred of Bellesile’s critics. Please, Mr. Smith, tell me there is something more. Tell me there is something positive you can say about Arming America’s thesis, for example. Give me something that I can digest to see if it has merit or not.
Alec Lloyd - 1/30/2003
Uh, oh, now you did it. Gruber's character has to be assassinated next.
That's how these things work, you know. Slime everyone who questions Bellesiles, no matter where they come from or why. They are obviously gun lobby pawns. If they aren't, they were forced into it by gun lobby pawns.
I'm waiting to find out how the Contra Costa County History Society was taken over by the NRA.
Richard Henry Morgan - 1/30/2003
Another remarkable contribution. After asking for the historians who have found fault with Bellesiles, and being presented with same, it is necessary, of course, for Mr. Smith to find fault with them too. How should one go about doing this?
Well, of course there's the tried and true method -- get out the broad brush. So the W&M; Quartely must have been "tainted by personal attacks and 'attack scholarship' being generated by the gun lobby and its allies." Yep, Gloria Main and Randall Roth must, because they disagree with Bellesiles, be either members of the gun lobby themselves, or their allies (I guess that makes Alexander Cockburn, of Counterpunch, one of the gang too). And the charge of "attack scholarship", of course, goes without citing examples. Actually, here's what Roth does say, among other things:
"Michael Bellesiles poses an excellent question: were Americans always well armed? He has the courage to question fundamental assumptions about the relationship between guns, gun culture, and homicide."
and
"MICHAEL A. Bellesiles's Arming America, an ambitious and well-written study of the history of gun ownership and gun use in America, has many themes, but none is more important for contemporary public policy than the relationship between guns and interpersonal violence."
Yep, there's that nasty tone. Let's see, how else can one attack the authors, without any evidence? I know, let's tie them to Lindgren (they've been influenced by him, but we can't tell just how, I'm afraid). Yeah, that's the ticket.
But Gruber has no link to Lindgren. I know, let's make out that Gruber's contribution was different in tone -- then we can leave the implication that the bad tone of the others was due to Lindgren (ignoring the lack of a nasty tone by Roth), and we can set Gruber up as a contrast to the others. And we can cite the CHE as a sober source of facts. Yeah, that's the ticket. Just one problem. What shall we do with all the following quotes by Gruber?
"Bellesiles is inattentive to numbers and context."
"So too is he careless with context."
"Historians from John Shy to Fred Anderson and from Charles Royster to Marcus Cunliffe have agreed that the militia was not an effective military force. Bellesiles acknowledges their scholarship but forgets it when declaiming against the myth of the "mighty militia" (p. 123–24, 297), a myth that he finds useful in stressing the incompetence of the militia and the originality of his argument. He even forgets his own scholarship in emphasizing the neglect of the militia during the colonial period ..."
"... he has otherwise exaggerated the weaknesses of the musket and the reluctance of militia and regulars to use it."
"Yet, contrary to what Bellesiles says, regulars did not rely primarily on their bayonets when engaging an enemy. Indeed, to pursue such an argument Bellesiles must make very selective use of current scholarship: citing but ignoring J. A. Houlding, who says that "heavy fire was all-important" in eighteenth-century British tactical thinking; ignoring the standard accounts of the Battle of Quebec (1759), which show that British firepower broke the French on the Plains of Abraham; and dwelling on the few battles during the War of American Independence where bayonets prevailed."
"Bellesiles's treatment of the militia is much like that of guns: he regularly uses evidence in a partial or imprecise way."
"It might be possible to reconcile the discrepancy, but to say nothing gives the impression that he has shaped his figures to suit his argument."
"But Bellesiles's scholarship does not do justice to his subject--at least, not from a military perspective. His efforts to minimize the importance of guns, militia, and war in early America and to portray the Civil War as the catalyst for a national gun culture founder on a consistently biased reading of sources and on careless uses of evidence and context."
http://www.historycoop.org/journals/wm/59.1/roth.html
http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/wm/59.1/gruber.html
The charge of intellectual character assassination does have its charm, though, coming as it does from a defender of the man who implied to the Emory Wheel that Lindgren was lying about the e-mails. Too bad the Chicago radio station had a record of Bellesiles' interview, or he might have gotten away with denying that he had said the majority of probate records were read in the East Point archives. Of course, that demanded a new iteration -- that he was reading LDS records there, spirited to him at great risk by an inside source (though why that was necessary since they are widely available at libraries, is a question that vexed the Emory Committee). I suggest John Lovetz for the movie role of Bellesiles, and we can have a Smith-like character as his defender (a sort of condensed character to represent Benny, R.B. Bernstein, and anybody else still left out there vouching for Bellesiles' work -- without actually discusssing the work, of course, as opposed to attacking Bellesiles' critics).
It's like a game of whack-a-mole. Benny Smith just re-emerges with another refutable charge, to throw on top of the pile of other refuted charges. Last week it was the fictional San Francisco probate records. This week it is the attack scholarship of those gun lobby allies, influenced somehow (but we can't tell just how) by the evil Lindgren (must be evil, since the CHE says so). The technique is to just keep moving, presenting a moving target. Has anyone else picked up on the fact that Benny's initials are BS? It is fun to watch, though. Please don't stop, BS.
Steve H - 1/30/2003
Josh G. wrote:
"A couple days ago the media announced the release of an anti-concealed carry study which purportedly refutes the work of economist John Lott in this area..."
I think what contributes to this perception is the apparently massive amounts of grant money funnelled to anti-self-defense
research by the liberal non-profit foundations such
as the Joyce Foundation. With money constantly in the funding
pipeline, new studies and books are almost guaranteed to pop out every couple of months or so. With the new studies and books
comes the massive support and publicity generated by the liberal
media. At certain points in time, the announcements of the liberal-funded studies will coincide with the genuine research on the tradeoffs of
armed self defense, usually to the contrary.
Thus the illusion of a strategic rollout of pro gun control
propaganda is projected by the random coincidences.
None of the above should be construed to contradict the notion
that just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out
to get ya :-).
Benny Smith - 1/30/2003
It’s revealing how the gun lobby here divides the world into friend or foe based upon their views of gun control. I doubt whether historians do the same. Scholarly allies on one topic can be ideological adversaries on another, regardless of whether they share the same political bent. Perhaps those familiar with faculty meetings can share how even trivial issues often instigate spirited debate. Disagreements among the learned is what drives the investigative process, which adds to our knowledge and ultimately becomes fuel for the next generation of scholars.
Yet, the Bellesiles affair has shown us that this process can be hijacked and derailed with the most ignoble intentions by an army of ideologues bent on intellectual character assassination. Even the William and Mary quarterly series of articles on history and guns from a year ago unfortunately was tainted by personal attacks and "attack scholarship" being generated by the gun lobby and its allies.
Two of the three articles from the quarterly which were critical of Bellesiles were authored by historians who were influenced by Northwestern Law Professor James Lindgren. In their articles, both Gloria Main and Randolph Roth publicly thanked Professor Lindgren for his help. As documented in an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education, Professor Lindgren had been devoting much time towards twisting the arms of historians and others who were favorable to Bellesiles in an effort to get them to withdraw their support. One historian even said that Lindgren made comments to the effect that the historian’s career might be affected on the basis of whether he made a public retraction.
Although we don’t know for sure how Gloria Main and Randolph Roth were influenced by Lindgren, it is interesting that Ira Gruber’s article that also appeared in the William and Mary Quarterly was far less patronizing in its tone. Perhaps there is nothing so egregious in academia as a vengeful law professor. In this case, his participation obviously tarnished what should have been a vigorous and objective discussion of the theses underlying Arming America.
Perhaps Mr. Haskins, the assistant prosecutor, could render an opinion of what a judge would think of him if he tried to strong arm independent experts prior to their giving testimony at a trial. Since the Chronicle of Higher Education called Lindgren "the self-appointed prosecutor in the Bellesiles case," the comparison is a valid one.
Jake Turner - 1/30/2003
From the remaining Bellesiles loyalist, Benny; "Those critics comprise the gun lobby, conservative activists and a few others who still bristle at the lack of support they have received from professional and academic historians."
Perhaps the 'few others' refers to the 9th Circuit, and the 'bristling' refers to being taken for a ride by a former academic historian.
All sarcasm aside, I believe this incident spotlights how negligent minimizing Bellesiles' actions can be. Laws affecting citizen's rights were being decided using the heavily biased writings. Perhaps because Bellesiles' defenders identify with his bias (or conversely, do not identify with owning or desiring to own a gun), perhaps it becomes easy to overlook that tremendously significant part of this fiasco. What will their response be, however, when the bulls-eye settles on a subject matter, tradition, or belief, with which they more closely identify? Their unintended consequences of forming or seeking to shape opinion based solely on bias can be quite extensive, and the boomerang effect unpredictable.
Steve H - 1/29/2003
Reinhardt left in the Chi-Kent 2000 Symposium references to Rakove and Finkelman, each of which IHMO use Bellesiles tainted work to bridge gaps in their arguments. A link to the amended opinion is here
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CB340BA134E0B81688256CBB005A9417/$file/0115098.pdf?openelement
Since the Joyce Foundation funded the Chi-Kent 2000 Symposium, this can be viewed as a validation of their investment in the Symposium and the directed efforts of the historians towards a more superficially convincing argument against gun rights at the federal circuit court level.
The paper trail left by this opinion will fade with time, but should be preserved, because it reveals the bankrupcy and the "BAMN" tactics of the gun grabber contingent within the academic community in collusion with activist courts.
Peter Boucher - 1/28/2003
"If Jim Lindgren tells us that the door to the office which was once occupied by Donohue and now occupied by himself has suddenly burst into flame, his computer has crashed, and his yellow legal pads have been reduced to pulp by Jerry Sternstein's showerhead..."
I HATE when that happens.
BTW, Plassmann originally wrote a paper criticizing Lott's statistical methods. Did Lott embrace Plassmann's criticisms, or vice versa, or was some _other_dark conspiracy involved in getting the two of them to collaborate on http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=372361
Josh Greenland - 1/28/2003
The following is an article from a pro-gun rights website about the recent amending of citations to Bellesiles writings out of a recent pro-gun control decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals:
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/Item.asp?ID=3557
Josh Greenland - 1/28/2003
"Those critics comprise the gun lobby, conservative activists and a few others who still bristle at the lack of support they have received from professional and academic historians."
Is this how you describe the three critics of Michael Bellesiles who had articles published in the William and Mary Quarterly of January 2002? Two of them are outspokenly pro-gun control in their essays and one doesn't address politics at all. And far from lacking of support, their writings seem to have launched Emory's investigation that ended with Bellesiles resigning in the middle of a semester, and the unprecedent rescission of the Bancroft prize.
If, according to you, all Bellesiles critics are from the gun lobby, conservatives, or those who otherwise have not received support from professional and academic historians, how do you explain these critics, especially pro-gun control Ira Gruber and Radolph Roth?
URL to Jan 02 William & Mary Quarterly, very readable, well-written stuff, not very long:
http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/wm/59.1/
J. Merrett - 1/28/2003
Oddly enough, the first thing that crossed my mind when I saw Mr. Smith's latest was the phrase "admirable persistence." Then I realized that I have mildew on my shower grout which has been around longer than Mr. Smith has been posting on this subject. I concluded that persistence per se is not a virtue.
Rick Schwartz - 1/28/2003
I'd bet ol' Benny got a "smiley face" on his grade school report card when it came to the blocks for "persistency" and "loyalty."
Benny Smith - 1/28/2003
Whether Arming America is seen as a paradigm-shifting historical narrative or a provocative treatise on our gun culture, the book discusses events and subjects which historians have been studying for generations. Author Michael Bellesiles knew what he was delving into had been studied and written about countless number of times previously. If his take on the evidence that a gun culture wasn’t always existent in America was flat out wrong, certainly scores of outraged historians would raise a hue and cry that would reverberate throughout academia. But that never happened. And it still hasn’t, which is a reality that has stuck in the craw of Bellesile’s critics.
Those critics comprise the gun lobby, conservative activists and a few others who still bristle at the lack of support they have received from professional and academic historians. Many blame a liberal conspiracy throughout most of America’s universities. In a recent outdoors column, writer Lowell Branham goes farther. He says, "The disgraceful saga of Prof. Bellesiles is, alas, a sad commentary on the state of higher education in general." Branham calls Bellesiles "dumb" for writing the book and historians "dumb" to fall for what he called a "transparent scam."
Branham does not say he read the book himself, but says he gleaned enough from a book review to flatly declare "some of it (Arming America) proved to be nothing less than pure fabrication." So he joined a chorus of other critics who are content to merely repeat the same charges ad infinitum, apparently without reading the book itself. In the column filed for Scripps Howard, which appeared in newspapers in Texas, Florida and Kentucky, Branham voices his disdain for college professors in general who he said were "long on baloney and short on substance."
I Google searched Branham’s byline to try to determine his own expertise (not surprisingly, he admits not being a historian). Another Branham column opined not so provocatively that the world’s environmental problems are caused by too many people. Yet another Branham column talked about the quality of venison. Where he might have acquired his expertise on guns in early America was not evident.
Yet this column is indicative of the attitude of many Bellesile’s critics. The problem with Arming America is not just the book itself, nor even the author, but the attitude of the intellectual elite housed in our major colleges and universities that they might be better versed on the issues they teach. As Branham concluded, "Why couldn't professional historians recognize it (Bellesile’s ‘scam’)? I guess it's like they say; those that can, do, and those that can't teach history." Perhaps history courses should be taught by outdoorsmen instead of academics.
It may be that the gun lobby has become emboldened at their success in getting Emory and Columbia University to turn academic freedom on its side. Recently in Michigan, a state legislator and outdoorswoman has demanded that Michigan State University end its ties to a web site dedicated to animal rights. The web site includes information about 120 statutes and 100 cases involving animal rights. A representative of the US Sportsman’s Alliance, a hunters advocacy group, says "The information they’re providing is assisting people with their anti-hunting views." An MSU spokesman says the university won’t ask the law school to remove the Web site since it conforms to the university’s standards. That’s one small victory for academic freedom.
Benny Smith - 1/28/2003
I am surprised you doubt my sincerity here, Mr. Haskins. Do you honestly believe I have nothing better to do than to play sounding board while you and other members of the gun lobby continue this campaign of personal attack? I have been called an idiot, a dumb ass, obtuse (an intellectual high brow term for stupid), arrogant, bigoted, etc. I’ve heard you compare Professor Bellesile’s behavior to that of a rapist while you compare my behavior here to one of Hitler’s inner circle. I’ve heard the same unproved accusations of fraud and fabrication paraded at Professor Bellesiles time and again by the gun lobby, right wing zealots and a scant few other souls obsessed with his intellectual character assassination. So, yes, I would rather spend my time presenting a different perspective than to merely indulge "Bellesiles bashing" in the name of "scholarly debate." Why is diversity of thought and freedom of speech so threatening to you and your allies in the gun lobby?
Frank A. Baldridge - 1/27/2003
So what does he now base his opinion on, Mad Magazine, or B[enny]S[mith].
Richard Henry Morgan - 1/27/2003
Somebody went and clued in the otherwise clueless Stephen Reinhardt of the Ninth Circuit. He's removed the citations of Bellesiles from the Silveira v. Lockyer opinion.
http://appellateblog.blogspot.com/2003_01_01_appellateblog_archive.html#90240330
Bryan Haskins - 1/27/2003
Hours of our precious time have we wasted to have at last come to naught but “what might have been.” Yet I do not begrudge the time spent here, Mr. Smith, for it has shown me that you are a man who would seek to raise a gale and then refuse to come out of the harbor. I submitted my first post to this site on November 14, and you know that I tried then to move beyond Bellesiles and his lack of credibility. In fact, you were already there attacking those whom you believed sought only to demonize Bellesiles. At the time I believed that you yearned to rise above trading personal attacks when you said:
(Nov. 19) “Unfortunately, as with the Arming America debate, the gun lobby and its allies want to stay focused on intellectual character assassination and the still unproven charges of fraud and fabrication, rather than discuss the overall theses of the book.”
I took this as a request, if not a challenge, to those you call “gun huggers” to set aside their poisoned pens and summon the courage to address the thesis of Arming America. Accordingly, I offered to discuss Arming America’s thesis with you in a December 4 post. I even offered you my private e-mail address if you feared to discuss it here. I must have misread your expressed intent, Mr. Smith, for you refused weigh anchor.
Still, I refused to give up on you because I also thought you willing to discuss “scholarly” criticism of Arming America:
(Nov. 19 again) “So, Mr. Williams, what are your credentials? Degrees earned, papers presented, scholarly articles published, theses written, relevant courses taken or taught, etc. And on your writing, confine yourself to what has been presented academically or peer-reviewed rather than what's on the internet. That will determine whether you're worth my time. The problem is that there are a great number of gun huggers out there who believe they are experts on anything to do with firearms…But if you can convince me that's not the case with you, Mr. Williams, I would be happy to hear your qualified opinion.”
Here, in your attack on Mr. Williams, did you not clearly imply that you would be happy to hear the opinion of those who were academically qualified? I certainly thought so. Accordingly, I have repeatedly offered you a chance to address the academically qualified critics who wrote about Arming America in the William & Mary Quarterly. Now, after many futile attempts to seek an answer from you, you tell me that I can find it in a previous response you made to Mr. Morgan. I checked it and found the following:
“Mr. Morgan, for example, has posted nearly 100 times. I do not intend to be as prolific. I’m a working man, with a family life and other responsibilities. So, Mr. Morgan, thanks for sharing here, but indeed I do need to fry some other fish.”
I take it then that you do refuse to address any scholarly criticism of Arming America with me. While I did expect this response from you, Mr. Smith, it did shock me that you would actually lie to me about your reason for it. No time because of other responsibilities or other fish?
I don’t doubt that you have a family and other responsibilities, Mr. Smith. Unlike you, I have never questioned your private life or the time you devote to it. Nevertheless, you know very well that you have the time to post messages here. For example, since your November 19 claim to Mr. Williams that he was not “worth my time,” you have started five threads and posted 20 messages by my count. In all of these threads you do nothing but complain about a vast right wing gun hugger conspiracy bent on ruining Bellesiles. Now, when I suggest that we talk about either Arming America’s thesis or scholarly criticism of it (matters which you have previously complained we have all but ignored) you want us to believe that you suddenly no longer have the time? Really, Mr. Smith, until you do address these issues every future post you make here will only serve to highlight your lie when you claim you have “no time” to do so. It is painfully obvious to everyone that you only wish to devote your time here to attacking Bellesiles’ critics, so if you don’t want to talk about these issues, then at least be honest about it. After all, lying is what destroyed Bellesiles’ credibility. Don’t let it completely erode what credibility you may still retain, all alone, in that ever-shrinking harbor of yours.
Richard Henry Morgan - 1/27/2003
Here's my favorite candidate: homes with hurricane shutters suffer more hurricane damage, on average, than homes without. No doubt there is somebody out there, armed with this datum, ready to ban hurricane shutters.
I do remember, some years back, the passionate jeremiad delivered by Sen. Frank Lautenburg on the Senate floor, to the effect that a vote to lift the 55mph speed limit on the interstate was going to lead to more deaths, and that blood would be on the hands of those senators who so voted. They dropped the 55 limit anyway, and the death rate per mile on the interstate went down. Gee, I guess maybe speed limits aren't the only factor. If I had a dollar for every poor study, or every bad claim, conducted or made by an academic or a recipient of federal dollars, I'd be sitting on my front porch drinking a Cuba Libre and watching Bill Gates mow my lawn.
Rick Schwartz - 1/27/2003
People who own guns get more guns burglarized? That ranks right up there with the news that people who own cars get more cars stolen.
"For example, he said, an attacker may wrest control of a handgun away from his victim, who may be less experienced in handling firearms, and use it against the victim. Also, otherwise law-abiding citizens may become "emboldened to do bad things, some of them violent" in the heat of the moment, Donohue said."
I don't know how many folk here have a CCW and carry on a daily basis. I do. My wife does. Many of our friends do. That's why we know these kinds of statements are rank nonsense regardless of the number of degrees behind someone's name. I've done extensive research on the web for four years running and I have never, not once, come across a story where a gun was taken away and used against someone.
In the entire U.S. the number of CCW holders number in the millions. Here in Indiana it's almost 500,000 alone. Nationally well less that one tenth of one percent of the CCW licenses have been revoked, and the vast majority of those have nothing to do with crimes, and especially crimes of violence.
Go to Handgun Control or any other anti-gun website and try to find the news stories posted about gun owners having their guns taken away by badguys and used against them -- or stories of CCW holders going crazy and shooting someone up. You won't find them, but we all know if they existed they would be plastered prominently across the website for all to see and weep over.
Ralph E. Luker - 1/26/2003
If Jim Lindgren tells us that the door to the office which was once occupied by Donohue and now occupied by himself has suddenly burst into flame, his computer has crashed, and his yellow legal pads have been reduced to pulp by Jerry Sternstein's showerhead, we may rightly suspect: a) divine intervention, b) a conspiracy of Bellesiles vindicators, c) a conspiracy of Lott vindicators, or d) mere coincidence.
Tim Lambert - 1/26/2003
The Ayers/Donahue study is actually being published in May, but
the paper has been available for a long time. The new study
builds on the paper and is a chapter in a new book.
I have all the links for these (and Lott's response) at
http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/lott98update.html#2003-01-26
The other thing about the timing is that after I webbed Lindgren's
report I didn't do anything to try to get bloggers to notice it.
I just left it there. I figured that eventually someone would
notice, but I had no idea when.
James Lindgren - 1/26/2003
Why does everyone always see some conspiracy?
I thought that the Ayres/Donohue study had come out some time ago, since I've been hearing about it for a year. Did it just come out? Or is this a new Donohue study that I haven't heard about (as the article seems to imply)? Wouldn't I have to know about this study's impending arrival before I could do my part in the "teapot tempest" conspiracy, as you call it?
Further, I had dinner with Ayres when I presented my Bellesiles article at Yale 14 months ago, but he didn't tell me of his project. It's been even longer since I've talked with Donohue, but I did take his office when I moved to Northwestern and he moved from Northwestern to Stanford. Any conspiracy theorist would surely find that just too much of a coincidence to believe that it could happen by chance.
In mid September 2002, Tim Lambert raised on the FireArmsRegProf discussion list whether Lott had ever done a large survey of the general public in 1997 as he claimed to have done. I said I'd look into it. I didn't more or less finish looking into it until after classes ended last term and I could write up my findings, such as they were, for that list and post them around Christmas. Not long after that, Lambert put my results up on the web and it started being picked up by bloggers, which started causing problems for John Lott.
So I don't see how I could have timed the coordination of my release of the results of my inquiry with the future release of a study that I either didn't know about or thought was probably already out, nor do I see why Northwestern University would rearrange its semester calendar to fit the publication schedule for the Ayres/Donohue or Donohue article.
This isn't even much of a coincidence, let alone a conspiracy.
Jim Lindgren
Northwestern University
Josh Greenland - 1/26/2003
A couple days ago the media announced the release of an anti-concealed carry study which purportedly refutes the work of economist John Lott in this area:
Concealed guns criticized
Study challenges lower-crime theory
State laws that allow private citizens to carry concealed weapons do not reduce crime and may increase it, according to a study released Wednesday by the Brookings Institution. The findings, by Stanford University law professor John Donohue, contradict a highly influential study by economist John Lott, currently a research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, who in 1997 concluded that by adopting such laws, states can substantially curb violent crime. Since the late 1970s, 33 states have enacted "shall-issue" or "right-to-carry" laws, which require law-enforcement authorities to issue handgun permits to qualified applicants. Among the states are Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania, Utah and Nevada. Donohue's study, which builds on work with Ian Ayres, a law professor at Yale University, will appear in "Evaluating Gun Policy," a book to be released by Brookings this month. The book also includes a separate study by Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig, professors at Duke and Georgetown universities, who conclude that gun ownership may actually increase the risk of being burglarized in the United States. Donohue's study will also be published in the May issue of the Stanford Law Review -- side by side with an updated study by Lott, who defends his position
and rejects Donohue's findings. Though they differ in methodology, both studies attempt to control for outside factors that may influence crime rates. Donohue said right-to-carry laws may deter violent crimes, such as murder or robbery, in some situations, while encouraging them in others. For example, he said, an attacker may wrest control of a handgun away from his victim, who may be less experienced in handling firearms, and use it against the victim. Also, otherwise law-abiding citizens may become "emboldened to do bad things, some of them violent" in the heat of the moment, Donohue said. By contrast, Lott -- whose position is summed up in the title of his 1998 book, "More Guns, Less Crime" -- says that in states with right-to-carry laws, criminals are more wary of armed citizens who are prepared to defend themselves.
http://www.heraldnet.com/Stories/03/1/23/16406439.cfm
http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Jan/01232003/nation_w/22607.asp
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20030123-5349416.htm
John Lott replies:
Confirming More Guns, Less Crime
JOHN R. LOTT, JR.
American Enterprise Institute (AEI) - General
FLORENZ PLASSMANN
State University of New York - Department of Economics
JOHN E. WHITLEY
University of Adelaide - School of Economics
Abstract:
Analyzing county level data for the entire United States from 1977 to 2000, we find annual reductions in murder rates between 1.5 and 2.3 percent for each additional year that a right-to-carry law is in effect. For the first five years that such a law is in effect, the total benefit from reduced crimes usually ranges between about $2 billion and $3 billion per year. Ayres and Donohue have simply misread their own results. Their own most generalized specification that breaks down the impact of the law on a year-by-year basis shows large crime reducing benefits. Virtually none of their claims that their county level hybrid model implies initial significant increases in crime are correct. Overall, the vast majority of their estimates based on data up to 1997 actually demonstrate that right-to-carry laws produce substantial crime reducing benefits. We show that their
models also do an extremely poor job of predicting the changes in
crime rates after 1997.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=372361
I find it interesting that a weblog tempest in a teapot about John Lott's ethics was stirred up just prior to the media release of Donohoe's anti-CCW study. Check the Instapundit URL in my previous post to see where that tempest has gone. Looks like anti-gun rights activists will have to look elsewhere for tit-for-tat revenge for Bellesiles.
Jake Turner - 1/24/2003
Your Jan 20 reply:
"Bellesiles' critics, like Mr. Morgan here, seem to believe that "Bellesiles' defenders", as he refers to them (I prefer defenders of academic freedom or freedom fighters), have nothing better to do than to run about the country trying to gather evidence to bolster Bellesiles' thesis. Unlike so many gun rights advocates who appear to be fixated on Bellesiles, most historians as well as the public have long since grown disinterested in this right wing mud-slinging orgy and have moved on. One only has to read the posts here to figure out the vast majority of those still beating the brains out of this dead horse appear to be gun huggers of one sort or another. Mr. Morgan, for example, has posted nearly 100 times. I do not intend to be as prolific. I’m a working man, with a family life and other responsibilities. So, Mr. Morgan, thanks for sharing here, but indeed I do need to fry some other fish."
An efficiency expert by nature, let me tidy this up for you, Benny.
"Despite asking others to engage much effort to show Bellesiles' shortcomings, and ignoring high level academic review findings discussing the same, I am far too busy as a database administrator to do the same. However, you may trust I am an expert on this matter, gun huggers are evil, and I am superior to the 80 million Americans who own a gun."
Much better....
As far as your assertion, Benny, that only 'gun huggers' are flogging the 'dead horse', you are incorrect. Quite the opposite; you are the one proclaiming the horse alive, fit, healthy, defect free, and ready to win the Triple Crown.
However, using your loyalty to Bellesiles as an example, you would simply cancel the race and proclaim your horse the winner.
In either example or real life, Benny, simply because you said so. The level of your arrogance is matched only by your bigotry in portraying those whose opinions differ from yours as beneath any efforts of courtesy or reciprocity.
Best wishes, Benny, that you may reap that which you sow.
Josh Greenland - 1/23/2003
A person has come forward who says he was interviewed for the survey that researcher John Lott says he did in 1997. James Lindgren interviewed the man and found him credible. Even Tim Lambert accepts it is likely the survey happened, though he still calls the author of More Guns, Less Crime a "liar" (in a 1/23/03 post on his Lott affair weblog) for other reasons.
http://www.instapundit.com/archives/006881.php#006881
Rick Schwartz - 1/23/2003
Bjorn Lomberg in his own words...
"COPENHAGEN--I'm the author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist," a work that grapples hard with our pessimistic view of the environment. It's a serious book on a serious subject. But it has now been denounced by the Danish Committee for Scientific Dishonesty--yes, such a body exists!--in a manner reminiscent of medieval book-burnings. And many environmentalists have cheered from the side, world-wide."
Complete article at:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/forms/login.html?url=%2Feditorial%2Ffeature.html%3Fid%3D110002949&msg;=&uname;=
Benny Smith - 1/23/2003
I appreciate that you feel compelled to post your resume here, Mr. Haskins, but I never doubted your standing as an assistant prosecutor. Indeed, only a lawyer would appeal so exhaustively when it is abundantly obvious he will not prevail. Check the second paragraph of my response to Mr. Morgan on Jan. 20th ("For Mr. Morgan") which I believe responds to your simple question as well.
Josh Greenland - 1/21/2003
Benny,
Pro-gun rights activists, as well as many historians, respect Clayton Cramer's work because it checks out as truthful for those who examine it.
Melissa Seckora is a reporter who has had conversations with Bellesiles which have caused him to say things that matter, so she is a legitimate part of the story. As a journalist, her career lives and dies by her truthfulness and accuracy, not by her politics.
California has a large and very active network of historical societies and people interested in its history. What happened in San Francisco is particularly important to that history, so many people here are knowledgeable of and concerned about it. You might contact the California Historical Society about this, which is not located in the southern part of the state, where the bulk of our population is, but in San Francisco.
Bellesiles had claimed to have gotten data from hundreds of probates from San Francisco and Los Angeles. None are believed to exist from SF and only about 70 for Los Angeles by those who actually know something about California history.
Have you noticed that Bellesiles doesn't mention any probate records west of Indiana in his new website? Looks like he's dropped any mention of California probates:
http://www.bellesiles.com/
I wonder what examination of the Los Angeles probates would have shown?
Richard Henry Morgan - 1/21/2003
Cutting through the faux naivete, the Contra Costa records have proven nothing of the sort. Do the reaearch and you'll discover that. And the word you were searching for was "uninterested", not "disinterested".
http://www.skepticism.net/articles/2002/000015.html
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2002/03/02/MN13172.DTL
http://www.cocohistory.com/bellesiles.html
Here's the money quote from the last source:
"Q. Are there fragments from San Francisco County probates at the Contra Costa County History Center?
A. Very likely, they were occasionally included when a question involving someone's San Francisco estate became an issue in a Contra Costa County lawsuit. There are none in the 26 pages that we examined that purportedly came from Bellesiles."
Gee, none from what Bellesiles claimed, and only fragments from when a San Francisco estate was involved in a Contra Costa lawsuit.
To quote from the Emory Report (http://www.emory.edu/central/NEWS/Releases/Final_Report.pdf):
"it would not prevent his including materials that weren't true inventorie, however, as he appears to have done in collecting his material from Contra Costa County, California. (See below.)"
As the report makes clear the records merely have 'San Francisco' somewhere on them but are clearly Contra Costa court records -- they are not inventories, or random samples of inventories. In fact, they could not have been read by Bellesiles in 1993, as claimed, since they were only moved to the Contra Costa center in 1998.
You're right about one thing, Mr. Smith. This conversation serves no purpose, so it is over.
Benny Smith - 1/21/2003
So "the great bulk of researchers say they (the San Francisco records) don't exist." That’s a rather enigmatic statement. I wasn’t aware there was a great bulk of researchers involved with San Francisco records. I would guess the great bulk of research being done in this country doesn’t even involve San Francisco, let alone San Francisco county archives of one sort or another. And if the Contra Costa proves anything, it shows that at least some San Francisco archival material can be found elsewhere.
Bellesiles' critics, like Mr. Morgan here, seem to believe that "Bellesiles' defenders", as he refers to them (I prefer defenders of academic freedom or freedom fighters), have nothing better to do than to run about the country trying to gather evidence to bolster Bellesiles' thesis. Unlike so many gun rights advocates who appear to be fixated on Bellesiles, most historians as well as the public have long since grown disinterested in this right wing mud-slinging orgy and have moved on. One only has to read the posts here to figure out the vast majority of those still beating the brains out of this dead horse appear to be gun huggers of one sort or another. Mr. Morgan, for example, has posted nearly 100 times. I do not intend to be as prolific. I’m a working man, with a family life and other responsibilities. So, Mr. Morgan, thanks for sharing here, but indeed I do need to fry some other fish.
Mrs. Frank Butler - 1/20/2003
What bans, lots of people get shot there.
Seriously, I think a lot of people from back then would have difficulty adjusting to today, for MANY reasons. Probably couldn't take it and would go back to when carrying guns was so common nobody gave it any thought, leaving an illusionary void in history that hacks would try to exploit. If you look in Rusling's Across America, at the start of his chapter on going to Arizona he describes the gear he is taking like blankets, snacks, etc., and says that is ALL he carried. Several pages and miles later it turns out he has a Spencer rifle. But don't tell Benny cause........
Bryan Haskins - 1/20/2003
I remain sorry that I ever mentioned my employment to you, Mr. Smith. All I wanted to do was point out that my poor experience has convinced me that private firearm ownership is a tremendous deterrent to violent gun crime. I intended this to be my confession of the bias that I bring to our discussion of Arming America, and I sought to leave it alone at that. I have never sought to aggrandize myself here. Bellesiles should be the issue, Mr. Smith, not me. I believe that he would be but for your persistent curiosity regarding my employment. Additionally, I sense an ulterior motive in your curiosity, for it appears to be inextricably linked to your inability to answer my questions. Rather than answer me, I find that in every “response” post you seek to belittle me by implying that I am some lackey “assistant” prosecutor who sits around all day bitterly posting messages because I never get to go to court on the “big” cases.
Very well then, Mr. Smith. I will satisfy your curiosity, and I now request your full attention. I intend this to be the last time I address my employment. I apologize to those of you who (rightfully) could care less what I do for a living. I ask that you skip the remainder of this paragraph, for it appears that only in Mr. Smith’s opinion does the following have any relevance: My office comprises the elected Commonwealth’s Attorney and four assistant prosecutors. I am the deputy, or senior assistant prosecutor, and have been since 1999. I did private defense work before I became a Commonwealth’s Attorney, and I defended many cases, including two murders (both of whom, by the way, were convicted). Since becoming a Commonwealth’s Attorney I have prosecuted over 1,000 felony offenses. These were all trials, Mr. Smith, for my office does not plea bargain. Additionally, in Virginia we demand jury trials on the absolute worst of the worst offenses. I have prosecuted over 30 of these jury trials, and I have only lost two of those (one drug case, and one wounding case). Five of my jury trials were for the crime of murder. My other jury trials concerned taking indecent liberties with children, rape, forcible sodomy, aggravated sexual battery, DUI manslaughter, armed burglary, robbery, malicious wounding, sales of cocaine (crack and powder), marijuana, ecstasy, oxycodone, heroin, and LSD. This past week alone I tried two jury trials; one for attempted rape, and the other for a man who used his underage son to sell marijuana for him. I am one of only two attorneys in my county bar association who has enough trial experience to qualify for court appointment as lead defense counsel in a capital murder case. The other qualified attorney is my boss. For this reason we have to turn to larger jurisdictions like Roanoke to find defense attorneys who have enough trial experience to represent the four defendants we currently have charged with capital murder. Now I realize that you will refuse to believe what I have just told you. Therefore, I invite you (and also challenge you to summon the necessary courage) to check behind me by contacting my Circuit Court Clerk’s Office at (434) 432-7890. That Court handles all felony trials, and the clerks are very familiar with me.
I fully recognize that your goal on this site is to attack those who criticize Bellesiles. I also realize that your only method of attempting to discredit me thus far has been to criticize my work ethics. Yet I worry about you, Mr. Smith. You have been blissfully ignorant of how far removed your smug stereotyping of me is from reality, and I likewise fear that your tendency to believe your own conspiracy fantasies prevents you from seeing the errors in Arming America. Now it may well be that you fear your questioning of my work habits is the only arrow in your quiver you feel safe using against me, and for this reason you will not check behind me out of fear that you will have to admit you are wrong. Whether you do this or not, I ask that we please put the matter of my employment to rest and turn our undivided attention back to Bellesiles and Arming America. No one else does or should care about my legal qualifications. We are supposed to be talking about history (or more specifically, an attempt to rewrite it), and in this field I have no more experience than you and considerably less than most of the others who post here.
Continuing this thought, I believe you have agreed that those who published “scholarly” criticism of Arming America a year ago in the William & Mary quarterly are “qualified historians,” to use your terms. I have asked you more than once to address their complaints. . . .
I see from your last attempt to evade this question (For Mr. Haskins, Jan 14, 03) that you have watched enough Court TV to have heard of the “asked and answered” objection. However, that objection only applies where the witness has actually answered the question, Mr. Smith, and I challenge you to go back through your posts and find where you have done so. I have already searched your past musings for just such an answer. I must confess that in my search for your answer I have frequently felt like a blind man, in a dark room, trying to catch a black cat that isn’t there. Both the cat and your answer have eluded me, Mr. Smith.
Therefore, this will be my last attempt to seek an honest answer from you on this issue, and I will rephrase the question this final time in a format that cannot be misunderstood. Q: “Do you wish to discuss the issues related to Arming America that were raised in the January 2002 William & Mary Quarterly?” A simple “yes” or “no” answer will suffice. If your answer is “yes,” then I propose that we take turns quoting some of the specific issues which were raised there and asking the other to comment upon them. If your answer is “no,” then I will stop asking the question. Yes, Mr. Smith, it really is that simple.
Finally, I agree that this is not a courtroom, Mr. Smith. You and I are perfectly aware that if you continue to evade me then I cannot call upon a judge to hold you in contempt for your refusal to answer a question. This forum does have one striking similarity to a courtroom, however. In each instance the trier of fact is allowed to judge the credibility of the witnesses, and a key component in this inquiry is whether the witness has sought to evade answering material questions. How do you suggest that we should view your persistent refusal to answer mine?
Don Williams - 1/20/2003
By the way, Calamity Jane supposedly was asked one time how many men she killed -- she allegedly replied "one man and thirty three boys who thought they were men" What do you think she would have thought of the handgun bans in Washington DC and New York?
Richard Henry Morgan - 1/20/2003
"Considering that he obviously viewed hundreds of probate records at various locations over the course of several years, and many of these records—the San Francisco records included—were not in the original county archives when he viewed them, then I would imagine he would have great difficulty remembering the details."
You can say that again. Indeed, the San Francisco records were not in the original archives, but there seems to be a discrepancy here -- you say "when he viewed them", and the great bulk of researchers say they don't exist. Despite a trip back out to the coast in search of these phantom records, and an interesting sojourn amid the archivists of Contra Costa, these have yet to turn up, even with the no doubt passionate efforts of Bellesiles' defenders in the hunt.
Benny Smith - 1/20/2003
Thank you T. Thompson,
I found the table, but contrary to what you implied, San Francisco is only one of many, many counties mentioned in very small type at the bottom. It appears that there are about 40 counties mentioned and I don’t see any footnote or cite that says where any of these archives were viewed. As I understand, Professor Bellesile’s records were lost in a flood although he did try to recall from memory where he notated these records originally. Considering that he obviously viewed hundreds of probate records at various locations over the course of several years, and many of these records—the San Francisco records included—were not in the original county archives when he viewed them, then I would imagine he would have great difficulty remembering the details. Wouldn’t you? Or are you someone who recalls with 100 per cent accuracy what you did up to ten years ago or longer? So as far as "phony records", critics were unable to prove anything, at least to the satisfaction of the ad hoc Emory investigating committee. But it’s another unproved charge that the gun lobby keeps repeating.
And please don’t annoy us with right wing zealot Melissa Seckora’s mud-slinging in the National Review. I realize her Bellesiles bashing has made her a hero among gun huggers, her fellow right wing cronies and those obsessed with Bellesile’s destruction, but she’s not a historian nor an objective observer. What "Cramer said . . . " or "Seckora said" or even what "Bellesiles said" might make titillating gossip at those NRA coffee klatches, but for the rest of us, it proves nothing. If that’s the best Bellesile’s critics can do, I think we should end the witch hunt and begin incorporating Arming America material into school history textbooks forthwith.
T. Thompson - 1/20/2003
On page 445, Table 1, Bellesiles reports on the number of guns in probate records in San Francisco. The last two columns of data in Table 1 are thus phony, because there were no San Francisco records. Further, Bellesiles told Seckora that he read hundreds of records in San Francisco at the downtown Courthouse there. He also put false locations for probate records on his website.
Josh Greenland - 1/20/2003
Benny Smith wrote:
"As far as the reference to San Francisco, I’ll have to confess that in my reading and re-reading of Arming America, I can’t find the San Francisco cite in the footnotes nor in the text itself. I’ve even referenced the index without success. Obviously, since the gun lobby frequently makes reference to the San Francisco archives in their personal attacks on Bellesiles, I’m expecting that this reference must of necessity contain a cornerstone in his thesis. Perhaps some lost paper where George Washington details the poor performance of the militia or the relatively few firearms in private possession. If so, I would appreciate the page where I can find this information."
The claims to have studied probate data from San Francisco seem to have been made by Bellesiles after the book was published. Melissa Seckora's article Disarming America discusses them. She did primary research into this:
http://www.nationalreview.com/15oct01/seckora101501.shtml
Seckora described Bellesiles' San Francisco assertions as claims rather than as footnotes or sources referenced in the book. I gather from the article that Bellesiles had made the original claims to have studied probate records from San Francisco and Los Angeles before she started this article.
I don't have time to look further into this right now, but it shouldn't be too hard to find where Bellesiles originally made these claims.
Richard Henry Morgan - 1/19/2003
I don't defend Cramer because I haven't found the need to do so, based on your post -- Smith doesn't quote anything Cramer said about Bellesiles that turned out wrong.
Secondly, I can't be rightly accused of distortion since the discrepancy I refer to is precisely the one Smith refers to -- unless, of course, the table occurs outside of the book, which it doesn't. The context makes clear that I didn't say the entire book was a falsification, or that the Emory Committee had done so.
Fraud demands the element of intent, but the DCSD flatly states that the "DCSD has not found-or felt able to procure-sufficient grounds to deem that the defendant has misled his readers deliberately or with gross negligence." Thus, Lomborg having produced no science, but being judged on the basis of having done so, now stands convicted of unintentional dishonesty -- an oxymoron and a process worthy of Orwell.
The laundry list of offences listed by the DCSD and Smith are indeed eye-opening, but not nearly as eye-opening as the lack of quoted material from Lomborg to sustain the charges -- they are just thrown up against the wall, like dirt, in the hope that some will stick.
One point is fairly funny. The DCSD decries Lomborg for listing some scenarios as merely plausible, and not providing a mathematical probability -- but then the DCSD doesn't provide a refuting probability, thereby suggesting (as is implicit) that the scenarios don't lend themselves to a precise calculation of mathematical probability. Elsewhere, Lomborg is accused (again without quotation) of lending false mathematical precision -- the classic Catch-22 arises: had he gone beyong merely calling something plausible, he'd be accused of false precision, and having not put a number to it, he stands accused of imprecision.
The funniest, perhaps, instance is the case of Norman Myer. DCSD states:
"In contrast to BL's claim, the loss of species from habitat remnants is a widely documented phenomenon. A number of factual errors are highlighted. BL takes particular exception to Norman Myer's 1979 estimate that 40,000 species are being lost every year, failing to aknowledge that Myer deserves credit for being the first to point out that the number was large and at a time when it was difficult to do so accurately."
There you have it. Myer makes an estimate without any basis for accuracy, and instead of being condemned for it, he deserves credit for it, and Lomborg stands condemned for not giving such credit. In fact, the case is worse than this, as Myer has admitted that his estimate had absolutely no empirical basis whatsoever (exactly the point Lomborg made), and that he made it as a "first cut at the problem". Myer is to be congratulated for committing something that Lomborg would be crucified for. Heads I win, tails you lose.
Lastly, I'll look up the San Francisco material and post it.
Benny Smith - 1/19/2003
Interesting but understandable that Mr. Morgan here would prefer to defend Lomborg rather than Cramer. Mr. Morgan appears to have a disagreement as to whether Lomborg’s sins in the aggregate constitute "fraud." Although the Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD) did not specifically use the word "fraud" in their final report, as Mr. Morgan has correctly indicated, it is interesting to note what the committee describes as "dishonest." (The Skeptical Environmentalist was deemed to be "scientifically dishonest" by the DCSD).
"Fabrication and construction of data.
Selective and surreptitious discarding of undesirable results.
Substitution with fictitious data.
Deliberately misleading use of statistical methods.
Deliberately distorted interpretation of results and distortion of conclusions.
Plagiarization of others' results or publications.
Consciously distorted reproduction of others' results.
Inappropriate credit as the author or authors.
Applications containing incorrect information."
It is rather easy to see why reputable journalists therefore use the term "fraud" to collectively describe the charges against Lomborg. My thanks to Mr. Morgan for providing the link to the report. If only my debate opponents in high school had been as forthcoming. I suggest that those truly interested in the Lomborg case read the whole report. It’s a real eye-opener.
I do want to correct one distortion Mr. Morgan used in referring to the charges against Bellesiles. Although Mr. Morgan says the ad hoc Emory committee "found that Bellesiles’ work entered the realm of falsification", the investigating committee in its "hatchet-job"--since Mr. Morgan didn’t use this term in his last go-round, I’ll borrow it here—was referring only to one table in the book, not to the book itself. Unfortunately, this particular distortion has been repeated ad infinitum by the gun lobby and its right wing allies who are more interested in intellectual character assassination than the unvarnished truth.
As far as the reference to San Francisco, I’ll have to confess that in my reading and re-reading of Arming America, I can’t find the San Francisco cite in the footnotes nor in the text itself. I’ve even referenced the index without success. Obviously, since the gun lobby frequently makes reference to the San Francisco archives in their personal attacks on Bellesiles, I’m expecting that this reference must of necessity contain a cornerstone in his thesis. Perhaps some lost paper where George Washington details the poor performance of the militia or the relatively few firearms in private possession. If so, I would appreciate the page where I can find this information.
Jerry Brennan - 1/19/2003
Been there; done that; did not get the T shirt.
However, I wouldn't want any exogenous confusion to hamper Benny's production of his next howler.
Mrs. Frank Butler - 1/19/2003
Nay. Never shot many of those critters. A cross-eyed guy that couldn't shot straight bought a couple once, had a friend with him called BS. Herd they had to leave town in a hurry. How about you?
Richard Henry Morgan - 1/18/2003
Here's a quote from Carl Bogus' contribution to the book he edited, The Second Amendment in Law and History: Historians and Constitutional Scholars on the Right to Bear Arms (p.1):
The United States Supreme Court addressed the amendment three times -- in 1876, 1886, and 1939 -- and on each occasion held that it granted the people the right to bear arms only within the militia. Although in some circles today there is much discussion about what the word 'militia' means, the Supreme Court had no trouble with the term. It held that the amendment referred to the militia defined in Article I, section 8, of the Constitution, that is, the militia organized by Congress and subject to joint federal and state control. This is generally referred to the as the "collective rights" model because it holds that the Second Amendment grants the people a collective right to an armed militia as opposed to an individual right to keep and bear arms for one's own purposes outside of, even notwithstanding, governmental regulation."
Note the easy slide between what the Supreme Court has held, and Bogus' interpretation. The fourth sentence gives the impression that the Supreme Court has endorsed the collective rights model. Then on pages 7 and 8, Bogus makes explicit what was only implicit before: since Congress has "the power to organize the militia", "the militia is what Congress decides it is". Now this is interesting inasmuch as the exegesis of "organizing" that came out of the Convention debates is that of Rufus King, who "said that by organizing the Committee meant, proportioning the officers & men" (Farrand, 2:385). Add to that what was said in the Miller opinion:
"The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected tom appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.
So Bogus was right: "the Supreme Court had no trouble with the term." Unfortunately, Bogus has leapt over the exegesis of the Convention, over the Supreme Court's own language in Miller, and given us his own spin on "organizing" and thus "militia" -- to Bogus, "the militia is what Congress decides it is", and the Supreme Court can just go fly a kite (though, of course, the discrepancy between Bogus' and the Supreme Court's view of the "militia", is never mentioned by Bogus).
Steve H - 1/18/2003
On January 18, 2003, 3:36 PM Richard Henry Morgan wrote:
"Did you notice how Joyce dropped the word 'progressive' from before 'public policy' in their new website? Kinda hard to get donations when you're too honest about your political bent."
It will be interesting to see Joyce's 2001 Form 990-PF and how hit compares with 2000. They may have gotten hit by the stock market crash like everyone else-- in which case they need to raise more cash from donations in contrast to pure dividends. I do however get the general impression that many multinationals and their top execs are pro-gun control anyway...
I see they are giving away only $2.8M in 2003 compared with approx. $3.1M in 2001.
Richard Henry Morgan - 1/18/2003
Did you notice how Joyce dropped the word 'progressive' from before 'public policy' in their new website? Kinda hard to get donations when you're too honest about your political bent.
Richard Henry Morgan - 1/18/2003
"In academics, money usually follows the ideas rather than the other way around."
True, but in this case, the majority of those presenting papers at the symposium had no record of publication on the subject. The question of the funding mostly goes not to the intentions of C-K, but, given the intentions of the organizer (Bogus), as revealed by his prior employment/ideological commitment, and by the poor quality of his own contribution, as well as the uneven quality and poor prior record of publication in the area by other contributors, the source of funding explains why it was funded in the face of such a lack of prior demonstration of competence in the area. The question again asserts itself -- how did Bogus decide on these contributors, given their lack of publication in the area?
Once you check the pattern of the other grants, you see why Joyce funded the symposium -- nowhere are the costs and benefits of guns assessed by the foundations grantees, just the costs.
That the truth is irrelevant to the Joyce Foundation, is revealed in this extraordinary blurb from their website, promoting the book version of the symposium:
"On the three occasions the United States Supreme Court has convened to discuss the Second Amendment to the Constitution -- in 1876, 1886 and 1939 -- it has ruled that the Amendment grants citizens a right to bear arms only within the militia, or that the right is a "collective" one rather than an "individual" one. The first scholarly article guaranteeing the individual's right to keep and bear arms did not appear until 1960."
Simply, an unbelievable summary of the Cruikshank, Presser, and Miller cases.
Steve H - 1/18/2003
From:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/press/releases/press102599.html
Harvard School of Public Health
Press Releases
Programs to Track Firearm Injuries Awarded Harvard Grants
Hospitals and police pool statistics for prevention strategies
For immediate release: Tuesday, October 25, 1999
BOSTON, MA -- Maps of Atlanta's gun violence "hotspots" paper the walls of a room where the city's police department task force on reducing gun crime meets. The maps are produced by emergency room doctors and public health researchers from Emory University as part of the "Cops and Docs" project, one of a new brand of public health reporting systems that gathers data on gun-related injuries to better understand how to prevent future injuries.
This project and six others like it have been awarded grants by the National Firearm Injury Statistics System (NFISS) at the Harvard School of Public Health, it was announced today. Awards totaling $553,000 were made by the recently established program, which is part of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center.
"If you want to do something about the 30,000 to 35,000 firearm deaths we see in this country every year, you've got to start with good information," said David Hemenway, head of NFISS and a professor at the Harvard School of Public Health. "Compared with motor vehicle crashes--for which we have an extremely detailed, useful data system at the federal level--the information available on gun injuries is abysmal."
NFISS was established earlier this year with grants from private foundations including the Open Society Institute, Irene Diamond Fund, Joyce Foundation, John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, David and Lucile Packard Foundation, and Annie E. Casey Foundation. The foundations stepped in at a time when the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)--the federal agency responsible for compiling statistics on disease and injury in the US--was bowing out of the business of tracking gun injuries. In the mid-1990s, CDC initiated a program to support states in developing new data systems for gun injuries. However, following a campaign led by gun owner lobby groups, support for the program was withdrawn in 1997.
James Lindgren - 1/18/2003
In academics, money usually follows the ideas rather than the other way around. As to individual studies, people should deal with the quality of the work, not the funding source.
John Lott's work, for example, was unfairly criticized because it came ultimately from a grant from the Olin Foundation to the University of Chicago. Anyone who has dealt with Olin grants in law schools (most major law schools get Olin grants) know that the foundation is usually not even aware of faculty or fellow's projects when they fund a school's programs. That's like criticizing a grant from the Ford Foundation if it studies car safety or the Rockefeller Foundation if it studies oil. Since the University of Chicago was founded by the Rockefellers, I guess that would taint any work done there on monopolies, anti-trust, or oil and gas.
Regarding the C-K symposium, it is likely that some was spent on the expenses of holding the physical conference; symposia in academics usually cost 10-20,000 dollars (800 to 1,500 per person on average for travel and hotel), plus meals, brochures and xeroxing. I heard, but cannot verify, that there was also a lot spent on the Guns conference for sending out lots of extra copies of the published symposium or paying for publication expenses of some sort. My guess (if I knew the answer I wouldn't reveal it for confidentiality reasons) is that slightly more than half of the grant was for honoraria, but it could well have been less than half. I'm just guessing.
A typical Chicago-Kent conference in my day had money either for a bare-bones physical conference in Chicago OR for very small honoaria, but not for both.
Richard Henry Morgan - 1/18/2003
Yep. Egg on face.
Jerry Brennan - 1/18/2003
The reference to Bellesiles in:
" ...where those making the charges against Bellesiles have revealed their own incompetence (Schneider and Holdren) and their own facile professional ethics (Schneider)."
would seem to be an extended "typo" that should have been a reference to Lomborg.
Richard Henry Morgan - 1/18/2003
"Mr. Morgan here accomplishes something that I have been accused of doing, attacking the messenger instead of them [sic] message. He dismisses the charges of fraud detailed against Bjorn Lomborg’s book The Skeptical Environmentalist, and lashes out against the Danish statistician’s critics instead."
Interesting. There are no "charges of fraud detailed against Bjorn Lomborg's book" (to quote Smith's words) in the report. The word 'fraud' nowhere appears in the DCSD's report as findings, or as charges (not a hard thing to demonstrate, Mr. Smith: if you look in the upper left hand of your browser, you'll see an 'Edit' button, which when clicked offers a drop-down menu; just click on find, enter 'fraud' into box, and you'll see nothing comes back). There's a link to the report at the end. Try it youself. Instead, Mr. Smith cites news sources.
To repeat, Lomborg did no original research, and does not claim to have done original research. The DCSD aknowledges this, and then invokes its power to review original research and apply it to Lomborg's by saying that "the book has been presented and, in wide circles including the scientific community, perceived as research/science and must therefore be assessed in accordance with scientific standards." In other words, it ain't science, but some people might think it is, and since we have no power to to review non-science, we will treat it as science despite the facts (it has, according to the report, "scientific shape by virtue of the copious use of notes and references" -- a standard that doesn't necessarily distinguish it from, say, a study of metaphor in Homer's Iliad).
The charge against him made explicitly by the committee did not include fraud, but it did refer to a charge made by those who proferred charges against Lomborg, of "fabricating data" (without, of course, saying just what the fabrication consisted of -- in short, it is not "detailed"). Again, curiously, nowhere does the DCSD actually say where this supposed fabrication occurs in the data. We should rest assured, though. The DCSD tells us that the "interested public will thus be granted an opportunity to have full access to the facts of the case" -- at some future point, no doubt, they just can't be bothered with such niceties right now.
So there you have it. To the DCSD the use of notes and references makes it look like science, therefore it is science (quite an argument, I'd say). Lomborg is claimed to be selective in his use of data, a charge designed and aimed at addressing data points in original research. Ergo, by this standard, any review of the literature that doesn't include all data within the literature is similarly guilty -- if the committee actually applies this standard to all works with notes and references (looks like science) then I submit they'll be very busy indeed.
The DCSD is quite upfront about their process. They are unembarrassed about not taking any new evidence, and unconcerned that they take the complaints and SI material at face value. This blase attitude is revealed in the selection of the "Working Party". It consisted of (get this) five members to include an orthopedist, an agronomist, a philosopher, a lawyer, and a political scientist.
Let's compare this with the Bellesiles case. The committee there consisted of three eminent historians in the field, which found that Bellesiles' work entered the realm of falsification. They arrived at that conclusion because he claimed to have included all the guns of a data set in his book, and before the committee he admitted that he had dropped some of the data set as unrepresentative. Of course, there's the problem of the non-existence of the San Francisco archives that Bellesiles cited, but non-existence doesn't seem to pose a problem for Mr. Smith.
Unlike Mr. Smith' railing against "the gun lobby", or the far right, I don't rail, with broad brush in hand, against the "environmentalist lobby", but cite occasions where those making the charges against Bellesiles have revealed their own incompetence (Schneider and Holdren) and their own facile professional ethics (Schneider).
You can access the DCSD report at this site:
http://www.forsk.dk/uvvu/nyt/udtaldebat/bl_decision.htm
Steve H - 1/18/2003
I've heard that there will be an article on the Bellesiles story to appear in the March 2003 Reason Magazine by Joyce Malcolm. Watch for it...!
Don Williams - 1/18/2003
Shot any possum lately?
Benny Smith - 1/18/2003
Mr. Morgan here accomplishes something that I have been accused of doing, attacking the messenger instead of them message. He dismisses the charges of fraud detailed against Bjorn Lomborg’s book The Skeptical Environmentalist, and lashes out against the Danish statistician’s critics instead. Mr. Morgan’s use of phrases like "hatchet job" (three times) and "hit job" (twice) is reminiscent of an earlier post where one of Mr. Morgan’s allies quoted one of Hitler’s inner circle: "Propaganda must therefore always be simple and repetitious." However, although some of Lomborg’s supporters, Mr. Morgan included, might mistakenly believe that the Danish statistician’s case did not involve fraud, there are many who say that is EXACTLY what was involved. News sources from Reuters to ABC to a newspaper in Biloxi, Mississippi, all referred to Lomborg’s charges as fraud. Even a Danish news source indicated the "Committees for Scientific Fraud" was involved with the Lomborg controversy.
There appears to be a trend developing among Bellesile’s critics, particularly after the ad hoc Emory committee could not find the damning evidence of fraud in the probate material of Arming America, to now say that the real damning evidence can be found elsewhere in the book. It seems to be some sort of shell game being played by gun huggers, right wing zealots and a few souls obsessed with Bellesile’s intellectual character assassination. And it almost always involves their mentioning evidence, not discovered by professional historians, but detected by Clayton Cramer, a prolific internet provocateur cum "amateur scholar" who shamelessly promotes himself throughout cyberspace. But is he the objective, trusted, respected authority that the gun lobby would have us believe?
Clayton Cramer’s reputation on the internet goes a long way back. Searching usenet posts through Google, one can easily determine his views on a variety of subjects, particularly on his fear of government and "bad men." In one post he writes of the people who run our country as "merciless, pitiless, evil people." Maybe he has proof of that on his web-site as well. He espouses other views that would be disturbing to everyday people as well. Cramer is closely allied with the NRA; they paid his expenses to make a trip to Michigan to lobby for less gun control there. So is he objective? Not hardly. Respected? I don’t think so. Trusted? Well, the gun lobby does trust in itself.
I have visited Cramer’s website and viewed the evidence he maintains is the smoking gun that proves Bellesile’s book is a pack of lies. On the contrary, I found his interpretation of the evidence to be smugly wishful and misleading at best. It often is a matter of whom you trust, in this case the academician or a voice for the NRA. And although the gun lobby may pay homage to Cramer here, they didn’t pay much to him when he was unemployed and publicly asking for donations to continue his attack scholarship. Cramer himself says he received about $200, which he characterized as nothing. If the gun lobby didn’t think his research worth that much, why should we?
Steve H - 1/18/2003
Open questions...
The Joyce Foundation's statement does not match Prof. Bogus' statement of purpose for the research, leaving out the part about taking "a fresh look" at the "collective right" theory.
Should not these statements be, if not identical, at least equivalent in meaning? If not, why not?
Prof. Bogus seems to place more emphasis on a "fresh look" than a "balanced ... viewpoint". Is that an appropriate stance for a historian to take?
How and why does the purpose of the grant become modified in this manner? Is it to avoid IRS scrutiny?
Is there a loophole in the IRS definition of 501(c)(3) organizations which permits organizations to sponsor "historical" research targeted at influencing public policy indirectly, and legal interpretation of the law in particular?
$84,000 / 10 papers = $8,400/ paper. Who if anyone got some of the $84,000?
Does or should money received towards research need to be disclosed in the paper or papers that result from that research? E.g., "Research for this paper was performed using money from a grant by the Joyce Foundation" or something to that effect.
Overall, I am getting the sense of an "appearance of impropriety" in all this...
Clayton E. Cramer - 1/18/2003
There are a lot of fairly troubling questions about that one sentence. So far, no one can prove Lott didn't do the 1997 survey. Lott, so far, can't prove that he did it. I consider the questions that have been raised about this quite legitimate; it is very troubling.
The analogy to Bellesiles would be if Bellesiles had one sentence in _Arming America_ that made an assertion about probate inventories, and no one could find those records, or disprove their existence. You would be skeptical, but you would be jumping the gun to call Bellesiles a liar.
Of course, this is the other difference: every significant claim that Bellesiles made in _Arming America_ has turned out to be false--disproven, in most cases, by his own evidence.
This single sentence in Dr. Lott's book concerning the 1997 survey, if proven to be a fabrication, would cast Dr. Lott's scholarly integrity into question. It would not disprove the rest of the work he did in that book. It might cause scholars to reconsider the validity of the rest of Dr. Lott's work--but they have been working it over with a rubber hose and calculators for several years now, with a wide range of results, some that reflect poorly on Dr. Lott, and some of which reflect well on his work.
Phoebe Ann Moses - 1/18/2003
Hi Guys. I know who I am. Do you?
John G. Fought - 1/18/2003
First, I just happily checked through the American Rifleman issues from September 1962 to June 1963, looking at ads from Klein's featuring the Mannlicher-Carcano 6.5mm carbine. One version, which listed the rifle as 36" long and 5 1/2 lb. in weight, ran in Dec. 62, Jan. 63, and Feb. 63; the price and other details are as in the version posted here recently. In March and in May 1963 there was no Klein's ad; in April and June it reappeared, with the dimensions listed correctly as 40" and 7 pounds, but otherwise unchanged from the earlier version. Some other ads featured the same rifle in the later 7.35mm caliber as well. In those years, the magazine was a feast of ads from many firms featuring choice military surplus weapons at prices that now seem like a dream (a Luger pistol for $39.95? A Broomhandle Mauser for $34.95? Don't wake me up).
Second, the Mannlicher-Carcano 6.5mm bolt action was noted by some experienced Americans who tried it as unusually easy to fire rapidly, because it was often slightly loose from wear, and was in any case smooth in operation; it also had relatively low recoil, less disturbing to preparations for the next shot.
Third, its full-jacketed 162 grain round-nose military bullet had excellent penetration capability. This bullet (and its cartridge) is almost the exactly same as that formerly used in the 6.5mm Mannlicher-Schoenauer for taking the largest game, even elephants. Penetrating a couple of human bodies at short range would not be surprising. (Incidentally, I believe the small bolt-action rifle Saddam Hussein is frequently shown brandishing in one hand while firing it may be the carbine
version of the 6.5 M-S, a closely related but deluxe rifle.
Or it could be something else, such as a CZ.
Finally, I am very disturbed by the ease with which users of this site can be manipulated by impostors of various kinds, operating under pseudonyms or aliases. I am therefore not going to hang out here any more. A few of you have my email address; I hope to continue hearing from you that way.
So, goodbye, whoever y'all are....
Josh Greenland - 1/17/2003
"Maybe Lott did do the survey, but then he should be able to provide proof and show his data. We all know Bellesiles could not, nor even fix his book for the publisher.
"Bottom line is that John Lott has a long way to go before he reaches the Bellesiles level."
Yes. One major difference between the Bellesiles and Lott affairs is that a number of academics immediate set upon Lott when his assertions and book got significant media exposure. From what I remember, a number of them examined his work and wrote various documents criticizing it. (These were presented by some of the news media as debunking Lott's work, but I don't think any of the critics did more than call into question parts of his research.) Lott was not ignored by almost all potential academic critics like Bellesiles was, so his work has already been looked over. If his anti-gun academic critics had found anything that devastated his work, we would have seen it by now.
This survey thing may turn out to be bad, and may be made to look VERY bad, but I think if Lott was a data fraud or numbers-mangler on the scale that Bellesiles is, he would have been found out by now.
Steve H - 1/17/2003
Here is some info from Guidestar on the NRA Foundation
2000 IRS Form 990-PF:
http://documents.guidestar.org/2000/521/710/2000-521710886-1-9.pdf
Overview:
http://www.guidestar.org/search/report/gs_report.jsp?npoId=138827&context;=eNpVkr%2BLE0EUx18SoknujHeJCIqKHtjudqIIKqin0ZwEgoUgHC%2B7L7sTNzvjzNu7vSsOrtHCVsHSQqwOa8F%2FwEbwTxC1sLGxsdSZTWJyC%2Ftj3nzfe5%2F3nT34BVWjwQ%2Fk2BN54mkReFEmQjKM2htIL6I0VdK7Y%2FqEOohvypQp58fvW3uf%2FprvZWh24UiAmjshQ6s7wi30E0wjv89apNHVLtQCLZi0QIaTk%2F2MReL3tFSkWZCxmkYoU6lvj1EkT2EPSl2o0sKiPiQO4r7YJYb2Qo%2BOZYlI2wLLCRrekKEYCrIgKwuNbiGTVRxVGNFDPStZU2jMttThdN3QpKTmHnI8jTQ1mSxh0zuUVzdkjJBpZ5Z4zBnFdtROGlLughVbzWTjMeqded4yS8ZkA%2B0cZApVrpQ1%2FoQD9RyoN3fkSuvLrrp07XW5IA1piA7EZZVzDe15yl00MeMgofbH4xcv3PvxoQLldWgkEsN1DFjqDtQ5toPEMglzdf0GuKu2XbPPJXuXGGpPaMf5YKxra6nG80OZpSGynXHNIjrG1aKhc9ybOt769ubtn%2F3nly1gB6pbmGRkwVbmugfZeED62cGrs0svv74oA%2BTKtjtnizXn9O5k4tF%2B6f4jPlVxkoLr9%2Bef77ycYdU3xR%2FnC2esNzJKMTRnwclxMZyeBSavzemhFfLCMTcmMJw5nOhHZnPy5ZT%2FhaV%2FKSr%2B7w%3D%3D
The NRA Foundation, Inc.
11250 Waples Mill Rd
Fairfax, VA 22030
http://www.nrafoundation.org
Information in this report was supplied by the nonprofit organization within the last two years.
Who We Are
The NRA Foundation, Inc. is a national 501(c)(3) charitable organization dedicated to promoting and funding quality firearms safety, training and educational programs -- we are proud of our commitment to the future of the shooting sports.
Program / Activities
Fund Raising and/or Fund Distribution
Fund Raising and/or Fund Distribution
Fund Raising and/or Fund Distribution
Location(s) Served
National
Contact Info
Tel: (800) 423-6894
Fax: (703) 267-3986
selkin@nrahq.org
Contact: Mrs. Sandy Elkin, Secretary
Financial Info
Fiscal Year: 2001
Assets: $24,386,921
Income: $13,392,765
This organization files an IRS Form 990 or 990-EZ.
It makes its audited financial statements available to the public upon request.
more financial information
Steve H - 1/17/2003
In PDF format here (courtesy Guidestar):
http://documents.guidestar.org/2000/366/079/2000-366079185-1-F.pdf
More info from here
http://www.guidestar.org/search/report/gs_report.jsp?npoId=204342&context;=eNpVks9rE1EQxycJsUlaY5uIoKhowevuTRRBhWp1NZVA8CAI5WV3svviy77ne7PtpodCL3rwquDRg8fiWfAf8FLwTxD1KoIXj%2FreJjHpwv6a%2Fc7MZ76zhz%2BhajT4oRx5PBee5qEXZzxCQ0x7fenFmKZKevdMD5kOkw2ZEub09ENr%2F%2FNf870MzQ6cCJmmICJodYZsh%2FmCpbHfI83T%2BEYHaqHmhJozgjOT7xlx4Xe1VKiJo7GaRiRTqe%2BOGBfPYR9KHajiwkt9gBQmPb6HBO2FHoFliVHbAiuCGdqSER9wtCCrC43uMEKrWFIsxsd6VrKmmDG7UkfT94ZGJTV1GSXTSFOjyQSZ7rG8ukFjuEyDWeJJZxTZUYM0wtwFK7aayUYjpsfzvBWSxMQWs3OgKVS5Utb40w7Uc6De3JHrrS976urNt%2BWCNMIBcyAuq5xraM9T7jOTEOsLbH86deXygx8fK1DehIaQLNpkIUkdQJ0SO0giRZSrW7fBHbXdmr0u27NEUHuGY%2BeDsetbH8pxiJcGMksjRnbKdQvpKNeKls5zb%2Bp569u7938OXl6ziAFUd5jI0KKtznWPslEf9YvDNxeWX399VQbIlW140RZrzvndbpLhQenhEzpbcZKC7PfR0a%2BNnGDNN8U%2F53NnrTc0ShE0Z8HJwgjOzQKT2%2FZ0bYW88MwNCgTnjyf6sdmePDnlf%2BHSP3bJACI%3D
Joyce Foundation
70 W Madison St 2750
Chicago, IL 60602
Program / Activities
Information currently not available in database
Financial Info
Fiscal Year: 2001
Assets: $868,298,527
This organization files an IRS Form 990-PF.
Frank A. Baldridge - 1/17/2003
Hey! Benny has already proved there are more disreputable people out there than Bellesiles. Corresponding with him is like trying to get meaningful ecological advice from Rush.
Steve H - 1/17/2003
"To clarify my previous remark, I demonstrated last night via
an explicitly labeled test message that anyone could post messages here under the name "James Lindgren". I notified the editor of this site of the problem. He has since removed my test message --quite properly of course."
It seems that some form of registration and password identification might be employed by hnn sysadmins
to help prevent identity theft.
IP address verification I would think would only get one so far
considering Internet cafes, library internet stations, posting from work, DHCP, etc...
[I was sorely tempted to post this using the moniker "Shirley McLaine" and rail on about collective consciousness and astral projection, but thought the better of it ;-)]
Dan Larsen - 1/17/2003
While I am new to these boards, I have read enough to type that Mr. Smith has done it again and missed the real issues here....
I pull a few of his comments to see where he stands:
"Unlike Arming America, which drew little criticism from this nation’s historians when it came out, The Skeptical Environmentalist immediately enraged scores of scientists."
Yes, because the politically correct and "tolerant" left had a fit when challenged. Note how the left loved Arming America until it became an embarrassment to the cause. Bias? Yes, on the part of the left, Mr. Smith, not the right.
"Yet, whereas the hastily completed Emory investigation of Arming America was tentative in its finding that Bellesiles on only one of five alleged misconduct counts "does move into the realm of falsification"....
The Emory Report narrowly focused probate records and also was charged to make a finding on Bellesiles' intent, and the report did not want to prove his intent so it claimed it couldn't read his mind except when Bellesiles actually admitted that he left certain years out of Table 1 because it would increase the number of guns. So even when the Emory Report repeatedly said that Bellesiles was wrong in other places, they left the intent issue unanswered. Hardly a ringing endorsement. Don't forget that Bellesiles couldn't fix his work enough for his publisher, and that returned books will be pulped. Sounds like the work is garbage, and is being treated accordingly.
"Even here on HNN, casual readers can hear the shrill, unrelenting voices of the gun lobby harass and intimidate anyone who would support Arming America and its revealing views of early America. They even taunt historians who refuse to join their unending campaign of intellectual lynching. The more eclectic left wing has never been as successful nor as practiced at personal attack."
Yes, James Carville, the Clinton smear team and others on the left are much nicer than any right-winger ever born. Remember how "Monica the stalker" was their claim for a while? The bimbo eruption patrol, etc., etc. Bias must be your middle name.
Note also that I did not address the Lomborg issue directly, as I tend to not discuss issues have not studied. I invite others to do the same.
Don Williams - 1/17/2003
This security vulnerability raises an interesting question.
Last night I dreamed I was Benny Smith, writing drivel to the HNN board and being criticized by Don Williams. This morning, I think that I am Don Williams, mocking Benny Smith.
But am I really Benny Smith dreaming that I am Don Williams?
Arraggghh!
Don Williams - 1/17/2003
To clarify my previous remark, I demonstrated last night via
an explicitly labeled test message that anyone could post messages here under the name "James Lindgren". I notified the editor of this site of the problem. He has since removed my test message --quite properly of course.
To point being that you might want to double-check with James Lindgren or Ralph Luker via email before telling others that "Ralph Luker said xxx on HNN ..."
Don Williams - 1/17/2003
In response to my inquiry, the editor of this site indicates that HNN cannot post the IP address of posters (to authenticate that the poster is who he says he is) and that this chat board is essentially run on the Honor System. Caveat Emptor.
Richard Henry Morgan - 1/17/2003
For those of you who can't bring yourselves to follow a link, here's a short piece from The Economist:
Thought control
Jan 9th 2003
From The Economist print edition
The scourge of the greens is accused of dishonesty
THE Bjorn Lomborg saga took a decidedly Orwellian turn this week. Readers will recall that Mr Lomborg, a statistician and director of Denmark's Environmental Assessment Institute, is the author of “The Skeptical Environmentalist”, which attacks the environmental lobby for systematically exaggerated pessimism. Environmentalists have risen as one in furious condemnation of Mr Lomborg's presumption in challenging their claims, partly no doubt because he did it so tellingly. This week, to the delight of greens everywhere, Denmark's Committees on Scientific Dishonesty ruled on the book as follows: “Objectively speaking, the publication of the work under consideration is deemed to fall within the concept of scientific dishonesty.”
How odd. Why, in the first place, is a panel with a name such as this investigating complaints against a book which makes no claim to be a scientific treatise? “The Skeptical Environmentalist” is explicitly not concerned with conducting scientific research. Rather, it measures the “litany” of environmental alarm that is constantly fed to the public against a range of largely uncontested data about the state of the planet. The litany comes off very badly from the comparison. The environmental movement was right to find the book a severe embarrassment. But since the book was not conducting scientific research, what business is it of a panel concerned with scientific dishonesty?
One might expect to find the answer to this question in the arguments and data supporting the ruling—but there aren't any. The material assembled by the panel consists almost entirely of a synopsis of four articles published by Scientific American last year. (We criticised those articles and the editorial that ran with them in our issue of February 2nd 2002.) The panel seems to regard these pieces as disinterested science, rather than counter-advocacy from committed environmentalists. Incredibly, the complaints of these self-interested parties are blandly accepted at face value. Mr Lomborg's line-by-line replies to the criticisms (see http://www.lomborg.com) are not reported. On its own behalf, the panel offers not one instance of inaccuracy or distortion in Mr Lomborg's book: not its job, it says. On this basis it finds Mr Lomborg guilty of dishonesty.
The panel's ruling—objectively speaking—is incompetent and shameful.
Richard Henry Morgan - 1/17/2003
Oops, I forgot. Here's the link: http://www.artsandlettersdaily.com/
Richard Henry Morgan - 1/17/2003
Another remarkable contribution from "Benny Smith". I include, at the bottom of this posting, a link to Arts & Letters Daily, which has some interesting links to the story.
The DCSD appointed a working party of five to investigate the matter, none of which have any experience in the fields covered by the book. They took no testimony. They actually cite no errors in Lomborg's book. In fact, they only print a few lines of his response. The book makes no claim to have done any original research, but merely compares the accounts found in the environmental literature, particularly from environmental groups (what he calls the litany), and compares it to what the UN, FAO, and other official bodies say in publications that summarize the data.
The DCSD took prepublished material, cut and paste, and took it as gospel. The contrary positions were from a Scientific American edition billed as "the scientists respond" -- as though the four, well-known as environmental activists, represented scientific opinion. One of the pieces was from Stephen Schneider. Schneider, you may remember, is famous for publishing a paper some time back expressly denying that carbon dioxide was causing global warming. He followed up that intellectual triumph with a book about the imminent ice age approaching (instead, we merely had a longer than usual North Atlantic Oscilation).
Schneider is also famous for his non-scientific pronouncements. In one book he states that the scientist has a duty to put scientific truth above politics, and then in the same book he admits that he failed to correct James Hansen's Congressional testimony, despite sitting next to Hansen at the time and knowing it was wrong, because Hansen was "on the side of the angels." He is also famous for his remark in Discover that the scientist has a choice to make between moral duties: between being scientific, and being "effective" as a public advocate, the latter involving exaggeration, etc., which gets the required media attention. Schneider, having converted, is now squarely in the exaggerating global warming mode. He also once penned in Science, with John Holdren, a response to Julian Simon concerning energy costs which turned out to be false because it relied on a typo -- which gives you some idea of his command of facts.
Scientific American, having commissioned a hit-job on Lomborg essentially using material from the Union of Concerned Scientists, then refused Lomborg the right of reply, and threatened to sue him when he used large portions of the hit-job in responding to it on his own website. The editor of SA, who holds a bachelor's degree in biology, then gave himself six pages to respond to Lomborg's non-response.
One of Lomborg's accusers is Stuart Pimm, of Columbia University. In a review in Nature he stated that Lomborg's thesis is that we have no problems (another hatchet-job), when Lomborg explicitly agrees we do have problems, but claims that on the whole we are improving. Pimm then complains that Lomborg's book relies overwhelmingly on secondary sources (over 90%), when Lomborg's book makes no claim to originality, and explicitly says it is comparing the environmentalist litany (secondary source) to UN and other sources (secondary sources). Pimm, of course, doesn't mention that he has a competing book claiming to portray the environmental state of the world, and that it too relies on nearly 90% secondary sources. Not content with his hatchet-job review in Nature, when contacted by the NY Times Pimm said that Lomborg's "facts are fallacies" -- apparently he thought a bathetic descent into intellectual confusion would help his case.
The great difference between Bellesiles and Lomborg is that Lomborg stands accused of bias (and convicted of "unintentional dishonesty" -- I know, I don't understand that one either), and Bellesiles stands accused of bias and fraud. Cramer and others have pointed to exact cites by Bellesiles that don't support his conclusions, and have pointed to sources used by Bellesiles that quite literally don't exist. That is a far cry from the incompetent hatchet-job rendered on Lomborg by Nature, Scientific American, and the DCSD.
Don Williams - 1/17/2003
I guess one cannot depend upon what ones reads on the Internet, eh? It would be interesting to know if the comments re Paul
Finkelman posted under the name James Lindgren were really posted by Mr Lindgren or were posted by someone else. But how do we tell??
Benny Smith - 1/17/2003
An interesting parallel to the case of Michael Bellesiles is unfolding with the international furor over a Danish statistician’s book that claims the world’s environment is improving. The Skeptical Environmentalist posits that melting ice caps, deforestation and acid rain are "phantom problems" that radical environmental groups use to justify their existence, a charge that has brought cheers from corporate lobbyists, Rush Limbaugh, and right wing economists. The book was released about the same time as Arming America, also to instant acclaim. The Wall Street Journal declared it a "superbly documented and readable book." The Economist called it "one of the most valuable books on public policy . . . in the last ten years."
Just recently, the Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD), after a year-long investigation involving top scientists, condemned the book. Unlike Arming America, which drew little criticism from this nation’s historians when it came out, The Skeptical Environmentalist immediately enraged scores of scientists. A group of four US academics wrote the publisher, Cambridge University Press, "We rarely see this type of careless and manipulative scholarship in the undergraduates we teach." Another prominent scientist, a former editor of the British scientific journal Nature, said Lomborg, "has veered well across the line that divides controversial, if not competent science from unrepentant incompetence." However, as Bellesiles stands behind his Arming America, Lomborg stands behind his Skeptical Environmentalist.
There are striking similarities in the criticisms of the two books. "He used sources in favour of his own beliefs," said DCSD committee chairman of Lomborg. Yet, whereas the hastily completed Emory investigation of Arming America was tentative in its finding that Bellesiles on only one of five alleged misconduct counts "does move into the realm of falsification", the DCSD flatly stated in its conclusions on Lomborg, "Objectively speaking, the publication of the work under consideration is deemed to fall within the concept of scientific dishonesty."
So have there been calls for Lomborg to be fired from his teaching position, or from his prestigious position as director of the country’s Institute for Environmental Valuation? Are there also calls for the publisher to discontinue printing The Skeptical Environmentalist? The short answer is "yes." But will either happen? Most likely not. In fact, the Danish government said afterwards that Lomborg’s position would not be threatened by the judgment against him. Meanwhile, Cambridge University Press continues to maintain a website that praises the book and merely refers to a "debate" where onlookers can view both sides of the controversy. Lomborg’s defenders decry any attempt at "censorship" and argue for open debate. The Economist called the DCSD’s findings "dishonest and shameful.", though what scientific expertise The Economist brings to the table is as good a question as what historical expertise the critics of Arming America have.
So what went wrong in America, a land that supposedly cherishes freedom and open exchange of ideas? It appears that the well financed political right has more experience and clout when it comes to suppression and character assassination. Even here on HNN, casual readers can hear the shrill, unrelenting voices of the gun lobby harass and intimidate anyone who would support Arming America and its revealing views of early America. They even taunt historians who refuse to join their unending campaign of intellectual lynching. The more eclectic left wing has never been as successful nor as practiced at personal attack. So instead of academic freedom and an open exchange of ideas in the land of the free, we must tolerate a gun lobby that bulldozes the brave—anyone and anything that dares to challenge the myths of the NRA.
Ralph E. Luker - 1/17/2003
I wouldn't worry about misquoting people, Don. That's only what you accuse Bellesiles of doing. I said "knowledgeable persons," not "knowledgeable person." And what's up with the incessant interrogations. Are you a self-appointed public prosecutor? You peck away at one nothing after another.
Don Williams - 1/16/2003
When Mr Luker speaks of a "knowledgable person" advising him to nominate Paul Finkelman to co-host the OAH session on Bellesiles, was he referring to you??
If so, Did you explain to Mr Luker that the very man being proposed to address the Bellesilesian contamination of the Fifth Circuit Court and Ninth Circuit Court case files -- to address OAH's responsibility for Bellesiles’ history -- was the man who ,according to your account , initiated part of that
contamination in the first place?? Of course, any undue bias on Mr Finkelman's part would be countered by the other co-host, Jon Weiner, wouldn't it?
One thing interests me about your explanation. Your resume indicates that you worked at Chicago Kent
from 1990 to 1996 and then moved to Northwestern in 1996. Yet your account above indicates that you
were on the Chicago Kent Committee considering the Chicago Kent Symposium. Yet the Symposium was not held until
April 2000 and the Joyce Foundation page indicates that it’s grant for the Symposium was given in 1999.
Was the Chicago Kent Symposium being planned all the way back in 1995-1996?? -- around the time Bellesiles’ initial article slipped through peer review at OAH's Journal of American History like a greased pig?
In closing, note that I have acknowledged the contribution you made to revealing questionable aspects of Arming America. Yet your probate criticism co-opted the rising storm of criticism over Arming America. The newspapers and the Emory Committee focused on your criticisms, not on Clayton Cramer's.
As a result, many of the questionable aspects of Arming American have not been reviewed -- and this questionable history is , in my opinion, being promulgated in the courts via the Chicago Kent articles.
Meanwhile, your indictment of Bellesiles may have a flaw -- as I noted here: http://hnn.us/comments/6408.html
If further research supports my suspicion, then Bellesiles may be rehabilitated in about six months -- and some of the data he's putting up at his new web site suggests he is doing that research -- note his files for Charleston, SC and Chatham County (Savannah) Georgia at http://www.bellesiles.com and note that they start from 1783.
Indeed, Bellesiles may come back as a modern Dreyfus, a wronged man. At that point, any criticism of the "nonquantitative content" of his history would be dismissed out of hand as continued vengeful attacks from the "gun lobby" --even if the criticism was correct.
None of this is your fault. The almost unanimous footdragging by professional historians over the past two years -- the continued protest that review of Arming America must be left to the Emory process -- and the continued silence since that process was finally shown to be only focused on part of Arming America -- is also not your fault.
Nonetheless, I would be interested in your ideas on what should be done at this point.
James Lindgren - 1/16/2003
Actually, Constitutional Commentary is not peer-reviewed in the usual sense. They sometimes send out articles for peer review, but usually don't. I don't know why there were two collectivist symposia at about the same time. Sometimes two groups get the same idea about the same time and sometimes the same person pitches it to two editors at once. If both say yes, they might have 2 symposia. I don't know the extent of the overlap, but Michael Bellesiles is in both symposia.
Richard Henry Morgan - 1/16/2003
Thanks for the clarification, Prof. Lindgren. The Chicago-Kent website does make clear that the party bringing the proposal to Chicago-Kent can be the editor of the symposium papers vis-a-vis publication in the review, without any explicitly claimed role for the student editors (in any case, I can't believe that the entirely third-rate and nasty contribution of Bogus would have been published had there been Chicago-Kent editing).
I find it interesting that Finkelman brought the proposal on Bogus' behalf, as Finkelman had the reputation as a scholar and the connection to Kent -- a move long on political sense, if not on scholarship, as Finkelman had not published in the area. If the Joyce Foundation did block Barnett (and why shouldn't they, as they put up the money -- the golden rule being he who has the gold makes the rules), then that signals who was really in charge, though that hardly seems necessary, as it was pitched to Chicago-Kent as a collective right gathering. I don't doubt that the Joyce Foundation wasn't put forward ab initio as the funding. Of course, all this still doesn't explain how Bogus chose the particpants, given their lack of publication in the subject area (now that's an interesting question).
In any case, the symposium proposer apparently (if the website is to be trusted) is responsible for submitting a list of possible symposium members, so it would be well within Bogus' purview not to nominate Barnett. The question then becomes whether barring an entire side from a symposium in order to "balance out the writings on the pro-gun side" was a wise decision. It is interesting that even more 'balancing out' was felt to be necessary, as not long before, the collectivist view was also given extensive play (monopoly?) in Constitutional Commentary.
The Chicago-Kent Symposium occurred at the end of April 2000. In October 1999, Constitutional Commentary published an issue larded with contributions on the Second Amendment by soon to be signatories of the Yassky anti-individualist amicus brief (the names will be familiar to many). CC prides and promotes itself as "one of the few faculty-edited law journals in the country", with part of its popularity "due to the editors' preference for 'shorter and less ponderous articles' as opposed to the more lengthy and heavily footed [sic] noted articles found in traditional law reviews." (nice editing there)
In short, we have here a precursor. The ant-individualists have gravitated to a journal (CC) with peer-review (well, I know I feel better about that already), that requires little in documentation, and apparently goes without the busy-bee efforts of student cite-checking. In the run-up to Emerson we have two journals packed with anti-individualist literature that possibly did not go through the regular checks applied to law review articles in the mainstream venues. And both had articles by Bellesiles before his book was published. Hmmm. Perhaps this should be instructive.
My crack about there being money lying around at Chicago-Kent (due to the Joyce Foundation) to fund a membership and trip to the OAH for Volokh, might very well be in error, given the number of contributors and the stunningly high honoraria -- its quite possible that the bulk ended up in the symposium participants' pockets. Same goes for 'renting out', as the money trail is unclear. In any case, the possibility for abuse of the symposium system set up at Chicago-Kent is clear.
James Lindgren - 1/16/2003
At least at the time of the Bogus symposium, a committee of 3 faculty and 2 students chose symposia. Bogus's proposal was brought to Kent by Paul Finkelman, who had visited at Kent for at least a semester. I was on the committee then and might even have been the chair that year. It was pitched as a one-sided symposium to balance out the writings on the pro-gun side. None of those of us voting on it knew much about the 2d amendment literature at the time. I don't remember the Joyce Foundation being in the picture at the time, which means that Kent would have been committing a tiny fraction of what the Joyce Foundation committed. Indeed, if their website is correct, the Joyce Foundation's contribution was probably several times more money than the funding for any other Kent symposium during my 6 years at Chicago-Kent.
I left Kent for Northwestern before the symposium happened, but when a distinguished pro gun rights professor BU's Randy Barnett (who had founded the symposium format at Kent when Randy taught there) asked to be let into the symposium, he was denied entry. He was given conflicting reasons, but the opposition of the Joyce Foundation was one that surfaced at some time (a disturbing reason if it was really motivating the refusal).
Whatever the reason, in retrospect having a balanced symposium would have been better. Indeed, some of the sillier things that were said in the symposium (often they were attacking straw men) might not have been said if the other side had been represented.
At Kent, editors edit the prose if they want. As to cite-checking, the students are supposed to check the cites, but if you don't footnote a claim or give an incorrect interpretation rather than an incorrect factual claim, cite-checking usually wouldn't catch this. No one knows how many errors, if any, the students caught. One sees only what slipped through.
Richard Henry Morgan - 1/16/2003
The Chicago-Kent Law Review acting as the frontman for the Joyce Foundation, and publishing the Symposium papers in its review, did those papers go through the regular review process -- or was the "generous support" of the Joyce Foundation enough to guarantee that the papers wouldn't get the extensive note-checking treatment that reviews are famous for? It would be an interesting exercise to check the notes to Bellesiles essay, in particular, and see if they accurately portray the material and its import -- I say, in particular, because Reinhardt leads off with reference to another classically Bellesilesian (that's a mouthful) quote, where the quoted material is tacked on to something else not relevant to the quote.
The Chicago-Kent Law Review website says it is completely student-run. It also says that it is an all-symposium format, and it solicits and depends on interested parties to bring the symposium to them, rather than Chicago-Kent organizing it themselves. In fact, the wording strongly suggests that the outside party who proposes and puts together the symposium (and chooses the participants and greenlights the papers), will also be the editor: http://lawreview.kentlaw.edu/authors_webpage.htm This suggests that Carl Bogus, a former counsel to a gun-contol group, dreamed up the symposium, or at least was the party that approached the review with a complete and detailed plan (though the Joyce Foundation may have been a prime-mover), and in fact "edited" the papers. Therefore, I suppose the student editors are reduced to the notes section. I think this fully justifies my characterization of the law review as renting itself out.
Tim Lambert - 1/16/2003
John Lott's 98% figure does not duplicate previous results. It is markedly different from the figures from all nine published surveys , even though he attributed this figure to "national surveys" in the 1st edition of "More Guns, Less Crime". It was this discrepency that caused Otis Dudley Duncan to investigate. Lott informed him that the number came from Lott's own survey, but he had not published the survey because of a computer crash. Duncan dropped the matter. In June last year, when Duncan discovered how frequently Lott had made public statements citing the 98% figure, he contacted Lott, offering his assistance in reconstructing the data in order to determine how Lott got such an anomolous figure. Lott clammed up, prompting the current investigation.
For me,the smoking gun was when, after Lott insisted that the 98% figure came from a survey conducted over three months in 1997, Duncan uncovered testimony by Lott given on Feb 6, 1997 where Lott cited the 98% figure.
I have page that links to all the discussion on this if people are interested:
http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/lott98update.html
Tim
Don Williams - 1/16/2003
In response to a question from Steve H, I wrote up a few items re the Joyce Foundation, funder of the Chicago Kent Symposium on the Second Amendment. The articles from this Symposium, published in the Chicago Kent Law Review, were cited by both the Fifth and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals in their recent Second Amendment rulings.
a) A quick check of the Internet shows some interesting information.
The Foundation's web site indicates that the Joyce Foundation gives $millions each year in grants to address "Gun Violence". See http://www.joycefdn.org/programs/gunviolence/gunviolencemain-fs.html .
For example, the site indicates that the Joyce gave:
a) $800,000 to the Violence Policy Center in 2002 ("To support research, public education, communication, and advocacy efforts promoting public health oriented gun violence prevention policies."),
b) $1,200,000 to the University of Pennsylvania in 2001 ("To strengthen the Firearm Injury Center and to expand the Medical Professionals as Advocates Program. "),
c) $1,000,000 to the Violence Policy Center in 2000 ("To support its efforts to promote public health-oriented gun policy through research, public education, coalition building, and advocacy ").
The Joyce's site indicates that it gave $84,000 in 1999 to the Chicago Kent College of Law (at the Illnois Institute of Technology). The grant was "For a symposium and law review on the Second Amendment" . The Chicago Kent Second Amendment Symposium was held in April 2000 and the papers submitted at the Chicago Kent Symposium were published as an edition of the Chicago Kent Law Review -- See
http://lawreview.kentlaw.edu/Articles/76.1/contents76.1.htm.
Given the size of the Joyce grant, I assume the honoraria for the eleven presenters consisted of more than coffee and stale donuts.
b) Note how Carl T Bogus described the purpose of this Symposium in his introductory lecture ("The History and
Politics of Second Amendment Scholarship", page 24):
"With generous support from the Joyce Foundation, the Chicago-Kent Law Review sponsored this Symposium to take a fresh look at the Second Amendment and, particularly, the collective right theory. This is not, therefore, a balanced symposium. No effort was made to include the individual right point of view. Full and robust public debate is not always best served by having all viewpoints represented in every symposium.106"
c) As I've noted, one of the articles was submitted by Michael
Bellesiles and is a slightly re-written version
of Chapter Seven of Arming America. What is hilarious-- in view of Bellesiles' resignation, the revocation of the Bancroft prize, and Knopf's recent announcement that Arming America publication will be halted (and returned copies pulped) -- is that the other Chicago-Kent articles cite Bellesiles' work extensively, as can be seen by searching the articles for keyword "Bellesiles".
Plus the Chicago Kent articles have been issued in hardback under the title "The Second Amendment in Law and History: Historians and Constitutional Scholars on the Right to Bear Arms " --edited by the professor with the unfortunate name of "Carl T Bogus". See
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1565846990/qid=1042690233/sr=8-4/ref=sr_8_4/002-8899428-5123204?v=glance&s;=books&n;=507846
You just can't buy legal scholarship like that -- although my opinion is that the Joyce Foundation certainly did try.
d) Another funny aspect is that the Violence Policy Center (VPC)
--recipient , remember, of million dollar grants from the Joyce -- promotes the Chicago Kent articles without noting that the articles were funded by the very same Foundation that funds the VPC "To coordinate a national media strategy on gun violence".
For example, in it's Dec 5, 2002 Press Release on the Ninth Court's ruling (that the American people have no Second Amendment right to "keep and bear arms"), the VPC noted the following:
" Citing cutting-edge scholarship such as the 2000 Chicago Kent Law Review—Symposium on the Second Amendment: Fresh Looks, the Silveira decision details the history and
context of the Second Amendment, as well as existing legal precedent, and makes clear that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms.
"
e) Don't laugh --it get's funnier. Another section of the Joyce
Foundation gives millions to promote campaign finance reform --in order to combat the "alarming extent" to which "private money"
determines "how policy decisions are made". See
http://www.joycefdn.org/programs/moneyandpolitics/moneypolmain-fs.html .
f) It's also interesting to see who runs the Joyce (see
http://www.joycefdn.org/about/aboutmain-fs.html , click on Board). The Chairman of the Board is Mr John T Anderson, Managing Partner at the law firm Lord Bissel and Brook. Another Director, Roger R Fross, is also Partner at Lord Bissel and Brook-- See
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/activistcash/donor_detail.cfm?DONOR_ID=139. Lord Bissel and Brook is a large Chicago law firm and employer -- see http://www.lordbissell.com/about_history.cfm .
I doubt that this escaped the attention of the faculty and law students at Chicago Kent.
Thomas Gunn - 1/15/2003
01-15-2003 ~1745
Ralph,
I'd rather not go down the 'L'affair Bellesiles' road again. Problems with Lott's research are at the very beginning stages, yet you feel it is appropriate to comment when at a much later stage in Bellesiles examination you were cautioning restraint. We can agree to disagree and you may have the last word if you wish.
Whatever the outcome of Lott's problems note that all sides of this issue seem to be looking for answers in a way much different that was had with AA.
I'm not sure if your last line is for your benefit, my benefit, or an admonition to all, but I agree, should the problems Lott is experienceing reach the level that AA did. Until then, I don't have much problem with a spirited debate over his book and the ideas in it.
One final point; in your last line have you revealed more than you intended? Do you have a fundamental disagreement with Lott? ;-)
thomas
Ralph E. Luker - 1/15/2003
So far, Thomas, I doubt that John Lott's career is threatened. I don't recall anyone sweeping Jim Lindgren's previous display of _AA_ compost under any heap. His show of a Lott of poo-poo seems to be getting adequate attention. When and if Lott's career is threatened, I hope we will allow deliberative processes to move forward without excessive howling. Even so, I am duly chastised by your observation.
The real test of our commitment to freedom of research and inquiry, to due process and the rule of law, is when we insist upon it for people with whom we have fundamental disagreements.
Thomas Gunn - 1/15/2003
01-15-2003 ~1620
Ralph,
I would like to caution you about arriving too late with your criticisms of Lott, or arriving much too early. Why is it you feel comfortable speculating on Lott's scholarship before any *real* peer review has taken place? Especially in light of your previous calls to "wait on the process"?
The one overriding difference in this alledged scandal and several previous ones is the manner in which supporters of Lott's scholarship are calling for an explaination, rather than ignoring it and attempting to sweep the wiff under the compost heap.
If Lott is unable to produce the source for his claim that would be problematic. If he has a reasonable expalination for the failure, but can reproduce the original information with a new survey, the circumstances would be and should be mitigated.
For myself I will be no more bashful discussing Lott than I was discussing others.
thomas
Dave LaCourse - 1/15/2003
Mr. Luker,
You are correct, and thanks for this correction. I have only read John Lott's First Edition book, and didn't think much of the 98% figure as it was very close to what I recalled from Kates and later Kleck (warning shots notwithstanding).
Lott's Second Edition, apparently changed the language to where Lott now claimed it was from "his study" and Lott apparently also said so at later times in other publications as well. Why was such a language change made?
As I mentioned, Lott should provide proof, and if he can't, then he should pay some price. Conducting the new survey now (with similar results) only shows others were correct, but not that HE had done the work himself. A name of a helper would be nice. Or phone records, or any other indication that work was conducted.
Lott's deception for claiming such a survey (if not conducted) would be very bad, but still would not equal the level of Bellesiles. At least the figure is not a complete fraud, even if the Lott survey turned out to be. With Bellesiles, the figures were false as well.
A good question is what should the punishment be for Lott for making up the survey, if he did?
I also hadn’t considered the “common knowledge” aspect, but this is also a very good point. The only counter is that few people probably remember the Kates study and I am not sure if all would concur about the high ninety percentiles. A clear footnote could have either saved or doomed Lott from the very beginning, or at least until he claimed the study was his.
Thank you again. I enjoy reading your posts.
Ralph E. Luker - 1/15/2003
If, as you suggest, Lott was merely reporting a matter of fact, yielded by many studies, it would fall under the category of "common knowledge" and would not, therefore, require attribution. Common knowledge is not what everyone knows about a subject because most people don't know very much about anything. Common knowledge is what everyone who knows about a subject knows about the subject. Essentially, one cannot plagiarize a "fact," if that is what it is. The only time that one really needs to cite a source for a "fact" is when it is newly learned and radically changes the bigger picture. You discover that Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinski were only smoking cigars, you had better document your source for that information.
It appears, however, that John Lott has repeatedly claimed that his "fact" is not a matter of common knowledge but that it is the result of a survey done by John Lott. He apparently cannot show that he has done such a survey. That is a very different matter. That other surveys may have yielded similar statistics doesn't cover his deception.
Dave LaCourse - 1/15/2003
This is a very troubling development for John Lott. Not going to defend him either.
However, comparing him to Bellesiles is a bit much, even if he did not conduct the survey himself.
This percentage figure is not new, and has been shown several times before John Lott's book. Don Kates did a newspaper study many years ago and more recently Gary Kleck used the Government's own Crime Victimization in the United States data. Both Kates and Kleck reached almost identical percentages as Lott claimed.
So at worst, Lott plagiarized legitimate work already existing. Or, in a sloppy moment of editing and/or writing, merely failed to properly cite the source(s) (This is less likely now since Lott didn't say, "Oh yeah, I forgot to cite ______ properly").
If it is plagiarism, sadly this is not new as this website has shown over and over again.
But this is far different than Bellesiles creating documents and concluding things in ways nobody has been able to duplicate to date. Also, Lott is on the hook for one passage--Bellesiles has many, many problems. Creating false data is certainly worse than copying other's hard work. Copying is also easier to spot and correct.
Maybe Lott did do the survey, but then he should be able to provide proof and show his data. We all know Bellesiles could not, nor even fix his book for the publisher.
Bottom line is that John Lott has a long way to go before he reaches the Bellesiles level.
Josh Greenland - 1/15/2003
Steve H and others, have you seen the article by Don Kates attacking those who believe that JFK was murdered by conspirators? It's on the HNN home page but you may have to page down once to see its link, titled "When People Fall for Conspiracy Theories: a Rumination." Here is its direct URL:
http://hnn.us/articles/1204.html
Josh Greenland - 1/15/2003
Tim Lambert and others are asserting that John Lott, author of the pro-gun ownership, pro-liberalized concealed carry book More Guns, Less Crime, may have not performed a survey that he said he had done in 1997. James Lindgren is also looking into this. Lott is also said to be giving varying sources for a finding that guns are not fired in 98% of defensive gun uses. There seems to be evidence for at least some of this. It's all here:
http://www.instapundit.com/archives/006692.php#006692
Josh Greenland - 1/15/2003
" Mr. Haskins? protest of my analogy is duly noted, but since his brief argument presented insufficient contradicting evidence, [...]"
No, Benny, your analogy was so lame that Bryan was able to dispose of it in very few words.
"[...] his objection is overruled."
YOU think you could fill a judge's shoes? HahahahaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahahahaha.... [wiping eyes] That's a good one, really.... :)
"And as he has expressed, his continued arguments on Arming America as well as my predictable response here would be needlessly repetitive."
You mean his repeated requests for relevant information from you, and your continued evasions. Yes, this is becoming a predictable pattern.
"Therefore, to put it in courtroom parlance he no doubt has often heard, "your question has been asked and answered; move on, counselor."
Playing judge: a big role-playing fantasy for someone who doesn't have what it takes to serve satisfactorily as a bailiff or court reporter.
"I do find it presumptive of him to attempt to direct my actions as if this forum were his courtroom--perhaps a little judicial envy from the assistant prosecutor."
Uhm, who's got the envy, I wonder? And the word is presumptuous, not presumptive in that context. I don't think you're ready to pass the bar this year, Mr. Smith.
"Please, Mr. Haskins, take my slightly tongue-in-cheek response in a kind spirit."
Why should he? Your attacks on Bryan have been just this side of hateful.
"Since you appreciated my comparing you to Darth Vader, I was surprised that you took umbrage at my similarly veined comments on your situation as assistant prosecutor. Perhaps they were too honestly felt to be appreciated."
I don't know anyone who would appreciate being ripped into because of their occupation, Mister Database Administrator. And what kind of DB do you administer, a big ASCII file that people do text searches on? :)
"I do not with to "go to war" with you, nor for you to "release the hounds.""
What is the big problem that you have with Mr. Haskins being a prosecutor? Have you had, uh, trouble, with prosecutors in the past?
"You have displayed remarkable patience thus far."
This last sentence is the only true statement in your whole post.
I notice that in your post, BS, you have said NOTHING about the Bellesiles controversy. Further proof that you DO NOT HAVE A CASE. You are wrong on Bellesiles and can't argue the merits, so you have to vilify the opposition. Pretty pathetic, flat file DBA.
Richard Henry Morgan - 1/15/2003
"I am somewhat concerned that the NRA seems to have been almost consistently painted as a villain in the Second Amendment debate, especially by historical scholars (or pretenders to that title)."
There is a parallel practice -- not painting the NRA as a villain, but using the NRA to paint others badly. In Garry Wills' omnibus review/essay, To Keep and Bear Arms, appearing in the Sept. 21 isssue of the the New York Review of Books, he lists Wayne La Pierre's book (Guns, Crime, and Freedom) as one of those reviewed. I thought that curious inasmuch as he had just a few weeks before reviewed the same book in the same magazine (a practice rather frowned on in academia -- you're only supposed to review a book once).
So I scoured the Sept. 21 review for any mention of La Pierre or his book, in the body of the essay -- none. I then checked the notes, and sure enough, one of the notes listed the author and book. I went back to the body of the essay and found this sentence, referring to Levinson's famous essay, corresponding to the footnote:
"One sign of this article's influence is that it dazzled the eminent constitutionalist George Will, whose praise for the article has been disseminated ever since by the National Rifle Association."
The sole reference to the work putatively being reviewed is in a note!! And the work is used as a proxy for the NRA. But the NRA didn't publish the book, or own the copyright, or grant its imprimatur. The author was executive director of the NRA at the time, but he isn't the NRA. Bizarre. I wonder how Levinson took being painted with the NRA brush, and in such a weird manner.
Benny Smith - 1/15/2003
Mr. Haskins’ protest of my analogy is duly noted, but since his brief argument presented insufficient contradicting evidence, his objection is overruled. And as he has expressed, his continued arguments on Arming America as well as my predictable response here would be needlessly repetitive. Therefore, to put it in courtroom parlance he no doubt has often heard, "your question has been asked and answered; move on, counselor." I do find it presumptive of him to attempt to direct my actions as if this forum were his courtroom--perhaps a little judicial envy from the assistant prosecutor.
Please, Mr. Haskins, take my slightly tongue-in-cheek response in a kind spirit. Since you appreciated my comparing you to Darth Vader, I was surprised that you took umbrage at my similarly veined comments on your situation as assistant prosecutor. Perhaps they were too honestly felt to be appreciated. I do not with to "go to war" with you, nor for you to "release the hounds." You have displayed remarkable patience thus far.
Steve H - 1/15/2003
"My understanding is that Lee Harvey Oswald ordered his rifle from an ad in the NRA's American Rifleman magazine. "
Among researchers there is I believe still considerable doubt
as to who ordered what in the mail, not to mention what was used
to shoot JFK with.
The PO Box used was under the name Hiddell, not Oswald, IIRC,
for starters.
The backyard photos of Oswald holding the rifle show signs of
photographic forging.
There were no witnesses IIRC to Oswald ever having received
the rifle at the PO box or shooting the rifle (I'm a bit
shaky on the latter at least, just going from memory here).
The rifle had so many accuracy problems, the shots were
so difficult to make and reproduce via mockup replication tests,
and the provenance of the bullets, not to mention trajectory, audio, and other considerations that came up later in the HSCA
hearings, that it's difficult to say for certainty that the mail order rifle was ever used to kill JFK, with or without Oswald's involvement.
[Also some reports about Ruby and other peripherally involved people driving around with rifles in the days before the assassination --omitted here for brevity.]
And of course, there was never a trial to prove Oswald's guilt.
Er,... he kind of had a problem when he was in custody. The Warren Commission was only an investigation, and a deeply flawed investigation at that. The HSCA was only a marginal improvement IMHO.
So, from several points of view, the NRA order seems a bit too convenient, as in killing a couple of birds with one stone.
No pun intended [rolling eyeballs :-)].
[Are there any formal historian researchers doing active investigation of the history of the assassination? I don't know myself one way or another but if there are, and they're reading this, they might be able to verify the factual nature of what I have stated above. Here all I'm trying to stick with factual, just pointing out problems, not drawing conclusions, with the PO box
NRA connection to the JFK assassination. I had thought these points would have been common knowledge given the information available to the public on this by now, so offered the JFK-NRA example in good faith in the presumption it would be received in an openminded way. Perhaps a bit too naiively. Heh. :-)]
I'm not really into the JFK killing in any original detail so for followup I would refer folks to do a google search on their favorite JFK assassination keywords of particular interest. IOW please don't shoot the messenger :-).
Don, if you have personal knowledge ie witnessed Oswald receiving the rifle from the mailbox, a sworn statement and/or interview might be of considerable interest to researchers... but then you might be asked why you were with him at the time... ;-)
Steve
PS- I am not now nor have I ever been a card carrying member of the NRA or any other gun rights organization for that matter. :-)
PPS- see Groden's _The Killing of a President_ for a easy to follow (coffeetable format) pictorial intro to the assassination and the problems with the Warren Commission "Lone Nut" and "Magic Bullet" postulates.
Don Williams - 1/14/2003
My understanding is that Lee Harvey Oswald ordered his rifle from an ad in the NRA's American Rifleman magazine.
See, for example, http://www.vpc.org/nrainfo/chapter1.html (Search for "Oswald").
While I would not put it above the Violence Policy Center to create an "urban myth" on this matter, I have seen the anecdote elsewhere -- e.g., http://www.oshadavidson.com/under_fire.htm
Steve H - 1/14/2003
"The original introduction opened with the contemporary debate on guns and criticized Charlton Heston and the NRA. That has been cut from the new introduction."
I am somewhat concerned that the NRA seems to have been almost consistently painted as a villain in the Second Amendment debate, especially by historical scholars (or pretenders to that title).
Here is some relevant information for historians if they believe that important politicians and parties associating with, or coming under the influence of, the NRA necessarily implies that that person or party harbors intent automatically deserving of public derision or suspicion:
March 20, 1961
Dear Mr. Orth:
On the occasion of Patriots Day, I wish to offer my
congratulations and best wishes to the National Rifle
Association of America which over the past years has
done credit to our country by the outstanding achieve-
ments of its members in the art of shooting.
Through competitive matches and sports in coordination
with the National Board for the Promotion of Rifle
Practice, the Association fills an important role in our
national defense effort, and fosters in an active and
meaningful fashion the spirit of the Minutemen.
I am pleased to accept Life Membership in the National
Rifle Association and extend to your organization every
good wish for continued success.
Sincerely,
[signed]
John F. Kennedy
Mr. Franklin L. Orth
Executive Vice President
National Rifle Association
of America
1600 Rhode Island Avenue
Washington 6, D.C.
cc: Gen. C. V. Clifton
FLH: kr
[stamped]
RECEIVED
JUNE 22, 196
CENTRAL FILES
BTW I got a copy of this directly from the JFK Presidential
Library in Boston. It's not Internet noise.
Bryan Haskins - 1/14/2003
I disagree with the analogy of Bellesiles to Trent Lott. While I agree that both men have reaped what they have sown, I believe they have little else in common. Trent Lott’s problem is that he let slip his preference for a brutal but real past. Bellesiles’ problem stems from his attempt, though a bias-driven thesis, to “rectify” the reality of the past and make it conform to his present day wishes.
I also believe that we have already covered this ground, Mr. Smith. We discussed the sum total of the criticism against Bellesiles last month, and you have already argued that the Emory report clears the vast majority of Arming America. I am certain you remember my December 20 response chiding you for so nimbly contradicting one of your earlier complaints about the report:
“Was it not you, Mr. Smith, who had so recently railed against Emory “telescoping” (I believe that was your word) the focus of its inquest onto that very narrow portion of Arming America? Am I to understand that you are now attempting to conceal the “narrow focus” of the Emory investigation because you wish the jury to incorrectly conclude that the report exonerated the remainder of Arming America?”
You have constantly complained about the “gun hugger” critics of Bellesiles, and many have responded to your message. I agree that repetition can be a valuable tool of persuasion, but I think it fair to say that we have trodden all the grass from this path. My guess is that there are a lot of people out there right now who are more fascinated with counting the cracks in their ceilings than reading another of your “attack the messenger” posts (and probably feel the same way about my responses). Oh, to be certain, people like myself do read them and even respond, but I fear your message has become lost in the repetitive clutter.
For example, I know that there are many out there who have drifted into believing that your strategy of stereotyping and “dumbing down” Bellesiles’ critics on this site is merely a desperate attempt to divert attention away from the “professional historians” who have criticized Arming America. Well, Mr. Smith, the time has come to wake ‘em all back up and get them to refocus on your message. Show them that you are not some uninformed parrot for Bellesiles and his apologies/explanations. For starters, why not take me up on my oft-repeated offer to discuss the criticisms offered in the January 2002 William & Mary Quarterly? I can think of no better way for you to grab and hold everyone’s attention, for by doing so you would not only prove to your critics that you have actually read “scholarly” criticism of Arming America, but you could also prove that you have some answer for it that might redeem Bellesiles’ work.
Time is of the essence, Mr. Smith. I fear that the rapid pace of events in the Bellesiles’ saga is overwhelming your current message. It is even conceivable that in these turbulent times Arming America is in immediate danger of being re-shelved in the fiction section of the library beside Harry Turtledove’s excellent work: “Guns of the South.” I will not hazard a guess at how either author would feel about that outcome, but I gather that you would consider it tragic. All I can say is Fortuna Favet Fortibus, Mr. Smith, and I sincerely hope that the time has come for you to finally accept my offer. What do you say?
Clayton E. Cramer - 1/14/2003
Actually, a bath wouldn't be required at all. I wouldn't mind.
I found out that there was a panel concerning the Bellesiles matter being organized for the SHEAR (Society for History of the Early American Republic) convention coming up in a few months, and attempted to get on it. But they were already "full."
Richard Henry Morgan - 1/14/2003
"... the doctrine of original intent becomes a target of opportunity, and an obvious, ready-for-exploiting weakness in the current system of checks and balances."
In the case of the Second Amendment, ironically, the collectivists are as often proponents of original intent as the individualists (they just read the Second much differently). In fact, Rakove, much the critic of originalism elsewhere, admitted sheepishly that he resorts to it when pushing his own views (no doubt he had in mind not only the Second, but the highly originalist foundation of the impeachment ad he signed -- humorous, because the signatories and collectivists would not otherwise be caught dead near originalism, a point obliquely made in Levinson's questioning reply to Wills' NYRB article, that went unanswered).
The interesting thing about this on-again/off-again love affair of convenience the collectivists have with originalism, is that they often endorse the most retrograde kind -- original intent. Madison himself made that mistake only once, and was upbraided by Gerry for it, before he was converted back to sanity (there are at least four Madisonian endorsements of ratifier understanding originalism in the archives). Rakove is bright enough to understand the problem, and says he uses original intent only as a guide to ratifier understanding where there is no other evidence of such (the problem being that the Constitutional Convention had no plenipotentiary power, so the intent of the framers is logically irrelevant). Rakove did depart from his professed standard in the impeachment ad, though, as Madison said at the ratifying convention that the impeachment standard included maladministration -- suggesting it might even go beyond it to include non-official acts -- and then James Iredell at his ratifying convention said it extended to merely associating with the wrong people (which definitely puts it beyond the official acts of office standard -- but why quibble about consistency when politics must be served in the guise of scholarship). Iredell is interesting because he was not just anybody, but a noted legal scholar who went on to serve on the US Supreme Court -- he had been counsel in Bayard v. Singleton, a landmark state case establishing the power of judicial review (remember, Marshall said, in his written opinion, that Marbury merely confirmed what had been established by common law precedent). Iredell then had the privilege, in 1792 as a US Supreme Court justice, to uphold Marbury v.Madison.
Steve H - 1/14/2003
" Read Sections II and III of Finkelman's article (which I linked in the posting above), and see if I accurately portrayed it."
I'm not well enough versed in early colonial history to come up
with anything original here, but an aside-- I do believe that I have enough general background awareness such that causes strong suspicions (understating) to arise when I read Jakove's article, and of course any and every page of Bogus' introduction goes down like the reading equivalent of castor oil.
And now this with respect to Finkelman's paper.
So the question in my mind that has arisen is who actually reviews the Chicago-Kent submissions, and how? And in this case, since we have a large number of historians with an up front admission from the organizers that no effort has been made to seek representation from the current prevailing side of the main issue that the Symposium was called to address, should there not have been a prima facie consideration of the concern that these guys were getting together just to fly some inadequately reviewed theories under the radar of the normal historical journal review process and into publication in a related -- but in the end run, different -- discipline? If the journal is a law journal, how is it that one can expect lawyers and/or law students to vet incoming submissions of original material from a different discipline? Is this a conventional publication route for original historical research from historians in contrast to vetting the material in a journal serving the historical research community first as a scholarly precaution?
Also, how did the law review journal peer review handle the situation that Bellesiles' book had apparently (if other observations made elsewhere on this process are correct) not yet been published at the time, but was referenced anyway?
Turning the question around, do legal scholars habitually publish new theories on original intent in historical journals, on the presumption that it is equally or more appropriate to publish new legal works in that venue instead of law journals? If not, why the asymmetry in arrangement between the two disciplines?
I am prepared for a response to the effect that there is no problem with the concerns I am expressing here. It is just that the issue arises in my mind as an observer not involved in either discipline, since an interdisciplinary boundary seems an obvious place for error of any variety to creep into the record of scholarly research, on general principles.
Richard Henry Morgan - 1/13/2003
Can't speak for Don, but I disagree with your recommendation, for the reasons already stated. And for the reasons already stated, I agree with something of the logic of your choice, think he would do his best to be fair, and can think of many worse. You don't get evil points on this one from me, Ralph.
I know you're now in an awkward position, so I'll only ask it of others. Read Sections II and III of Finkelman's article (which I linked in the posting above), and see if I accurately portrayed it. Section III carries the structure of his argument in its title, so he's not trying to be dishonest -- he calls it ANTI-FEDERALIST HOPES: THE CASE OF THE PENNSYLVANIA MINORITY. He dispenses with the more outre proposals of the Minority as incompatible with putting down rebellion, then doesn't address the more common-sense ones (that could be plausibly consistent with the wording of the Second). The entire corpus of Minority proposals are then rejected on the basis of the outre proposals, and the corpus is identified with anti-Federalist proposals in general, which are thereby also rejected -- all without reference to the actual wording of the Second. The other objections to his interpretation that I listed, commonly enough found in the literature, are not mentioned or taken up. Then there is this oddity, from a section entitled THE DEBATE IN CONGRESS AND THE LANGUAGE OF THE AMENDMENT:
"The House spent little time on what became the second constitutional amendment. The debate began with Madison's first draft of the proposed amendment, which read as follows:"
At which point Finkelman quotes the draft that exited the House subcommittee and went to floor debate August 23. This may be a bit misleading to the uninitiated, though not facially dishonest (he quotes the first draft to exit the committee for debate, not the first draft submitted to the House for debate). The first draft was actually introduced by Madison on the House floor more than two months before, on June 8th, then sent to committee. Finkelman's choice of starting point might have an effect on how one reads the proposal, for the first draft had the clause stating the right, and the militia clause, as separate entitities, divided by semi-colons, while the second draft runs them together. The first draft appears nowhere in Finkelman's article.
John G. Fought - 1/13/2003
Believe me, having me 'moderate' a chat room of any kind, let alone one on this topic, would be a Bad Idea. I'm not qualified on the period background, but that's only one good reason for keeping me away from it.
Thanks very much for the kind words and pointer to my Magic History article on GunCite. I criticized the distortion in B's account of the Boston-Lexington-Concord round trip affair and also noted that he didn't use Fischer and Galvin, but only French (1925)as his source on the subject. I still think that the most important point I made in that article was that B totally ignored the role of German-speaking settlers, especially in the Middle Colonies, in the development of Colonial and later manufacturing, particularly steelmaking and metalworking, and in the design evolution of American arms (excuse me, arma) and tactics. So much, as I've said elsewhere, for 'cultural' history. I also claim credit for having been the first to mention B's slightly icky preoccupation with bayonets and other 'armes blanches'. Who was it who used to say "Ver-ry in-ter-res-ting!" with a vaguely German accent?
As for Don's OAH membership, I envision something like this, for him and many others:
Don: "Hi. I'm Don, and I'm in OAH."
Group, in chorus: "HI, DON!"
It's too late for Ralph, I'm afraid. He'll just go on hiding the journals in drawers and closets, pretending he hasn't read them.
Ralph E. Luker - 1/13/2003
Don,
Consider this hypothetical: Luker, by some omniscience or omnipotence, has on his computer complete and up to date membership lists of both the National Rifle Association and the Organization of American Historians. He runs a program which spits out the names, credentials and means of contact with all those persons who are both NRA members and OAH members. Chances are, frankly, that, if anything, I'd have come up with specialists in many things other than probate records, constitutional law, and military history. Try as I might, I am neither omniscient nor omnipotent. I don't have membership lists on my computer. Those organizations probably should _not_ release membership lists to me. That being the case, I did the next best responsible thing. I consulted with knowledgeable persons and made a recommendation based on that consultation. I appreciate having all the second guessing that's going on here.
Richard Henry Morgan - 1/13/2003
Don, this is a public forum -- other people might read this. You sure you want to go on record admitting you're a member of the OAH?
Richard Henry Morgan - 1/13/2003
What a revelation! It shows how late I've come to the process. I just reread Fischer's Paul Revere book some two months back, and noted the discrepancy with Bellesiles' account, and posted something here on it (in passing). Apologies to John.
Richard Henry Morgan - 1/13/2003
PS:
I actually read Finkelman's article in the Supreme Court Review, and thought well of it despite the fact that Wills makes such bad use of it. Admittedly as an amateur, I think it's one of the best edited journals I've read. But please take me seriously on this. Over the last 5 years I have wavered back and forth concerning the proper interpretation concerning the Second Amendment, boring my friends (if they're still friends) who happen to be lawyers, with the latest article or bit that reinforced my last view, or tipped it in the other direction. What stands out in my reading is the mediocre to incredibly poor quality of much Second Amendment scholarship, with only the rare article being first-rate (with the clear majority, in my view, of the best articles being individualist interpretations).
When it comes to sheer nastiness, nothing on the individualist side can supplant Wills and Bogus (and lesser felons). Wills takes the cake, but Bogus is not far behind, with his crack about Joyce Malcolm's institution, delivered as it is from the dizzyingly great academic heights of the Roger Williams School of Law. And Bogus' article in the UC Davis Law Review should be studied in grad schools. I call it the Method of Must Have Been. The article is really just a history of slave unrest, and concern for slave rebellion, with a channeling of the anti-Federalists tacked on -- this "must have been" their concern which the Second Amendment addressed. I say "must have been" because he can't actually quote that concern, as it would have been purportedly considered a violation of etiquette to bring it up. Therefore the evidence for control of slave population, at the explicit level, as a prime mover behind the Second Amendment, is indistinguishable from it not being a prime mover at all.
When you read Don Higgonbotham's response, you see the veritable glee that accompanies tarring the Second Amendment with racist roots, even on dubious grounds -- when the explicit historical evidence suggests, via Cottrol and others, that modern gun control efforts and the legal opinions and arguments that accompany and justify them, were indeed motivated by racism. Add to that the fact that NY sided with Virginia on the issue, and NY had no slavery at the time, and you start to see the problem. But I digress...
Don Williams - 1/13/2003
I have no influence, however.
(Mr Luker, our eminence grise, goes "Bwahahahaha!" )
Irfan Khawaja - 1/13/2003
I have no particular interest in the Bellesiles case--I've neither read the book nor followed the controversy. But I think
it's worth pointing out just how dishonest Ron Lewenberg's
procedures are. HE is the one who has accused FONER of doing
something underhanded. Foner has denied the charge. In this
context, it is Lewenberg who is the accuser and Foner who is
the accused.
Well, the burden of proof for an accusation rests with the accuser, not the accused. And the "reputation" at stake in a
context like this is primarily that of the accused, not the accuser.
Lewenberg manages, with consummate arrogance, to
get both of these issues backwards. Having made an accusation, he refuses to reveal the evidence for it by appealing to the
cowardice of his supposed witness. Then, bypassing the nature
of his own accusation, he tries to persuade us that the real
issue is not Foner's reputation but his own, which he now
magnanimously declines to defend. Finally, having made the accusations in the first place, he tells us that really it's all a "minor" issue, so could we please just focus attention elsewhere. A convenient dodge.
Sorry, pal. YOU made the accusation--YOU supply the evidence
for it. Your witness is afraid of the repercussions? Well
then he shouldn't have opened his mouth to make the
accusation. You can't follow through on any of this? Then the defeasible presumption should be that Foner is innocent.
What we have here is cowardice and irresponsibility masquerading as righteous indignation. It's time to pull the mask off and see what it hides.
Don Williams - 1/13/2003
Try again:
1) Were you the one who asked Paul Finkelman to serve as co-host of the OAH Bellesiles session?
2) Did you recommend to Mr Formwalt that Mr Finkelman be co-host?
3) If so, why did you not reveal this to us in the discussion over the past several days?
4) Why did you not ask/recommend Clayton Cramer?
Richard Henry Morgan - 1/13/2003
Ralph, I was just about to post this, when I saw your posting first. I'll just post mine as is, since it dovetails with what you say (and what I suspected):
Neglecting to take your last statement as hyperbole, Don, I would suggest that Bogus and Wills would both be immeasurably worse than Finkelman, who actually is a scholar (if not of the Second Amendment and gun history) and a gentleman. Judging by the tone of Finkelman's article alone (apart from one instance of calling an argument by Levinson "absurd" -- a strange remark given that Finkelman makes use of an argument with a similar dubious structure) I'd say that Finkelman has the requisite judicial temperament to preside, if not any deep knowledge of subject.
That's also why I think Volokh would make a good candidate, though I can understand Luker's point -- what a self-imposed insult it would be for the OAH to go outside its membership for a co-host (and how presumptuous it is of us, as non-members, to nominate other non-members -- he says that, though, like presumption isn't a good thing!!). Frankly, the issues are so inextricably historical and legal that it would be a disservice not to have both a legal mind and an historical mind devoted to the task -- or people of both minds, like legal historians, though falling on different sides of the issue. I say that because there is no shortage (as Wills demonstrated) of historians who haven't read Miller, or read it correctly, yet have opinions on the matter. And law office history, well ....
Then again, this presumes that what animates many of us (the Second Amendment implications) exhausts the issues concerning his work. I could also think of other types that should be included, specifically those steeped in methodology. Or probate specialists. And someone who had thought long and deep on the relation of literary artifacts (like travelogues, etc.) to the underlying culture. Or someone who had thought hard on the problems inherent in doing cultural history altogether. The OAH could have put on a very good panel session, but the lead time for planning would have been tight -- the OAH wouldn't have wanted to commit to a panel until the issues had been settled at Emory, etc. The choice of Wiener for a chat host may not fairly reflect bias at the OAH, but a belated attempt to arrange some forum on a subject of some interest coupled simply with the fact that Wiener volunteered himself for battle on the ideological barricades -- and the OAH, in an impolitic moment (unaware of the nature of his Nation article) relented. I have a hard time reading Wiener's article as anything more than a recognition by the Nation that Bellesiles was headed for a fall, and the nation felt a need to spin the facts to its Upper West Side pseudo-progressive advantage.
One of things that makes me cringe when I see the OAH make pronouncements, or decisions, is that when I was a grad student taking an historiography class, my professor had us choose an historian (several of us chose OAH Presidents), check his or her books and footnotes against the things cited in them, and write a report on that relation. It was seldom pretty, but it was an eye-opener.
---
post-Ralph posting addendum:
I'm not sure that I would dismiss Don's conspiracy theory as it applies to the Joyce Foundation and Bogus ginning up literature for an Emerson brief. I see the rest of the Chicago-Kent crowd as those not clued into the object of the exercise, but lured into the project outside their expertise, perhaps in part by their politics and the money. I don't see the OAH as a co-conspirator, but given the positions they've taken via their award and the newsletter, I can't imagine they are any too anxious to give over to a panel of people all too willing to beat up on them.
Don Williams - 1/13/2003
After all, John G Fought had to intelligence to sense the flaws in Arming America years ago -- when you still ..er.. had the wool pulled over your eyes.
Consider Mr Fought's review here: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_bellesiles.html#T1 (search down in article for "Fought" to beginning of article "Magic History". ) I checked his citations to David Hackett Fischer's book and found Mr Fought's criticisms re Bellesiles' depiction of the Battle of Concord to be accurate.
And here you thought he was just another pretty face...
Ralph E. Luker - 1/13/2003
Mr. Morgan,
As I have explained before, you may be misled by the way Rick Shenkman put it in announcing the "chat room" session at the OAH convention. My guess is that Jon Wiener proposed it and that OAH officers agreed to it. That would have happened many months ago, long before the report by Emory's external review committee was made public. As soon as I learned of the possible "chat room" session I protested to the program committee and the OAH officials that it would be inappropriate for Jon Wiener alone to chair the session. My initial protest was to no avail. When the convention program reached the membership, however, still with Wiener as the session's lone chair, I protested again. By then, it was clear to larger numbers of historians that such a session with Jon alone in the chair was not acceptable.
I think it is very unlikely that the OAH officers initiated the proposal for the session and initiated the invitation to Wiener alone to act as its chairperson. Finkelman's is a different point of view, whether you agree with him or not and it is a discussion session, not fodder for more of Williams' relentless conspiracy theories. Personally, I plan to wear my flak jacket when I go to it.
Don Williams - 1/13/2003
a) Mr Luker, my understanding from Paul Finkelman is that YOU asked him to co-host the OAH Bellesiles session. Is this true?
If So, why? Did OAH Executive Director Formwalt essentially implement your recommendation?
b)Did we not agree last week that Clayton Cramer and James Lindgren deserve all credit for exposing the flaws in Arming America? Didn't we also agree that their work required them to sacrifice hundreds of hours of their personal time --without compensation? Why therefore, could YOU and OAH not acknowledge Clayton's work by inviting him to co-host the session?
( http://hnn.us/comments/6559.html , http://hnn.us/comments/6561.html )
c) Didn't I point out to you last week that OAH was responsible for giving Bellesiles' work credibility before the public and before the courts? Didn't I point out what, in my opinion, was a collapse of the peer review system?
( http://hnn.us/comments/6549.html )
d) Didn't I point out to you that the uncritical use of Bellesiles' history by the Chicago-Kent authors, including Paul Finkelman, cast doubt, in my opinion, on their judgement and objectivity? ( http://hnn.us/comments/6935.html )
e) Of course, you assure us that Mr Finkelman is a man of integrity. Last week, someone raised the issue of Mr Finkelman's past support of Bellesiles --and his hosting of the OAH session --on another list. I was somewhat surprised that Mr Finkelman , in his response, did not mention his use of Bellesiles work in Mr Finkelman's Chicago Kent article -- at least, not that I have seen. As I've noted, I see a conflict for Mr Finkelman; i.e., the more Mr Finkelman discredits Bellesiles' work, the more Mr Finkelman looks foolish for citing Bellesiles extensively in the first place.
f) Did I misspeak when I criticized Mr Formwalt above, Mr Luker? Should I have instead said the following:
"Personally, I do not see how Ralph Luker could have devised a more partisan, rigged kangaroo court --devised to conceal the truth --than one run by Jon Weiner and Paul Finkelman. "
Thomas Gunn - 1/13/2003
01-113-2003 ~1050
Hi Ralph,
I'm not sure there is a nexus co-chair Wiener/Finkelman and your suggestion Bellesiles/Cramer or Smith/Williams.
I wonder why you refused to use the suggestion in the subject line above, Wiener/Cramer as your example. It is your idea to have several points of view, rather than the single pov we'll now be treated to?
Maybe, it is simply not necessary, "to have the most visible or aggressive partisans attempting to chair", the chat session. There is no reason what-so-ever to think the deck may be stacked, is there? Let history be our guide. ;-)
thomas
Richard Henry Morgan - 1/13/2003
Would that they were chosen here. Instead, the chairs are chosen by methods far worse than "History's Gong Show" -- they're chosen by the OAH, who chose Jon Wiener, the Nation's choice for hatchet-man.
Ralph E. Luker - 1/13/2003
Fought nominates Morgan. Morgan, in turn, nominates Fought and others. Such collegiality is, undoubtedly, a blessing. Here, we nominate chairs of OAH program committees. Elsewhere we declaim about cancelled AHA program sessions. But, like decisions about whether a person loses a tenured professorship or a prize is withdrawn from his book or whether his book is withdrawn from publication, chairs of OAH sessions are not decided here on History's Gong Show.
Richard Henry Morgan - 1/13/2003
My problems with Finkelman are not that he's a jerk (as he's actually one of the most gentlemanly, of the collectivists, in his writings) or that he's a raving ideologue or hatchet-man, but that he hasn't written anything of quality on guns or the Second Amendment. I don't even suggest that he's aware, for the most part, just how bad his article is.
I make my case by referring to his article in Carl T. Bogus' The Second Amendment in Law and History (substantially the same as the version from the Chicago-Kent Law Review: http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/FinkelmanChicago.htm). Given the collectivist premiss of the Chicago-Kent Symposium, I can't say I'm surprised that Finkelman was chosen inasmuch as the majority of the contributors have no history of Second Amendment scholarship, nor display a deep knowledge of the literature. One suspects that the majority were chosen not despite their lack of knowledge in the area, but because of it. Bogus, the prime mover behind the symposium, refers to Garry Wills thusly:
"His weighing in so forcefully on the collectivist rights side was, of course, significant in itself. As a recipient of the Pulitzer prize in history and one of the most respected public intellectuals in America, Wills provided a counterbalance of authority."
Of course. The appeal to authority. The thrust of the Chicago-Kent Symposium is revealed in all its nakedness. An anti-gun foundation, through a law professor who was counsel to an anti-gun organization, spreads honoraria of up to $5000 in search of 'big names' as window-dressing for their views -- the majority of those 'big names' without any special knowledge in the field of guns or the Second Amendment. One can only wonder how they were chosen and the pitch made, given their general lack of prior writings on the subject.
In Finkelman's contribution we see an odd contrast. Section I, THE ANTI-FEDERALISTS' GOALS, shows him at his best, in his field of strength. It is a masterful four-page summary of the politics of the Constitution. From there it is downhill fast.
In the next section he twice asserts explicitly, and once implicitly, that the states were given by the framers of the Constitution a role in organizing the militias, when Article I explicitly leaves that to Congress. He quotes with approval Rufus King's Convention interpretation of the militia clause to the effect that it permits Congress to regulate the mode of arming the militias, to include that the militias may be permitted by Congress to arm themselves, as distinct from the states (which then disappears down the memory hole, never to appear again).
He analyzes the Pennsylvania Minority proposals into six areas, one of which is the right to serve in the militia, which again disappears down the memory hole. The national government must be able to put down rebellions (an uncontroversial claim) he says, and then later is slid in "or those who might be in rebellion." (Wow!! Imagine the danger from those who might be in rebellion. And imagine the civil liberties implications, not to mention what that would do to the Whig emphasis on the militia as a check on the abuse of government power). The peculiar language of the Pennsylvania proposal as it relates to bearing arms "for defense of themselves", is used to demonstrate that the proposals would preclude the national government from prohibiting the "display" of arms (as though that language were shared by other anti-Federalist proposals). The proposals which address these concerns (including the one relating to exceptions for the "real danger of public injury") are ignored. Then the Pennsylvania proposals (outre proposals and all) are made to stand proxy for all anti-Federalist proposals, and so then the straw man is dispatched, and with it any individualist interpretation.
The argument runs from a general point about the need to put down rebellions, to the supposed impossibility of so doing so under some of the Pennsylvania proposals, to the even more dubious claim (implicitly made) that all the Pennsylvania proposals were crippling, to the claim that they can stand in for all anti-Federalist proposals (somewhat fudged), to the claim that effectively all anti-Federalist proposals are therefore inconsistent with the Second Amendment (without reference to its language, or to those proposals that may be consistent with its language).
A similar point is made about a right of gun ownership -- Finkelman thinks it would preclude the government from putting down rebellions (I kid you not -- even at the extreme interpretation that such a right guts the power of the government, granted in Article I, to put down insurrections, I would think that simply shooting people in rebellion, which doesn't deny ownership rights, would rather effectively put down the insurrection).
Finkelman's thesis is that the Second Amendment guarantees the states the right to arm their militias. This runs counter to Federalist ideology, which sought to strip the states of marks of sovereignty. It also runs counter to Randolph's remark found in Cogan's The Complete Bill of Rights. In fact, the sentiment against arming the militia was arguably strong enough that King's original proposed interpretation didn't even allow for furnishing weapons -- which Madison had to object to before King made the amended proposal which Finkelman cites.
In any case, the state right to arm the militia would actually be a power. Nowhere in the Constitution do the states have rights, or powers expressed as rights. In fact, the language of Amendments IX and X, which were ratified along with the Second, reinforce this point. Yet Finkelman has the Second as granting a state right. Then there's the language of individual civil liberty, the interlineation problem, the two proposals brought up by Finkelman but not disposed of (ownership, and right to serve, neither of which imply a right to carry, display, rebel, etc.), and a variety of other objections not addressed. This is then topped off with an amazing assertion, later taken up by the risible David Yassky in his Emerson brief: "to keep and bear arms" is a "term of art"!! (you can't make this stuff up -- or, in another sense, you can only make this stuff up)
Now I realize that this is what passes for sophistication in modern academia, so I wouldn't be surprised if the dullards at the OAH think this qualifies as scholarship. But a bright undergraduate with a background in logic and analytic philosophy would see through it in ten minutes.
What disturbs me more is the contrast in professional ethics between the humanities and the social sciences on one hand, and the natural sciences on the other. In the natural sciences, professional ethics demand that if your paper cites a fraudulent source, or makes use of others' fraudulent data or unfounded conclusions, then one must withdraw the paper by formal notice in the journal where it was published. Barring that, the journal will itself, by notice, withdraw the contribution. Thus is garbage removed from the scholarship stream. The great majority of papers in the Chicago-Kent Symposium cite Bellesiles, and Bellesiles has lost his position, lost his prize, and his book is now being taken out of print -- but Bellesiles' thesis has achieved an immortality of sorts, as it will live on in the literature that cites it, in pleadings, and in court opinions (we already see such an example from the loopy pen of Judge Reinhardt) as there is no mechanism for achieving professional hygiene in a conspicuous manner in the humanities.
On a related matter, I have brought to Mr. Lambert's attention Kellerman's tardiness in releasing his data (over three years after publication of conclusions based on them). Lambert is, as the French would say, desole (I don't have accent marks), but such things are a regrettable part of research, etc. (one can almost picture the Gallic shrug). In many spheres of scholarship, particularly the natural sciences, this is not simply a matter of etiquette but of professional responsibility backed by sanctions.
But the response given by Mr. Lambert fails to satisfy on other bases. He says (as a general point) that some researchers do milk their data. The gap between milking data, and as Kellerman's boss put it, cleaning up data, is roughly the breadth of the Grand Canyon. Referring me to the data set, available on the web, does not therefore address the issue. If Kellerman was milking the data for other publication (which Mr. Lambert doesn't actually assert), then there will no doubt be a series of Kellerman publications falling in the three-year interval that will remain as vestigial evidence. It would be nice to have reference to such, if they indeed do exist.
If they don't exist, then that puts things in a different light. Kellerman's superior, presumably under oath (and Congressional testimony does not require materiality to sustain a criminal perjury charge), testified that Kellerman was cleaning up his data. If the superior was testifying innocently, and there was no such cleaning up taking place, then the axe falls elsewhere, doesn't it? And just what in the hell is "cleaning up" such that it takes over three years to accomplish?
Lastly, my first choice (to return the favor) for co-host of the chat would be John Fought. Or if not available, Prof. Volokh of UCLA, or David Kopel, both of whom actually know the literature and have contributed to it -- maybe as a step towards restitution, the Chicago-Kent Law Review could pay their membership dues and travel expenses (the review was so eager to rent itself out, there must be some cash lying about). Were I to be host, given my impolitic self, there would no doubt be, within the passage of five minutes at most, an all-out bare-knuckle brawl worthy of a beer hall.
Ralph E. Luker - 1/13/2003
Gad, yes. My two favorite gadflies, Fought and Williams, have just completely unnerved me.
Don Williams - 1/13/2003
a) I believe this is the third time you've compared me to Benny Smith. At first, I was at a loss for what motivated so deliberate an insult from you.
b) While I've made no secret of my views re the Second Amendment, I've also made clear that I think policy cannot be based on a lie. I've tried to be fair in my criticism of Bellesiles and of the historical profession.
I note that I made a better excuse for Bellesiles re the probate issue than you or Bellesiles' defenders: http://hnn.us/comments/6408.html
c) Then it occurred to me that I provided you with the above information after you made several plaintive requests over several months --you being unable to see the defense yourself in spite of my hints. It now occurs to me that my good-natured jesting might have inadvertently wounded your feelings:
**********************
From http://hnn.us/comments/3171.html
Subject: RE: Be Careful, Mr Luker and Weiner
Posted By: Don Williams
Date Posted: October 3, 2002, 10:48 AM
Mr Luker, is your comment "Your post is tediously long-winded. I scanned through it " another way of saying "I don't want to address the information you provided because it is embarrassing and hurts my head"???
In the discussion which followed your article here at HNN, I made the comment (June 15):
"There's no reason for academia to hold off discussions about Arming America just because Emory is doing an investigation. I can make a strong case that such silence may hurt Bellesiles rather than help him."
I think the evidence to support my comment is lying in the open -- I find it comical that you don't perceive it in spite of my hints to you. Perhaps after Emory announces their verdict, I will point it out to you.
************************
From http://hnn.us/comments/3173.html
Subject: RE: Be Careful, Mr Luker and Weiner
Posted By: Ralph E. Luker
Date Posted: October 3, 2002, 11:04 AM
Mr. Williams, I welcome enlightenment from whatever source it comes. No need to be coy. Spell it out.
*******************
http://hnn.us/comments/3177.html
Subject: RE: Be Careful, Mr Luker and Weiner
Posted By: Don Williams
Date Posted: October 3, 2002, 11:30 AM
Not yet, Mr Luker.
The Chinese teachers of the Nei Chia, the Internal Arts, have a policy of "never tell too plainly" -- also defined in the motto
"If a student is given one corner of a hankerchief, he should be able to find the other three on his own"
It's their way of weeding out unintelligent riffraff from civilized people -- of distinguishing sincere students from
mere dilettantes.
----
"The Tao (Way) that can be told of is not the eternal Tao;
The name that can be named is not the eternal name.
The Nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth;
The Named is the mother of all things.
Therefore let there always be non-being so we may see their
subtlety,
and let there always be being so we may see their outcome.
The two are the same,"
--Lao Tzu, Tao-te Ching
*************
From http://hnn.us/comments/3178.html
Subject: RE: Be Careful, Mr Luker and Weiner
Posted By: Ralph E. Luker
Date Posted: October 3, 2002, 11:44 AM
Ah, mysteriously silent one, enlighten the "unintelligent riffraff."
************
http://hnn.us/comments/4994.html
Subject: What's Your Problem?
Posted By: Ralph E. Luker
Date Posted: November 20, 2002, 3:49 PM
Thomas,
First, Don Williams really owes it to the world to reveal to all of us the special wisdom he's been claiming in the Bellesiles case for the past three months.
Secondly, Thomas, I really don't see what your complaint is....
***************
http://hnn.us/comments/5005.html
Subject: RE: Thank you, Thomas RE: Where's Don Williams?
Posted By: Ralph E. Luker
Date Posted: November 20, 2002, 5:44 PM
Thomas,
Your claim that "What Ralph fails to do is defend the scholarship in the book" is simply incorrect. I don't fail. I either choose not to "defend the scholarship in the book" or I succeed in not defending the scholarship in the book.
But I want to know what secret knowledge Don Williams has been withholding from us for the past three month.
Ralph
****************
http://hnn.us/comments/5721.html
Subject: To Don Williams
Posted By: Ralph E. Luker
Date Posted: December 14, 2002, 9:28 PM
Nine weeks ago, you were coy about this:
"In the discussion which followed your article here at HNN, I made the comment (June 15):
'There's no reason for academia to hold off discussions about Arming America just because Emory is doing an investigation. I can make a strong case that such silence may hurt Bellesiles rather than help him.'
I think the evidence to support my comment is lying in the open -- I find it comical that you don't perceive it in spite of my hints to you. Perhaps after Emory announces their verdict, I will point it out to you."
Mr. Williams, the Emory Report is in, Bellesiles has resigned and the Bancroft Prize has been revoked. Please, oh please, fount of self-evident but secret knowledge, enlighten me. Help me to understand my offishness for failing to see the obvious. If you don't, I'll just have to assume that your wisdom wasn't.
John G. Fought - 1/13/2003
Dr. Luker, steering true to his star, apparently feels that a sharp division of opinion would be unseemly, possibly resulting in momentary lapses of decorum, and surely not leading to any useful result: when does disagreement ever prove useful? I think that either of these other pairings would be more interesting and probably more useful than the official one. If 'Smith' took part, we might find out if he is really, as I suspect, a clever poseur who is enjoying the ease with which he provokes the earnest and faithful correspondents on this site again and again. He may actually believe in anything or nothing, for all we know. So, it would be interesting to see him in the flesh, so to speak, to decide if he is in fact the indistinct figure in the background of a photo of colonial re-enactors on a certain Michigan website. I find his shyness hard to credit alongside his obtuse yet slippery postings here. Cramer and Wiener would be almost ideal. Wiener would learn a lot that Cramer already knows, including the current exchange rate for doctorates. My first choice would be R. H. Morgan himself.
Ralph E. Luker - 1/13/2003
The point of a chat room session is not necessarily to have the most visible or aggressive partisans attempting to chair it. You would like, let's say, Bellesiles and Cramer co-chairing the session? Or, maybe, Benny Smith and Don Williams? Probably not.
Richard Henry Morgan - 1/12/2003
Your point is well-taken (if such was your point) that people, by reacting, play into the hands of others who would push their buttons. Horace may not need a Moor's darts, etc., but I wouldn't suggest the idea that a song can dispose of a wolf in the Sabine wood (or a thug with a 9mm). Then again, I too would probably affect a certain pacifism were I living under the yoke of Augustus and I had been a tribunus militum in Brutus' army.
Will J. Richardson - 1/12/2003
I have three boys, one 14 and twins 11 years old. As with most siblings they know very well how to push each others hot buttons for maximum effect. The game of pushing these buttons is a source of both conflict between the brothers and what is more to the point a source of amusement enjoyed by each at the expense of the others. However, one of the twins discovered that he could win the game by simply refusing to react when his buttons were pushed. His brothers were baffled by this tactic and have gradually ceased pushing this brother's buttons because it is no longer a source of amusment. The two less mature brothers still play the game among themselves, but the more mature and intelligent brother who is now a spectator is the only one who enjoys it.
Integer vitae scelerisque purus non eget mauris iaculis neque arcu. Horace, Odes
Thomas Gunn - 1/12/2003
01-12-2003 ~1330
Oh I don't know Don! Maybe the kind of person that resigned a prestidigitatious position at university, when he got caught compromising his integrity.
thomas
Don Williams - 1/12/2003
Doesn't Benny Smith have any kind of a life??
Josh Greenland - 1/12/2003
"Once more the hateful demagoguery of the gun lobby exposes its ugly head. Not content to merely insult myself or Professor Bellesiles, Mr. LaCourse proceeds to mock the author's family here as well."
Yes, by suggesting that you are a member of it. Cruel mockery indeed!
Dave LaCourse - 1/12/2003
Mr. Smith, you overlooked the meat of the post, once again, and focused on a potential theory that you have not disproven. A family's love is blind, no hate in saying that.
In response to you, I admit my patience is gone. And since you fail the reality test, I must confess that you are an idiot.
Every time you post to any webpage, please note that is my response to your dribble. That way, I won't have to repeat myself again.
If someday you actually pull your head out, breathe fresh air, then I will praise you. Until then, that is my response to your uninformed position.
Have a nice life--the very best a dumbass can have!
Thanks again for being so predictable.
Benny Smith - 1/12/2003
Once more the hateful demagoguery of the gun lobby exposes its ugly head. Not content to merely insult myself or Professor Bellesiles, Mr. LaCourse proceeds to mock the author's family here as well. He knows full well that no respected historian has disparaged Arming America in the manner he has indicated. However, it does show the depths to which the gun lobby--with which Mr. LaCourse has confessed his personal if not professional association--will descend to attack those who disagree with them.
Steve H - 1/12/2003
Dear Prof. Brinkley:
I truly appreciate the concern that you have demonstrated
in taking the time to respond to allegations of institutional
ideological bias in the Columbia History Department.
I would like to take this opportunity to follow up with
another (possibly unintended) example of ideological bias.
I have encountered through my son's history class a work that
appears to have been authored (at least in part) by you,
_American Journey: Building a Nation_ (McGraw Hill / National Geographic, 2000, Teacher's Edition ISBN 0-03-821877-9). On page 242 the following text appears in a table interpreting each article of the Bill of Rights: "the purpose of this amendment is to guarantee states the right to keep a militia". I am under the impression that the text is used extensively in public and private schools across California.
Can you please reconcile this collective-rights interpretation with the following text from the Supreme Court's US v. Miller, 307 US 134 (1939): "...the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense"; and its decision to remand the case back to the lower courts for the lack of formal "judicial notice" that the shortened shotgun allegedly possessed without proper tax paperwork by the defendants (and modified in the manner of the historic World War I "trench sweeper" shotgun) is "any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense"?
In particular, there seem at a minimum to be two competing claims to the legitimate interpretation of whether the Second Amendment protects an individual or collective right (the former in evidence in Miller but ignored in your text, and the latter presented for some reason not yet understood to me, as the sole interpretation in your text). Two recent federal appellate court decisions (US v. Emerson, 5th Circuit, 2001, and Silveira v. Lockyer, 9th Circuit, 2002) deciding in favor of the individual and collective rights interpretations, respectively, appear to highlight the different claims and the need to present something other than just the collective rights view).
In addition, there seem to be other Supreme Court decisions which hold that the Second Amendment protects an individual right. For example, see United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990).
I am addressing you in this forum since my previous letter to your publisher and copying you and others seems to have been lost in the mail, and I have never received a response to my previous letter containing this particular question from anyone. Therefore a public request seems an appropriate and more reliable manner in which to attempt to contact you.
Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter and for all your efforts to help avoid the appearance of bias in your department and your profession.
Richard Henry Morgan - 1/11/2003
"Often, a member of our department serves on the committee that recommends the winners of the Bancroft Prize (although there is never more than one Columbia member on the three-person committee). The history department itself has no connection to the prize beyond that."
As I understand it from press reports, Prof. Brinkley, as Chairman of the Columbia History Department presided over the award ceremony of the Bancroft Prize, complete with encomiastic remarks re Bellesiles' work. If so, there would seem to be a connection "beyond that", though certainly not at every step of the process.
I don't have a dog in the fight between Lewenberg and Foner, but I wonder what other possible role the Columbia History Dept. did or did not have. For instance, did they have a role in the selection of the three-person jury? I ask because of the composition of the jury -- a professor of American Jewish urban history, and two practitioners of Womens' History. Not exactly the broadest range of expertise or perspective brought to bear on judging for the prize, I'd say.
Alan Brinkley - 1/11/2003
My attention has belatedly been drawn to the comments by Ron Lewenberg about the actions of the Columbia history department (and of my colleague Eric Foner in particular) on the Bellisles case.
Eric Foner is correct in saying that it is patently ridiculous to think that anyone could stop Mr. Lewenberg from distributing material to the faculty. Nor is it imaginable to me that Prof. Foner would throw out material left for our colleagues, whatever Mr. Lewenberg's anonymous source might have said.
Mr. Lewenberg's larger misconception, however, is that the Columbia history department is somehow responsible for the awarding of the Bancroft Prize to Michael Bellisles. The Bancroft Prize is administered by Columbia University, not by the Columbia history department. Often, a member of our department serves on the committee that recommends the winners of the Bancroft Prize (although there is never more than one Columbia member on the three-person committee). The history department itself has no connection to the prize beyond that. Even if our department were dominated by a "leftist clique," as Mr. Lewenberg preposterously claims, we would have no ability either to award or revoke a Bancroft prize.
Alan Brinkley
Chair
Department of History
Columbia University
Irfan Khawaja - 1/11/2003
I don't know anything about the particulars of this debate,
but I can say with some confidence that Ron Lewenberg's veracity is not to be trusted. On November 5, 2002, Mr. Lewenberg
falsely accused James Zogby, Executive Director of the Arab
American Institute, of "supporting" the Protocols of the
Elders of Zion. I paste the URL below (scroll to near the
bottom of the page), which is on the site of the Free Republic:
http://209.157.64.200/focus/news/782549/posts
The relevant message reads: "Ping! Pass it on! James
Zogby of the ADC supports Protocols." It was sent 12:32
pm PST by "rmlew." If you click on "rmlew," you're led
directly to Mr. Lewenberg's web pages (or at least you
were as of January 11, 2003 at 4:40 pm Eastern time; I
have hard copies in hand).
Lewenberg's claim is not just false. It's a fabrication. The article from which Mr. Lewenberg derived his claims, Daniel Pipes's NY Post column on the subject (Nov 5, 2002), contained no evidence or even accusation that Zogby supported the Protocols. All that Pipes had said was that Zogby's column
had been running in a newspaper that had also serialized
the Protocols. Zogby denounced the Protocols on Pipes's site two days later, and asserted forcefully that he had no knowledge
whatsoever that his column was being run by the paper in
question, much less a knowledge that the paper was serializing
the Protocols (November 7). Mr. Lewenberg didn't bother to correct his earlier claim. He hasn't done so in months. I
take it that the truth of the matter doesn't interest him.
(By the way, Zogby is associated with the Arab-American
Institute (AAI), not the Arab-American Anti-Discrimination
Committee (ADC).)
Here is Zogby's response to Pipes:
http://www.danielpipes.org/499.php
I should add that not even Pipes's much weaker claim (that
Zogby consented to a syndication arrangement with the
Arab Voice) has been borne out to my satisfaction. But
even if it had been, it's a far cry from Lewenberg's
hysterical claim.
The preceding has no *direct* bearing on Lewenberg's controversy with Eric Foner, but it should certainly raise a red flag about trusting what Ron Lewenberg says merely because he says it. I
wouldn't.
Don Williams - 1/11/2003
I repeat my earlier comment -- I don't see how OAH Executive Director Formwalt could could devised a more partisan, rigged Kangaroo court designed to cover up the truth --not only about Arming America's flaws but also the role of OAH in giving Bellesiles credibility and the role of the Ad Hoc Group of Historians and the Chicago Kent attendees in contaminating the case files of the Fifth Circuit Court and Ninth Circuit Court with what I consider to be Bellesiles' false and misleading history. Note that there was little effor by professional historians to defend the "individual right" view of the Second Amendment.
Those case files will be used by generations of lawyers to come -- as we have just seen in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the
dubious historical narrative of the gun control groups may well be used to destroy the Second Amendment rights of Americans and to destroy a fundamental part of the Constitution's checks and balances.
Given what, in my opinion, is a
demonstrated malign spirit of professional historians and of the OAH leadership, why should Americans continue to support the historical community with tax dollars --e.g., with the 14 million in grants from NEH.??
Mr Luker mumbled something about one having to be an OAH member to chair a session. Yet my understanding is that anyone can be an OAH member by paying $55 for an Associate membership or somewhat higher for a full membership. If Clayton is not a member, surely we could all chip in some money for his membership -- although we could probably not match the lavish
compensation that gun control advocate Joyce Foundation paid to
Mr Finkelman and other Chicago Kent attendees.
If Clayton is reluctant to become a member and to attend the convention, I would point out that he could always take a strong bath afterwards.
Dave LaCouse - 1/11/2003
Mr. Smith,
It is often said in politics, that if you want someone in office who agrees with you 100%, then run yourself.
The fact that you defend Bellesiles to the hilt, when even his publisher dumped him after many sales, indicates an amount of blind loyalty nearing 100%. That is why, mostly jokingly, I suggested only Bellesiles could believe in himself so strongly at this point. (However, I must also note that there is no proof that you are not Bellesiles, either. Unlike myself and others on this board, you are only an Internet ghost.)
As for finding fabrications, I laughed when you said you were rereading Arming America to figure that out! You should know by now that won't help solve anything. It is like reading Star Wars and wondering why Darth Vader had to be Luke's father, such a sad twist of fate! Mr. Smith, both are works of fiction and fantasy (one was sci-fi, of course). Neither is real, Mr. Smith.
Only by comparing Arming America to the original sources and comparing problems in Arming America cited by critics (such as the travel logs--and then comparing their cites to those original sources to be sure) will you prove Bellesiles made sources up, misquoted, quoted out of context and thus creating the exact opposite conclusion of the original source, ignored numerous other sources not supporting his claims, couldn't count, etc, etc.
Sadly, many historians and others have done that already for you. To avoid your removal from these boards for a year while you research, maybe you should trust many of these respected individuals just a little. Yet you still believe one man who has lost his job, his book deal, his prize, his status, etc. etc. over all others. Talk about going over to the dark side!
Now that the book is out-of-print, perhaps you could admit that Bellesiles has more problems than you have admitted before now?
Otherwise, a likely conclusion (certainly more likely than the notion that Bellesiles was only sloppy) is that only a family member's blind loyalty could describe your irrational behavior. Thus bringing us all back to who are you? Bellesiles? His Mother saddened by her son's downfall? The grieving wife?
Hard to take you seriously, Mr. Smith, with the world now against you and Mr. Bellesiles on Arming America. Maybe you two can rewrite it and publish it yourselves? Just don't print too many copies, as the demand will be lacking.
Richard Henry Morgan - 1/11/2003
Thanks for the links, Thomas. I'd forgotten just where on the web one could access the argument. You can also find reference to the fact, without any mention of its significance for Second Amendment analysis, in Bernard Schwartz's books: The Great Rights of Mankind: A History of the American Bill of Rights; and The Bill of Rights: A Documentary History.
Richard Henry Morgan - 1/11/2003
Don't feel bad, Mr. Hayhow. They don't teach it in Con Law in law school, and I'd venture that the great majority of law professors aren't aware of it either.
Thomas Gunn - 1/11/2003
01-11-2003 ~1000
Professor Morgan certainly provides food for thought. And is the cause of no end consternation to the collectivists and so-called sophisticated collectivists.
For your further enjoyment, see:
[http://www.guncite.com/journals/vandhist.html ].
You can get to the pertinent passage by using find 'interlineation', if you choose not to read the cite in its entirety.
And another:
[http://www.guncite.com/journals/lp-gwords.html ]
Finally:
[http://members.ll.net/chiliast/GGGH/assault.html ]
There's a lot more available.
thomas
Van L. Hayhow - 1/11/2003
Thanks to Mr. Morgan. Even though I was a history major 30 years ago and have continued to read history ever since I had never heard of Madison's proposal for placing the bill of rights inside the constitution itself. I certainly didn't expect such a detailed explanation and appreciate it very much.
Benny Smith - 1/11/2003
I have already answered this. See:
http://hnn.us/comments/6496.html
Steve Johnson - 1/11/2003
Is that a made-up example or real. If real, what is the page number in AA.
Richard Henry Morgan - 1/11/2003
When Madison delivered to Congress his proposals for constitutional change that eventually became known as the Bill of Rights, he originally proposed that they be inserted between lines in the Constitution. Thus, he bundled together those proposals that dealt with individual rights (including what became the Second Amendment), and actually specified the exact place in the Constitution where they should be inserted -- and that place was in the area of the Constitution devoted to individual rights. Proposed structural changes were similarly bundled, and were to be inserted in that portion of the Constitution devoted to structural matters (for exact details, I suggest you check out The Complete Bill of Rights, by Neil H. Cogan, published by Oxford University Press).
This obviously presents a problem to the collectivist view, which is dealt with in several ways. The first and most popular way to deal with the problem (on the part of collectivists) is simply to ignore it. Why bring it up if you don't have a good counterargument?
A second way is to posit some significant change in the meaning arising from some changes in Madison's language between his original proposal, and the final form as ratified (problematic, because there is no congressional record of committee deliberations at the time, and the change in language need not entail a change in interpretation, though it might -- an argument is needed stronger than a continuity of meaning argument).
A third way is to simply deny that the lumping was of individual rights. The usual move is to point to the right to assemble, note that one can't assemble individually, and presto, declare it a collective right -- ergo, what became the Second Amendment could also therefore be a collective right. Unfortunately for the collectivists, the right to assemble, like other individual liberties, and like the Second Amendment, is stated in a form reserved for individual liberties -- in terms of something that Congress can't make a law "abridging" (in the case of the right of assembly), or something that can't be "infringed" (as in the case of the Second Amendment). This also has implications for yet another argument to be addressed in the next paragraph. Suffice it to say, the right to assemble can be abridged unlawfully, and can thereby be the cause of legal action by an individual as an individual (the individual does not have to bring the action in the name of a collectivity or the people). The collectivist interpretation of the right to assembly conflates the collective character of the activity with the right-bearer -- they claim that if the activity is collective, ergo the right-bearer is collective. Obviously, I think this is the kind of analysis one would expect from a dim undergraduate, not a professor.
The last tactic is simply to state that the Second Amendment(despite the language of individual civil liberty -- here's where we refer back to the previous paragraph, and the reference to civil liberty cue-words such as "abridging", etc.) really doesn't refer to a right as we know it today. This is the sophisticated argument of Rakove. In other works he has detailed the transition to a "subjectivist" rights-oriented interpretive tradition that occurred around the time of the Bill of Rights, only completely carried out (it is alleged) well into the 19th century. This dispenses with the nearly unanimous 19th century jurisprudence declaring the Second an individual right (in other words, according to Rakove, all them guys in the 19th century were wrong, were operating with an individual-rights ideology that distorted the meaning of the Second, but we, especially Rakove, are smarter than that today, so we can simply dispense with all those inconvenient 19th century precedents that declared the Second an individual right).
This creates a problem. Rakove is certainly right that many state bills of rights (that preceded the US Bill of Rights by a generation), included broad political principles stated as rights. For instance, Adams' Massachusetts Constitution stated that the people had a right to demand that their church be financed by the government. But you'll note that this, obviously not an individual right, and not in the language of individual civil liberties, is a right to demand -- essentially it says that if the legislature passes such a finance bill, there will be no constitutional impediment to it. On top of the language problem, we have the uniqueness problem. To quote Rakove (in Bogus' The Second Amendment in Law and History, p.77): "...the Second Amendment is arguably the one provision that partook most of the principle-enunciating attributes of the early state declarations of rights." What to make of this? Note the use of "arguably". That the Second enunciates a principle obviously is not worn on its face -- the language problem asserts itself, as well as the term "arguably". One must construct an argument to the effect of principle-enunciating that is not declared on its face, and flies in the face of its language, and demands that the Second therefore becomes the unique vestige of earlier concepts of rights to survive into the Bill of Rights. I don't think so.
Richard Henry Morgan - 1/11/2003
To cite an even more egregious example, Justice Brennan used to smile, hold up his hand with fingers extended, and declare "It only takes five votes to make law here" -- and then turned around and delivered the usual hypocritical sanctimony about respecting precedent when he was on the short receiving end of a five-vote majority.
J. Merrett - 1/11/2003
Mr. Luker:
If you have in fact gone to jail for your beliefs, I take back back every non-intellectual ugly thing I have said or thought about you, and publicly honor you. E-mail me at jmerrett@att.net if you need bail. My intellectually-based nastiness stands.
Warm regards,
John Merrett
J. Merrett - 1/11/2003
If memory serves, a Supreme Court Justice famously and disgustingly said that we are governed by the Constitution, but the Constitution say what the Justices say it says. At the end of the day, isn't Bellesiles' great sin his attempt to make history "what Historians say it is?"
J. Merrett - 1/11/2003
In my admittedly inexpert view, those who swallowed Bellesiles' nonquantitative representations are vastly less qualified to participate in such a discussion than those who were only gulled by his probate chicanery. My wife handles our checking accounts because even simple math is beyond my ken. However, just how sophisticated do you have to be to smell a rat when Bellesiles quotes a travelogue to the effect that "The people of East Pitchfork keep no guns" and the actual source says "The people of East Pitchfork keep no guns in their outhouses, as their younger children stand guard while the necessary is in use?"
Emory did Bellesiles an enormous favor by excising his clearly perverse abuse of non-quantitative materials from review by its tardily appointed fraud squad.
J. Merrett - 1/11/2003
I devoutly hope Mr. Smith is Mr. Bellesiles. Otherwise, there are two of them.
Van L. Hayhow - 1/11/2003
I have seen several posts which refer to the "interlineation problem." I have no idea what the phrase refers to. Could someone help me out?
Clayton E. Cramer - 1/10/2003
Sorry. (*I* knew what I meant.) Finkelman is still suggesting on the firearmsregprof list that the non-quantatitive data in AA makes a compelling case, though he admits that because of Bellesiles's problems, someone else will have to research that data to prove Bellesiles's claim.
Don Williams - 1/10/2003
Hell, they even accepted me.
The annual convention is being held 3-6 April in Memphis. An "associate" membership is $55 --although page 71 of the annual meeting program says that attendence at sessions and exhibits is not limited to members. Registration for the convention is $70 in advance, $80 at the door for members; $90 for non-members.
So my understanding is that the NRA can attend Mr Weiner's session --although the historians would probably speak of it in terms they normally reserve for the invasion of ancient Rome by the Visigoths.
Note by the way that there are many sessions on different topics occurring each day -- I count roughly 60 on Friday alone.
Ralph E. Luker - 1/10/2003
Thomas, You pay your dues to the OAH, register for the convention, wear your flak jacket and bring your skin head self to the "chat room" session. I'll proudly sit beside you and frighten away any academic sissy who protests your presence.
Thomas Gunn - 1/10/2003
01-10-2003 ~1330
"All members of the Organization of American Historians are welcomed to attend its convention. All members who register for the convention are welcomed to participate in its sessions. Membership in the NRA neither qualifies nor disqualifies you."
I thought I'd read this somewhere.
Thanks Ralph.
thomas
Frank A. Baldridge - 1/10/2003
The OHA Newsletter, seems to me that was the newsletter that accused vietnam vets for being responsible for 911. Good thing the "Gang That Can't Shoot Straight" (Gerald Nash), and not the NRA is in charge of this discussion (only innocent bystanders will be injured). Quess I will throw in the towel and go back to science, as as a vietnam vet I will NEVER EVER join the Organization of Assinine Historians.
P. S. Ever think about Benny Smith's initials?
Thomas Gunn - 1/10/2003
01-10-2003 ~1315
Hi Ralph,
" Membership in the OAH, not the NRA, is a requirement for chairing a panel at an OAH convention."
Are you trying to say a pro gun (you can't imagine how close I came to saying "pro rights") member of the OAH couldn't be found to balance the panel? Maybe there aren't any. I wonder what that might mean? Or is this just an execise in "preaching to the choir?"
Point of order; Doesn't one have to be a member of OAH to register for the convention, and a registrant to attend? Otherwise any flak-jacketed skin-head could show up to intimidate the assemblage. ;-)
thomas
Ralph E. Luker - 1/10/2003
Jim Lindgren's post helps to clarify Paul Finkelman's position in the on-going debate.
One other matter: It is possible, even likely, that Jon Wiener took the initiative to propose the "chat room" session at the OAH convention -- not, as Rick Shenkman summarizes it, that OAH officials initiated the proposal with an invitation to Wiener to preside at such a session.
With the passage of time, it became increasingly clear to me that such a session with Wiener alone in the chair would be inappropriate. Thus, my complaint to the OAH officers. This paragraph from an e-mail from Lee Formwalt to me, which Rick may already have quoted, helps to clarify exactly what a "chat room" session at an OAH convention is:
"'Chat rooms' are not scholarly sessions and are not arranged by the Annual Meeting Program Committee. They are simply venues for members who wish to discuss topics that relate to the profession in some way. They are conducted in a casual setting and do not include a formal presentation. Members are encouraged to propose chat rooms and those that had been submitted by the print deadline were included in the Program that you received. Other chat room proposals submitted and approved in time for the Onsite Program will be included in that publication. In addition, members can propose chat rooms during the annual meeting and they will be scheduled if space is available and will be publicized in the registration/exhibit hall area."
All members of the Organization of American Historians are welcomed to attend its convention. All members who register for the convention are welcomed to participate in its sessions. Membership in the NRA neither qualifies nor disqualifies you.
James Lindgren - 1/10/2003
Kudos to Ralph.
Paul Finkelman was indeed a very strong supporter of Arming America in the first months after the book's release in Sept. 2000. By late Jan. 2001, however, he had begun to have doubts and was more circumspect in his praise. He wrote a mostly very positive review for the Michigan Law Review that discussed the nonquantitative side of the book. He explicitly excluded discussion of quantitative problems, but anyone could read between the lines to see that he thought that these might indeed be well founded criticisms.
After the revelations of the fall 2001 (supposed website hacking, San Francisco), Finkelman's comments at the end of 2001 became even more circumspect. After William & Mary came out in Feb. 2002, I haven't noticed him making positive statements about the book, though he has not rejected Bellesiles' thesis as necessarily false, seemingly just viewing much of the evidence and the book itself as unreliable and untrustworthy. In Paul's view, to support the thesis one would have to redo all of the nonquantitative research.
Of course, parts of it have been redone, but much of it hasn't. As I tried to show in my Yale article, what has been redone does not support the book's thesis and shows the same problems as in the quantitative discussions.
The question of balance for the panel is a different one from whether Paul would do a good job on the panel. Paul would do a very good job of presenting the views of someone who was initially quite positive about the book, but grew to have serious doubts that culminated in his viewing the book as unreliable even before the official word came down from the Emory Committee.
By selecting Jon Wiener, a John Lennon scholar not noted for his knowledge of the dispute, as a moderator, the OAH made it almost impossible for them to persuade any Ph.D. Arming America critic that they were not disingenuous about having a serious discussion. I, for one, am glad that Paul was willing to serve on the panel; he should do a good and fair job. It is not his fault that both discussion leaders are (or were) on the same side of the dispute and that the other side is not represented at all. Although not a firearms expert, Paul knows quite a bit about the period and the academic dispute, so he could correct many misimpressions about what happened that might be floated if he were not on the panel.
James Lindgren
Northwestern University
Jake Turner - 1/10/2003
"This Benny Smith fellow has strange standards indeed."
Actually, it would appear he has no standards or consistency at all, other than his bigotry towards gun owners. The ex-professor chose to continually attack the motives of those questioning his research, crying of conspiracies against him. Mr. Smith insists that all those who even question Bellesiles research cannot have any basis in fact. Both false "liberal thinkers" in the worst sense.
Mr. Smith has chosen to denigrate over 80 million law abiding citizens, labeling them as pawns of the "gun lobby", and subtly separating them from his opinion of "true" Americans in his final sentence. His extreme intolerance and supremacist attitude is simultaneously sad and frightening. Sad, that anyone would be so close minded. Frightening, in the sense of what levels a person like that would turn to in their attempts to silence all others who disagree with their personal views.
Responding to his megalomaniacal rhetoric only lends it credence, and I've spent far too much time doing just that.
Good day to all.... you too, Mr. Smith.
Ralph E. Luker - 1/10/2003
Didn't mean to hurt your feelings, Don. Your perceptions of me are off-target, however. I've done my share of challenging authority. Have been known to go to jail for it. Have been known to get beaten up by other academics for it on a fairly regular basis. I call it the way I see it, take the consequences for it, and fire back when ready.
Don Williams - 1/10/2003
Your linkage of me to Benny Smith, that is. Nice to see that you have a mean streak behind that screen of bland platitudes.
Nonetheless, I believe that if you look at my posts you will find that I often support my comments with facts and citations. My complaint re Benny Smith is not about his opinions. Rather, my complaint is that he, in my opinion, refuses to address the historical evidence --refuses to back up his comments with facts and to provide citations to support submitted facts. But then I could say the same of you.
I'm glad that your unnamed friend has confidence in Paul Finkelman -- has your friend read Finkelman's review of Arming America in the Michigan Law Review?
Something that has puzzled me in past months has been that you promote high standards of integrity and honest in history yet you seem disinclined to enforce those standards against those with power in the profession.
Mr Lindgren's recent comment re you being in the ministry helped resolve my puzzlement. As the great historian Edward Gibbon noted circa 1776, the clergy have always been reluctant to challenge the powerful--to hold the powerful to some moral standard. In part because the clergy depend upon the charity of the powerful --that's why they don't have to work for a living.
The Founders read Gibbon and ,fortunately, took his advice when shaping the Second Amendment:
*********
"The obvious definition of a monarchy seems to be that of a state in which a single person, by whatsoever name he may be distinguished, is entrusted with the execution of the laws, the management of the revenue, and the command of the army.
But, unless public libery is protected by intrepid and vigilant guardians, the authority of so formidable a magistrate will soon degenerate into despotism.
The influence of the clergy, in an age of superstitution, might be usefully employed to assert the rights of mankind; but so intimate is the connexion between the throne and the altar, that the banner of the church has very seldom been seen on the side of the people.
A martial nobility and stubborn commons, possessed of arms, tenacious of property, and collected into constitutional assemblies, form the only balance capable of preserving a free constitution against the enterprises of an aspiring prince."
--The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Chapter 3,para 1
*************
Render unto Caesar, eh Mr Luker?? Perhaps your next HNN article can be a learned defense of "homeland security" measures -- based upon the "divine right of kings".
Alec Lloyd - 1/10/2003
I can't help but wonder who this strange fellow is to now defends both Bellesiles AND Trent Lott.
Lott deserved what he got. He was done in largely by conservatives (bits of his scalp are on display over on OpinionJournal and National Review) because not only did he put his foot in his mouth, then fumble the apology, THEN abandon all his old principles in a crass attempt to keep his job.
Bellesiles likewise is getting exactly what he deserves. Taking every single point of the book as gospel truth, one still has to wonder why he smeared the Contra Costa County Historial Society? Or why he kept changing stories every time he was asked. Even if his mistakes were honest (an assumption that does require a truly massive suspension of disbelief), what could possibly justify his evasiveness and hostility?
This Benny Smith fellow has strange standards indeed.
Richard Henry Morgan - 1/10/2003
Ralph, you've got to learn to lighten up, dude. The kudos for your recusal remain. When I say that we're getting close to blaming you, I meant that as a criticism, but not of you. As for Finkelman, he can change his mind about Bellesiles or his book, but that doesn't mean he has withdrawn his Chicago-Kent contribution, which puts him squarely in the snake-handling church of gun-grabbers (at least in my church history).
Personally, since I've read the entire corpus of the Chicago-Kent Symposium more times than I've read Bellesiles, I think the contributions of Finkelman and Dorf were the most scholarly in tone, use of evidence, etc., of the group. Still, even they come from the camp of "ignore an argument if you don't have a counterargument". Neither addresses the interlineation problem (if I remember correctly -- and if I don't I'll no doubt be reminded of it at length). If this be vouching, then I'm guilty too -- I'll stipulate that Finkelman is a serious scholar, fair in argument, not prone to the usual nastiness of his fellow collectivists. But in then end that hardly "balances" against the selection of Wiener. My contempt for the OAH, which precedes the Bellesiles affair, continues not just unabated, but strengthened.
Ralph E. Luker - 1/10/2003
Clayton, Your pronoun makes the reference of your claim about Finkelman unclear.
Ralph E. Luker - 1/10/2003
Richard Henry Morgan reserves the right to change his mind about kudoes, but apparently denies other people the right to change their minds about books. John Fought is simply his usually nasty self. Attack, attack, attack. You fellows are too old to learn any new tricks. Membership in the OAH, not the NRA, is a requirement for chairing a panel at an OAH convention.
Clayton E. Cramer - 1/10/2003
"He has revised his judgment on that score."
In the last few hours I have seen Professor Finkelman make the claim that the non-quantitative data contained in Arming America are still persuasive evidence to support his thesis. He also carefully avoids looking at the very serious problems with that evidence that I have found.
Clayton E. Cramer - 1/10/2003
"Why don't they get Clayton Cramer to co-chair the session?"
The professional historians still have the wagons circled against the savages.
Richard Henry Morgan - 1/10/2003
I think we're getting close to blaming Mr. Luker for the OAH's decision to put another anti-gunner in a position of power over debate on the issue. On the other hand (as they say in Fiddler on the Roof) by Luker's own criterion for recusal, Finkelman fails to qualify, something that no vouching for him on Luker's part can overcome. In fact, all this vouching is getting tiresome. RB Bernstein's great contribution to an assessment of the Bellesiles work was to vouch for Bellesiles' integrity (my bet is Bernstein's vote of confidence and $3.00 can now get you a small latte at Starbuck's), and accuse just about everybody else of having crossed over the line into accusations of fraud. When questioned about the treatment of the Battle of Cowpens in Bellesiles' book, Bernstein vouched for the author cited, not Bellesiles use of his work. Can we put an end to all this vouching? And yes, the OAH having covered itself in glory with the Binkley-Stephenson Award, and having allowed its newsletter to be used not to address issues raised but as a vehicle of attack against critics, is surely not in any hurry to assemble a balanced or even competent panel. And Jon Wiener selected for the panel? In addition to his lack of expertise, his Nation article makes his selection not just a bad joke, but a middle finger proudly displayed by the OAH to its critics.
John G. Fought - 1/10/2003
Dr. Luker knows Dr. Finkleman to be a man of integrity. But if that is so, and Dr. Finkleman has changed his mind about Dr. Bellesiles after praising his work so lavishly, I conclude that Dr. Finkleman must have been a bit careless in his first appraisal, and not so well informed about the history of firearms in America, since a careful historian who was well informed about the topic would not have accepted Dr. Bellesiles' work in the first place. But if you have enough integrity, I guess that sort of spackles over the rough spots. And anyway, Dr. Luker knows him. Most of the academics Dr. Luker knows are men of integrity. You can tell this from how well 'the process' works. This is just another example of that process in action. Boy, that OAH is really going to clean house! I feel a lot better already.
Ralph E. Luker - 1/10/2003
Get over yourself, Don. You risk becoming the gun lobby's answer to Benny Smith. I don't care for kudos from either of you.
Dr. Finkelman did write in agreement with Bellesiles early in the controversy. He has revised his judgment on that score. I can assure you that he was recommended as co-chair of the session by critics who know far more about the details of the debate and Bellesiles's book than either you or me. I know him to be a man of integrity. I suppose that, had it been up to you, George Washington should never have been allowed to become President of the United States because he had once been a loyal soldier of His Majesty, the King of England.
Don Williams - 1/10/2003
1) Your refusal to cohost the Bellesiles chatroom at OAH gave Mr Formwalt the opportunity to select Paul Finkelman instead.
Mr Paul Finkelman was one of the authors of the infamous Chicago Kent Law Review articles -- the articles created to undermine the Second Amendment by promoting a "collective right" interpretation that allows gun control and confiscations. See http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/FinkelmanChicago.htm .
2) Recall how Carl T Bogus explicitly explained WHY the pro-gun control Joyce Foundation invited Mr Finkelman and others to their Symposium:
"With generous support from the Joyce Foundation, the Chicago-Kent Law Review sponsored this Symposium to take a fresh look at the Second Amendment and, particularly, the collective right theory. This is not, therefore, a balanced symposium. No effort was made to include the individual right point of view. Full and robust public debate is not always best served by having all viewpoints represented in every symposium."
3) Consider this short excerpt from Mr Finkelman's Chicago-Kent article:
"As Michael Bellesiles has shown, the militias at this time were often poorly armed, most white American men did not own arms, and [Page 235] there was great resistance among the people to having to arm themselves.[190] Bellesiles has exposed and undermined the myth that most Americans owned a firearm. "
4) If you search Mr Finkelman's article for "Bellesiles",you will see numerous citations to Bellesiles to support Mr Finkelman's gun control arguments. For example, Mr Finkelman cites Bellesiles when arguing that Shay's Rebellion influenced the Founders to arrange for the militia to suppress rebellions, not support them. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals , in its recent decision overturning the Second Amendment, likewise cited Bellesiles and the "Shay's Rebellion " argument.
What Mr Finkelman, Bellesiles, and the Ninth Court all suppressed is that Congress had equal reason to fear the federal army -- as shown by the Newburgh Conspiracy (Continental Army officer corps plan to overthrow Congress in a coup) and by Congress's appeal to the Princeton, New Jersey militia for protection when a Continental unit surrounded Constitution Hall.
By concealing this part of history, Finkelman et. al. can conceal the fact that the Founders saw the militias as Congress' protection against a military coup.
4) BOTTOM LINE: In my opinion, the OAH Executive Board wants to cover up the past actions by OAH (via the Journal of American History),Ad Hoc Group ,and Chicago Kent historians. In my opinion, OAH Executive wants to conceal the extent to which those groups promoted Arming American and gave it credibility to the courts hearing a precedent-setting Second Amendment case.
I don't see how Paul Finkelman can support an open airing of Arming America without making himself look either dishonest or like a horse's ass.
Hence, I think Mr Finkelman has an inherent conflict of interest in co-chairing the Bellesiles discussion. The partisan nature and ignorance of Mr Weiner's Nation article has already been discussed here.
Personally, I do not see how OAH Executive Director Formwalt could have devised a more partisan, rigged kangaroo court --devised to conceal the truth --than one run by Jon Weiner and Paul Finkelman.
Mr Luker, when I recently asked you to stand up for the honesty and integrity of the Historical profession, I had not really understood the extent to which I was wasting my breath.
Don Williams - 1/10/2003
1) Contrary to Mr Smith's comment, Trent Lott's downfall was driven by the Internet -- the mainstream media was about a week late in catching on. Initially, The mainstream media largely ignored Lott's comments --it was Josh Marshal's Talking Points website followed by Andrew Sullivan and conservative internet Blog sites like Instapundit.com that started blasting Lott on Dec 6 and didn't let up. Michael Barone acknowledged the power of the Bloggers
this past Sunday on the McLaughlin Report and in a Dec 30 column for US News and World Report ( http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/021230/opinion/30pol.htm ).
Here is an example from Instapundit:
*****************
"TRENT LOTT DESERVES THE SHIT he's getting from Atrios and Josh Marshall.
It's one thing to say that Strom Thurmond should be allowed to celebrate his 100th birthday without people focusing on his allegiance to a hateful and oppressive ideology half a lifetime (er, his lifetime -- for most people it would be a whole lifetime) ago -- just as youthful flings with Marxism may be forgiven later on even if they're nothing to be proud of.
But to say, as Lott did, that the country would be better off if Thurmond had won in 1948 is, well, it's proof that Lott shouldn't be Majority Leader for the Republicans, to begin with. And that's just to begin with. It's a sentiment as evil and loony as wishing that Gus Hall had been elected.
(The official 1948 Democratic Party sample ballot on Atrios' page, by the way, is a must-read. It's easy to forget how things once were. Lott has, apparently. At least, it would be worse if he hasn't.)
posted at 09:15 PM by Glenn Reynolds "
*******************************************
2) While Trent Lott probably did not intend the interpretation placed on his remarks, his inability to deal with the rising storm of criticism was not due to "unfairness" -- it was because his entire life history --his recorded votes -- made his alternative explanation and his outreach to the black community look false and hypocritical.
3) It's possible that the Historical profession is treating Bellesiles unfairly re the probate studies -- as I noted here:
http://hnn.us/comments/6408.html . However, Arming America is ,in my opinion, riddled with false and misleading history -- something Mr Smith would recognize if he would only develop an ability to read and to reason with logic.
I think that anyone smart enough to defend Bellesiles on the probate issue is smart enough to recognize that parts of the book are rancid dreck -- dreck that has not been exposed to the media yet.
Plus further public discussion of Bellesiles would have dragged in the issue of why so many prominent historians cited Bellesiles' work extensively when they were campaigning against the Second Amendment is US vs Emerson. See http://hnn.us/comments/6521.html , http://historynewsnetwork.org/articles/article.html?id=741 , http://hnn.us/comments/6513.html
It would have dragged in the issue of why OAH's Journal of American History apparently let peer review collapse when it came to Bellesiles' work. See http://hnn.us/comments/6548.html ,
http://hnn.us/comments/6549.html
In my opinion, Bellesiles' one-time allies didn't defend him --even where a defense is possible -- because they are running for cover themselves.
Josh Greenland - 1/10/2003
"There is more to this than is immediately apparent, but the result is a good one."
Yes, I'm sure. But I would guess that objecting to Wiener's lack of knowledge of gun history was a socially correct way of objecting to the fact that his partisanship on gun issues overwhelms any sense of fairness he may have.
You done good, Ralph. :)
Dan Larsen - 1/10/2003
What Lott and Bellesiles have in common is that they didn't see the magnatude of their mistakes, nor apologize/confess properly when called to task.
Lott had to go as he failed to properly frame the speech(birthday party, off-cuff) AND understand the offense taken rightly by many, including many conservatives. He should have said, "Segregation was wrong and anti-American, and for how my words offended people, I am truly sorry for causing them pain. I should have known and done better. I should have phrased my words better and praised only his commitment to defense, a limited federal government, the hiring of African Americans in his office, etc., etc., but not his run for the White House because of the key part of that party's platform. Again, for even hinting at such a thing, I am truly sorry.").
By having a lame apology at the start, another quote was found, as was the history at his college. Then, he gave up his principles while apologizing properly, but way too late to believe him as sincere. He was only trying to save his job. His fault, and Republicans dumped him for it.
Bellesiles had false data, misquotes, wrong interpretations, selective citing, etc. yet never set the record straight on how he could just be so dumb to do all that (if you want to believe it was a big mistake, please continue trying, I sure don't.) Instead of admitting major problems, he kept lying about why things weren't adding up for others. So his friends, like with Lott, eventually had to dump him.
As for your claim that, "With Bellesiles, even after the charges of fraud and invented research were finally unproved after months of debate and an ad hoc investigation..."
You damn well know that the Emory investigation was limited to the probate records and the tables, a fact in earlier posted you decried as unfair to the whole book!
I cite "Emory's investigation was a sham By Benny Smith (November 5, 2002, 6:20 PM)"
" By telescoping its Arming America inquiry onto a few small passages, taken out of context, passages which forced Professor Bellesiles to rely upon memory, Emory determined the course of its own inquiry."
http://hnn.us/comments/4448.html
I could cite more of your posts, but rereading your words is not my idea of fun.
Now, you claim that is all the Emory panel could find wrong was table 1 and probate records. Such language seems to claim they reviewed the whole book. (I WISH THEY HAD!) This is the kind of deception (deliberate or otherwise) that Mr. Bellesiles made famous!
And you can't have it both ways, Mr. Smith.
Like Lott and Bellesiles, you can't seem to admit when you are wrong in a timely manner nor in a sincere manner. Can't you learn from their mistakes?
Bellesiles lost his book deal now, as he couldn't repair his work even for them. Why must you keep trying to save Arming America in his place?
Benny Smith - 1/10/2003
Trent Lott was the majority leader of the US Senate, set to play a major role as Republicans took control of the legislature this year. Michael Bellesiles was a respected author and tenured professor at a prestigious southern university who had just published the favorably reviewed and soon to be acclaimed book Arming America. The unfortunate twists of fate that scarred their reputations had more to do with the politics of power and perception than with any sins they may have committed.
I don’t think Senator Lott would be so stupidly arrogant as to deliberately make a racist remark at a public gathering any more than I think Professor Bellesiles would be stupidly arrogant enough to jeopardize his career by fabricating research or otherwise committing fraud to bolster his arguments that private gun ownership was rare in early America. Yet both men ran headlong into a swirling tempest of controversy neither was able to end by themselves, a tempest which drove some of their most ardent supporters to the sidelines. A tempest that both men could in the end only watch helplessly as others played the cards that decided their fates.
With Lott, it was the utter thoughtlessness of his remark that proved the enigma. Most likely, the senator had nothing in mind at all other than comforting 100-year-old Strom Thurmond on his birthday when he said electing the senator to the presidency decades ago would have averted some of this country’s problems. In the end, it was this carelessness that proved his undoing. With Bellesiles, even after the charges of fraud and invented research were finally unproved after months of debate and an ad hoc investigation, save for one table in a 600-page book that "entered into the realm of falsification", the perception of carelessness in his research was enough to fatally weaken his foundation of support.
Although Senator Lott may have had the benefit of party leadership, it was his party that in the end abandoned him, not necessarily for what he did, but because the power of politics and perception would prove insurmountable obstacles as the Republicans worked their agenda. Likewise, Bellesile’s supporters, his employer, even his publisher, decided they would sacrifice him to his fate, rather than risk possibly losing face by challenging a dedicated army of gun huggers, right wing zealots, and a scant few others with an ax to grind and nothing but time on their hands.
Certainly, there are differences. Lott’s debacle was media-driven while Bellesile’s was largely internet-driven. Lott’s affair began and ended suddenly whereas Bellesile’s inquisition dragged on and on under the relentless pressure of the gun lobby. Also, the debate in the Lott scandal was largely civil, whereas much of the rhetoric directed against Bellesile’s was hateful and harassing, probably again because of the involvement of the gun lobby.
However, the outcome in both cases underscores the power of politics over fairness. Whether it’s racial politics or gun control politics, it’s perception rather than facts, strength of voice over strength of reason, what people are saying rather than whom they represent or what their motives are. There is no good to be gained in any of this. Reputations are tarnished. Good men are turned aside. And the losers are the Americans who can only sit there and wonder at the absurdity of it all.
Peter Boucher - 1/9/2003
Why don't they get Clayton Cramer to co-chair the session?
Ralph E. Luker - 1/9/2003
Yes, thanks Richard. There is more to this than is immediately apparent, but the result is a good one.
Richard Henry Morgan - 1/9/2003
It's important to give credit where credit is due -- even, or especially, to those one often disagrees with. Kudos, Ralph.
Dan Larsen - 1/9/2003
Mr. Smith,
I regret to inform you that stealing another's works is not as bad as making B.S. up to advance your career and political agenda!
Also, the publisher has discontinued selling Arming America, as Bellesiles had NOT been able to fix his mess! So, you appear to be out of excuses.
Nobody trusts his work, but you. Leaving the question of an earlier post, are you Bellesiles?
Editor - 1/9/2003
test to see if this pops up beneath Rick Schwartz post at 1:29am
Ralph E. Luker - 1/9/2003
Thanks for the compliment, Shorty. Sorry to hear about your handicap. I hope that having only a stub doesn't diminish your performance.
SHORTY - 1/9/2003
LUKER IS AN INSUFFERABLE IDIOT.
Josh Greenland - 1/8/2003
The news story says Knopf printed 24,000 copies of Arming America altogether. That doesn't seem like many books to be concerned about, but I've read that Garry Wills' book, A Necessary Evil, is heavily reliant on Arming America, and another book mentioned on this site was also described as dependent on the pseudo-information in Bellesiles' screed. So how many copies of how many books altogether contain Bellesiles' cooked "facts"?
Wills isn't being quiet about Bellesiles' predicament because Wills feels any humility over his own aggressive pronouncements in support of Bellesiles. Wills is being quiet because he's hoping you all will forget how dependent his book is on Bellesiles'.
Andrew Frechtling - 1/8/2003
According to this AP report, Alfred Knopf has announced that it will no longer publish "Arming America", even in a revised version, and that it is in the process of terminating its contractual relationship with Mr Bellesiles.
Go to (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u;=/ap/20030107/ap_on_en_ot/history_book_canceled_1))
Don Williams - 1/3/2003
If anyone is still monitoring this thread, they might be mildly
amused by a conversation I'm having with Ralph Luker re Bellesiles over at the thread for his article "The Year We Got Caught" --see http://hnn.us/articles/1184.html .
Bryan Haskins - 1/2/2003
Once more into the breach, dear friends! Really, Mr. Smith, you must learn to govern your passions, for they will be your undoing. Envy in particular does not suit you, and I am sorry that you continue to take offense at my gainful employment. I made mention of my work many posts ago to introduce myself to you in the (now obviously mistaken) belief that you would open up to me in response. I had hoped that such an exchange would have provided a foundation for understanding one another. I had no idea that it would instead cause you to constantly brood upon this one facet of my life. I assure you, Mr. Smith, that I do not consider myself as holding a loftier station in life over you. Likewise, you should not feel it necessary to try to cut me down to size before you feel it is safe to discuss the thesis that underpins Arming America with me. I told you once before that I do not count the sheepskins on a person’s wall as an absolute measure of the credit to be applied to their opinion. Your opinion on the merits of Arming America is as equally important as mine. I only wish that after so long a search for this elusive opinion of yours you will finally tell me where it may be found.
You are correct when you say that I do ask the same questions over and over. However, this unfortunate necessity arises from your consistent refusal to answer them. I am only trying to respond to your posts, Mr. Smith. You chose the music, and I am sorry for not being a better dancer. It appears that either my feet are too big or we are standing too close together. Please feel free to take the lead at any time and change the tune if you don’t like the current dance. In the meantime, I assure you that I can patiently suffer through all the arrows and stones of scorn which you chose to lob at me in response to my stepping on your toes. You do need to slow down a little, though. I come in on New Year’s Eve to post a response, and I find that you have already reloaded and taken another shot. I must admit that I am struggling to keep up. After all, (as you are so fond of pointing out) I do have a day job, and you obviously refuse to pay me for my lecture time here.
Regarding the activities of others, I assure you that I did not set up a web cite to incite mass e-mailing to Colombia (incidentally, I continue to question your theory that the withdrawal of the Bancroft Prize resulted from this). I assure you that I have never demanded the removal of Arming America from a library. Finally, I did not try to re-create the “great Bowden Hall flood” (although I did read with interest the particulars of that re-creation). Am I to be prosecuted for the things that others have done without my prior knowledge or consent? Even if you do not like the actions of others, why must you use their actions as an excuse for your refusal to discuss Arming America with me?
Regarding the activities you do ascribe to me, do you refuse to discuss Arming America with me because you feel that I have wounded you previously with “hateful, hurtful rhetoric?” If so, then please show me some examples of this rhetoric and I will gladly clarify their true meanings. (In fact, I believe that I started this very process with my last post) I will even offer in exchange to point out several examples of the “hateful, hurtful rhetoric” you have aimed at me.
We have come upon a crossroads in our online relationship, Mr. Smith. I did not anticipate that the reservoir of your tolerance for your critics had such a shallow bottom, and I fear that my gentle probing of its limited depths has wounded your pride. Now I assure you that I do intend to address the points you make in your future posts, and I request the common courtesy of a similar response from you. Your attempt to bait me with your last post shows how near we are to degenerating into an uninformed exchange of insults. Before we do so, I wish to warn you that your responses have shown that I have already unintentionally bracketed your level of tolerance, and it would be far too easy for me to release the hounds and cry “fire for effect.” Yet I suspect that only a few other readers here would enjoy us going to war in this fashion.
Is there no single sinew in your midst that serves not the appetite crying out for more personal attack but is just Bennie Smith? If there is, then please give it some exercise by engaging me (or anyone else here for that matter) in a serious debate on the merits of Arming America. For example, since you now agree with me that Gloria Main and Ira Gruber have acted out of legitimate scholarly interests when they criticized Arming America, why don’t we rise above the “hate” speech you accuse other critics of and discuss the merits of their complaints? I know that there are others who read these posts, Mr. Smith, and they like me await your response to this renewed offer of amicable debate. Will you finally take up my offer, or will you further discredit yourself by lashing out at your critics again? There are surely many here who feel that you will once again shirk the challenge of open debate. I remain an eternal optimist, however, and I hopefully await your next post. . . .
Josh Greenland - 1/2/2003
"It appears that Columbia University, whose Columbia Journalism Review holds court over the nation?s press as the champion of journalistic ethics, has itself been less than ethical in its handling of literary prizes. On one hand, it hastily yanks Professor Bellesile?s Bancroft prize for "Arming America","
Hastily? Rescinding the prize a year and seven months after granting it? And after a longer period of time than that receiving and ignoring information from critics of all motivations that Arming America bore false witness to the historical record? How exactly do you figure Columbia's pulling the Bancroft prize is "hasty"?
"yet it apparently is content to overlook charges of plagiarism that have been raised against Doris Kearns Goodwin?s No Ordinary Time, which won the Pulitzer prize in 1995. Why are the murky charges that thrown at Arming America"
Murky? Seems to me that all critics of Arming America have bee quite explicit about the multiple errors they've found:
Look at the articles by Bellesiles' critics in the William and Mary Quarterly (Gloria Main, Ira Gruber and Randolph Roth) and show me where they are being unclear or "murky:
http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/wm/59.1/
Or how about the criteria on which Emory's committees judged Bellesiles and Arming America? Please point out the unclarity there:
http://www.emory.edu/central/NEWS/Releases/Final_Report.pdf
Are James Lindgren and Justin Heather unclear in Counting Guns In Early America? Is James Lindgren unclear in his subsequent criticisms of Arming America. Has Clayton Cramer ever been unclear in what he believed was wrong with Arming American?
Please list for us the "murky charges" that have been "thrown at" Arming America.
"more damning than the 29 passages that the Los Angeles Times reported that Goodwin may have stolen from other authors for her Pulitzer prize winning work?"
Clayton Cramer has found many more things wrong in Arming America. Lindgren's criticisms may involve this many problems. Don Williams' criticism may easily involve this many or more problems with Arming American. And remember that each of these critics have DIFFERENT if peripherally overlapping areas of expertise. Cramer has gone so far as to say that very few footnotes that he's look at in Arming America are even close to being right.
"One literary observer said that there is no greater transgression in the publishing world than intellectual theft which he described as "intolerable and unforgiveable.""
Gee, Benny, are we posting on the Publishing News Network? No, this is the HISTORY News Network. And in the world of history, it's considered GOOD to copy FACTUAL info. But one of the worst trangressions among HISTORIANS is to KNOWINGLY FALSIFY THE HISTORICAL RECORD.
"Yet Columbia ignores one historian scholar?s alleged misdemeanors while summarily executing another historian scholar?s intellectual property. Why?"
Maybe because Columbia only administers the Pulitzer Prize but is responsible for and controls the Bancroft Prize?
"The answer may be that Bellesile?s critics are without a doubt monomaniacal in their passionate quest for his literary scalp. Ever since NRA president Charlton Heston said that Bellesiles had too much time on his hands, he in essence put a bounty on Bellesile?s reputation"
You don't know what you are talking about here, but are repeating gun control movement party line here. The gun rights movement (forget the NRA) has known about and has been trying to inform professional historians about the problems with Bellesiles work years before his book was published!
"that mobilized the gun lobby to action and turned what should have been a scholarly debate over Arming America into a political witch hunt."
Okay, let's get to your main point, then, that all criticism of Bellesiles and Arming America is part of a "political witch hunt" perpetrated by the evil NRA and its crazed "gun huggers."
If this is true, Benny, answer me this: if all the criticisms of Bellesiles come from pro-gun zealots, why has James Lindgren REPEATEDLY stated publicly that he is IN FAVOR OF GUN CONTROL? Why have two of the three critics of Bellesiles in the January 2002 William and Mary Quarterly (Gruber and Roth) made it very clear in their essays that they are IN FAVOR OF GUN CONTROL? And why, if all the criticism comes from pro-gun zealots, has Jerome Sternstein stated that he is IN FAVOR OF GUN CONTROL?
And I won't even ask you about Prof. Don Hickey, unless someone can confirm for me that he is pro-gun control as well.
Josh Greenland - 1/2/2003
The URLs in the previous post should have looked like this:
http://www.gun-control-network.org/PSGaurdLtrs.htm
http://www.gun-control-network.org/Gun%20Culture%20or%20Gun%20Control.htm
http://www.britsoccrim.org/bccsp/vol01/VOL01_16.HTM
Josh Greenland - 1/2/2003
We know Michael Bellesiles was to be in the just-canceled American Historical Association's January 5 panel, Comparative Legal Perspectives on Gun Control. But what of the other participant, Peter Squires of the University of Brighton?
UB is in Britain and Peter Squires is a gun control activist. He takes a particular interest in comparing the United States and Britain in gun laws, "culture" and violence. Here are a few links that make this all clear. In the first short item, he admits that he's worked with the Gun Control Network, an anti-gun ownership British group:
http://www.gun-control-network.org/PSGaurdLtrs.htmhttp://www.gun-control-network.org/Gun%20Culture%20or%20Gun%20Control.htm
http://www.britsoccrim.org/bccsp/vol01/VOL01_16.HTM
The second URL describing a gun-related book he's written says "Peter Squires is Reader in Criminal Justice Studies in the School of Applied Social Sciences at the University of Brighton." I don't see where he is any expert on the law, and we know Bellesiles isn't, so how could this panel have been been about the legal aspects of anything?
Given Bellesiles record and what's in the URLs above, I have to conclude that the canceled American Historical Association panel had been set up to attack citizen gun ownership in the United States.
Frank A. Baldridge - 1/1/2003
I agree with Mr. Richardson. Benny is on a different frequency. Lets stop trying to communicate with him. Anyone got an interesting hunting dog story?
Tim Lambert - 12/31/2002
You can get Kellermann's data from http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/ Ask for study 6898. The data was made available in May 1997.
It is unfortunately a rather common practice for researchers to keep their data private until they have milked all the publications they can from the data. I don't condone this, but it is clearly incorrect to claim that this is evidence for fraud.
Pratt actually referred to a letter to the editor where Kellermann claimed that the case against Bellesiles was "thin". Since he hadn't read Lindgren's critique, I guess he was relying on what Bellesiles told him. I don't think Kellermann was the only person Bellesiles misled. As for the attacks being politically motivated, Kellermann's work has been the subject of numerous ill-informed attacks, so would not have completely unreasonable for him to assume that the attacks on Bellesiles were similar.
Bryan Haskins - 12/31/2002
Since you have chosen in your most recent complaint to allude to two of my previous posts, Mr. Smith, I feel that I must address your inaccurate depictions of them.
FIRST, you accuse me of the following:
“For example, when an NRA member here draws a parallel between his [Bellesiles] behavior and that of a rapist.” This is what I actually said on December 3, 2002 in response to your “intellectual lynch mob mentality thread”:
“I have listened to the myriad and “contradictory” explanations Professor Bellesiles has offered for the problems with his work, and I find them lacking the ring of truth. When he got caught lying about the San Francisco records, he could not resist taking a parting shot at the Contra Costa History Center. That organization then posted their response proving his lies about his claimed research with that facility. The e-mail controversy with Mr. Lindgren is yet another example. Mr. Lindgren claimed to possess an e-mail from Professor Bellesiles which contradicted his then current assertions regarding a portion of his research. Bellesiles promptly claimed that the e-mail was a forgery. Many people may have originally bitten on Bellesiles’ forgery claim because they believed that Mr. Lindgren had a personal motive to attack Professor Bellesiles. However, Lindgren was able in response to cite the reader to an earlier, recorded radio interview in which Bellesiles admitted sending the e-mail he subsequently claimed was forged. Now I have prosecuted rapists who have at first sworn that “I did not have sex with that woman,” and later claimed “Oh, so you matched my DNA to the seminal fluid found on the victim. Well then, I did not rape her, she consented to have sex with me.” Forgive me if I sound cynical, but I have found that Professor Bellesiles’ “contradictory” answers follow a strikingly similar pattern.”
Really, Mr. Smith, do you wish our readers to believe that this comment equates Bellesiles’ authorship of Arming America with the crime of rape? Surely you yourself do not believe this. My comment, as I have already patiently explained, draws a comparison between Bellesiles and others who, when caught lying about their activities, seek to further lie their way out of trouble. When I draw a comparison between their similar methods of explaining their activities I am most certainly not suggesting that the gravity of their offenses is similar. I really wish that you would address the facts of my arguments instead of crying “personal attack, personal attack!” whenever I voice criticism of Bellesiles or Arming America.
SECOND, you accuse me of the following:
“I have been compared to one of Hitler’s inner circle by one poster.” This is what I actually said on December 18, 2002 (after citing numerous examples of your consistent theme of “attacking the messenger”):
“I must admit that I am impressed, Mr. Smith. The overall consistency in your own posts presents a remarkable strategy of never straying from your target theme of “attacking the messenger.” However, I don’t think you can claim credit for originating this strategy. Looking back on your posts tickled my memory, for I have heard of others who have used such a strategy of constant repetition before. A brief search of my home bookshelf revealed this much earlier example:
Again, I learned a lot; especially that the rank and file are usually much more primitive than we imagine. Propaganda must therefore always be essentially simple and repetitious. In the long run only he will achieve basic results in influencing public opinion who is able to reduce problems to the simplest terms and who has the courage to keep forever repeating them in this simplified form despite the objections of the intellectuals.--Paul Joseph Goebbels, The Goebbels Diaries, 1942-1943, edited and translated by Louis P. Lochner, Doubleday & Co, Inc. New York, 1948, at Page 56 (from a private diary entry dated January 29, 1942).”
Come now. Mr. Smith, do you wish our readers to believe that I feel your activities here equal the many years of evil perpetrated by Dr. Goebbels? If I told you that Adolph Hitler and Ronald Regan shared a common hatred of Russian communism, would you then claim that I place these two men on the same moral plane? Of course not. Similarly, in your case I merely pointed out that the method you have chosen in arguing your position is remarkably similar to the strategy once adopted by Dr. Goebbles. You should not mistake my comparison of your similar methods of persuasion for a comparison of your moral culpability with his. I do not believe that you are a fascist, Mr. Smith. I only seek to point out that you have (unwittingly, I am sure) adopted an argumentative strategy once used by this tyrant. I must at this point also allude to your recent equation of the “gun lobby’s” tactics with those of the “Gestapo.” Perhaps you would be able to more accurately assess my arguments if you would first remove the beam from your own eye, Mr. Smith.
Now if you were to suggest that I have questioned your objectivity in this matter, then you would be correct. However, I have not personally attacked you. I have not called you an “idiot” or worse, despite the recent personal attack you leveled at me when you suggested that I and other “gun lobby” critics are “monomaniacal gun huggers.” I have similarly not personally attacked Bellesiles. I have not called him an “imbecile” or worse. What I have certainly done is accuse him of lying, and I have presented some facts as proof of this claim which you still refuse to dispute. Yet, if Bellesiles’ own actions tarnish his character, then he has only himself to blame. Neither he nor you can legitimately complain when I and others point out that the objective truth condemns him. Believe me, Mr. Smith, if I ever chose to engage in a policy of direct personal attack upon you or Bellesiles, then you will have no trouble recognizing it.
This “personal attack, personal attack!” defense you now so frequently proffer puzzles me, Mr. Smith. You have never struck me as someone who enters these arguments leading with a glass jaw. Yet you have recently entered this realm with an attitude which seeks to aggressively take offense at what Bellesiles’ critics say. The only conclusion I can draw from these facts is that your repetitive “personal attack” complaints are nothing more than the byproduct of a strategy of avoidance. To put it another way, if you are unable to answer the factual criticism leveled against Arming America and its author, then you seek to dismiss it as a personal attack upon either Bellesiles or yourself which is unworthy of response. This strategy of refusing to confront difficult or embarrassing facts is beneath you, Mr. Smith. I would much rather have you actually respond to my criticism. Humor is you best medium, and I consider your comparison of myself to Darth Vader to be your best post to date. I clearly understood then that your comparison was in jest, and I did not take offense at either it or you, for I am not that thin of skin. Instead, I chose to respond with “I have grown strong, Obi-Wan.” I have really enjoyed such exchanges, Mr. Smith. Please, do not offer your having taken some mock-sullen offense at what we say as your new excuse for refusing to answer our posts. I would prefer that in the future you answer my observations directly rather than avoid the discomforting and annoying facts I present.
Therefore, and in the spirit of answering each other’s posts, I will renew again my offer to you to discuss the validity of Arming America’s thesis. Perhaps this “third time will be the charm.” I am sure you remember that it was you who originally suggested that we turn our discussion towards this very issue and away from Bellesiles himself. I believe that the thesis which underpins Arming America is fundamentally flawed, and I am prepared to discuss my view. Will you not now cease your policy of avoidance and instead enter into an amicable discussion of this the issue you have so urgently sought to comment upon? I am an eternal optimist, Mr. Smith, and I hopefully await your response. . . .
Rick Schwartz - 12/31/2002
Mr. Benny... your posts have always been tedious beyond belief and ~never~ worth responding to in a manner befitting discussion between gentlemen. I did so once only because I wanted to point out the obvious flaws in both your statements and logic so that people could laugh at you. You got ~one~ free pass, and now you get treated with disdain like the childish, immature poster that you've proven yourself to be. You just ain't worth continued politeness, son. If that's a problem for your ego, so be it.
Mike's insult was in speaking lies and claiming it was the truth in pursuit of depriving the public of their God given right found in the Second Amendment. For those of us who respect the truth, and who honor the understanding our Founding Fathers had with the citizens of the fledgling country understood it to be exactly what it was: a spurious attack on our freedoms under the guise of scholarship.
If a criminal gets caught attempting to defraud me of my money he pays a price... if an academician gets caught attempting to defraud me of my freedom I am going to try my best within the freedoms I have as an American to ensure he also pays a price. If you don't like that, too bad. But perhaps your wrath is better directed towards the person who has single-handedly given the gun-bigots the worst black eye they've had -- Bellesiles.
And speaking of not answering questions I notice you always get real quiet whenever someone mentions Garry Willis and the "F" word. Why is that?
Benny Smith - 12/31/2002
I am surprised to find a response from Mr. Haskins on this thread. If I recall correctly, Mr. Haskins is the busy prosecutor who must read the forum here at his work computer, compose his responses at home, then return to work to post that response. But that seems to mean that he would have had to journey to work on Sunday in order to collect the beginning of this thread which I posted Saturday evening. If he did make a special trip to his place of employment just to check HNN for my latest thoughts, then I guess I owe him a reply, however brief it will be. It seems Mr. Haskins asks basically the same questions over and over, only somewhat differently phrased. Possibly force of habit from his work as prosecutor, I imagine.
Regarding Gloria Main, Ira Gruber and the other reputable historians you refer to, they certainly have every right to disagree with Professor Bellesile’s theses. The ability to disagree over scholarly issues is what academic freedom is all about. If we all agreed on everything, including guilt and innocence, you would be without your livelihood, Mr. Haskins. But did Gloria Main set up a website asking her colleagues to e-mail Columbia to demand that the trustees revoke Bellesile’s Bancroft award? Did Ira Gruber demand that libraries take Arming America off its shelves? Did that ad hoc committee that conducted the Emory investigation perform sophomoric stunts like drowning legal pads in a purported attempt to replicate what happened to Bellesile’s own notes? Did their language contain hateful, hurtful rhetoric such as you’ve used here? I suggest, Mr. Haskins, that it is rather easy to separate the true scholars from the gun huggers, right wing zealots and a scant few other obsessed souls who are ultimately interested in Professor Bellesile’s intellectual lynching.
If I left some of your questions unanswered, I’ve noticed that you’ve been able to argue both sides in your posts. Certainly I won’t stop you from continuing that, if you wish. I can envision when such a tactic comes in handy if you’re a prosecutor, particularly an assistant prosecutor.
Benny Smith - 12/31/2002
It appears I was wrong about Mr. Schwartz. Just after I thank him for his responsiveness and coherence, he becomes part of the problem I spoke of in regard to Bellesile’s most vehement critics, even saying that comparing the author of Arming America to a rapist is insulting to the rapist. Perhaps, Mr. Schwartz felt too constrained by civility to continue his mannerly response to the questions I proposed. Then again, in responding as he did, his post becomes even more illustrative of the type of hateful rhetoric I spoke of which has no place in academia or really anywhere. Yet with the Bellesiles affair we are inundated with it from the gun lobby, right wing zealots and a few others with an axe to grind.
And the direct question which I asked Mr. Schwartz still begs a response. What specifically did Professor Bellesiles write that he found so insulting? Mr. Schwartz quoted the book jacket blurb "Michael Bellesiles is the NRA’s worst nightmare." So then, Mr. Schwartz’s personal attacks have been misguided since I don’t believe Bellesiles wrote anything in Arming America that referred to himself in third person. More likely it was a literary agent, publisher’s assistant, or book reviewer who was responsible for that comment appearing how it did. However, if that is the mortal insult that has driven the gun lobby to such extremes, it is unsettling. One would hope a group of men whose common bond is an attraction to firearms would not be so acrimoniously thin-skinned. That may provide too an answer to Mr. Haskins question as to why more professional historians do not speak out against these ideologues.
Will J. Richardson - 12/31/2002
Dear HNN readers and posters on Arming America and "Benny Smith",
By now everyone who has followed this discussion should realize that Mr. Smith is not a serious student of the issue. His comments are expressions of emotion not reason. I learned long ago not to argue with "feelings". This is my last response to one of his uninformed posts. I recomend that course of action to others as well.
Richard Henry Morgan - 12/30/2002
I can't answer for anyone else, but since you're apparently so knowledgable about Kellerman, Mr. Lambert, maybe you could help me out. Kellerman had his study published in the New England Journal of Medecine in 1993. Dr. Paul Gallant and Dr. Joan Eissen assert that as of February 1997, Kellerman had still not released his data to other researchers and scholars. In fact, they assert that in that year, before Congress, Dr. Mark Rosenberg (the head of the CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control -- which funded Kellerman's research) said that Kellerman was "cleaning up his data", and Rosenberg refused to set a date to release the data. As I understand it, that led to a Congressional attempt to write into law something close to what had been a norm of research: release of data within 90 days of publication of a federally-funded study.
Far be it from me to question just why one needs over three years to "clean up" data (assuming the account is true). But then I noticed another little tidbit. Larry Pratt asserts, based on his interview with Kellerman, that Kellerman had written an op-ed piece to the Atlanta Constitution claiming that evidence against Bellesiles was "thin" -- and Kellerman hadn't even read Lindgren's critique. A pattern seemed to be emerging. Prof. Patricia Brennan of the Emory Psychology Dept. and the Violence Studies program (and thus, like Bellesiles and Kellerman, a recipient of CDC largesse), without adducing any evidence whatever, like Kellerman attributed Bellesiles' troubles to politically inspired attacks.
I guess my questions are these:
1. Do you refute the claims by Gallant and Eisser that I listed above?
2. If not, are the withholding of data from public release, and their subsequent "cleaning up" for over three years consistent with accepted norms of research, or indicative of breaches of professional responsibility? Can you explain to me why it takes over three years to "clean up" already published data?
3. Do you refute the claims of Larry Pratt?
4. If not, do you consider characterizing the motives of critics and negatively assessing their critiques (as Kellerman and Brennan apparently have done) without actually reading the critiques to be responsible professional behaviour?
5. If you don't refute the claims, and you don't support the described behaviour as professional, could you please tell me where I can go to get my apology? Will you join me in passionately denouncing such acts? You see, Kellerman and Brennan are spending my tax dollars (and yours). Moreover, can you explain (if the behaviour was not professional) how Kellerman subsequently got a Department of Justice grant?
I would hate to think that there might be misinformation out there tarring unjustly the reputations of good men and women. Please let me where I can get my hands on such refuting material as you can find, and I'll endeavor to give it the widest possible circulation.
Tim Lambert - 12/30/2002
Mr Fought, you accused Kellermann of being "deeply involved in cooking data". It turned out you had not even looked at his study. You have not provided one scrap of evidence that Kellermann cooked any data. Instead of retracting your accusation and apologizing for your unfounded slur you point us to a criticism by Taylor Buckner, who does not suggest in any way shape or form that Kellermann cooked his data.
And, Prof Buckner's criticism is unfortunately rather ill-informed. He erroneously claims that Kellermann's case-control study design could not show a protective effect for guns when in fact it could. I suggest that critics at least skim an elementary epidemiology text to avoid making such errors in the future.
Bryan Haskins - 12/30/2002
You remain a man of remarkable consistency, Mr. Smith. There is no critic of Bellesiles or Arming America which you are willing to accept at face value. Indeed, every post you make on this site contains the same thread of thought in which you stereotype the critics of Belesiles or his work as falling into one of two categories: 1. The gun lobby and allies, those “monomaniacal gun huggers” who are prosecuting a personal vendetta against the good ex-professor, and 2. those timid non-gun lobby souls who’s bowels fill with ice water at the mention of Charlton Heston and through their own cowardice feel compelled to parrot his commands. Do you not see the trap your own argument sets for you? To repeat what I have said previously: Gloria Main, Randolph Roth, Ira Gruber, Emory University at large, the student editors of the Emory Wheel, the professional historians who were members of the Emory investigation panel, the investigative reporters at the Boston Globe, the employees of the Contra Costa History Center, and the individual members of the Bancroft prize committee (as well as many, many others) can all irrefutably claim no connection to either the “gun lobby” or myself. Therefore, you cannot possibly believe that they are acting out of bias or hatred against Arming America and its thesis. You are not satisfied, however, with their explanations, and you accuse them all of cowardice and lying about their motives. Surely such a broad salvo fired against these admittedly non-aligned critics has hit its mark? Please, Mr. Smith, show me some objective facts that support your fervent belief that these individuals and groups are all lying about their covert surrender to the gun lobby.
The Bancroft Committee’s about face raises a parallel issue that you have heretofore ignored and which I now (in vain, perhaps?) request that you address. Like many other organizations, this committee had been a supporter of Bellesiles and Arming America. What I would now like to hear is your explanation for what has happened to all of Bellesiles’ other supporters? The only ones who support him now appear to be Mr. Weiner and yourself. Yet the Brady Campaign and the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, to name two well-known examples, have each praised his work and have previously cited Arming America profusely in their arguments. Why have they blanched and fallen silent at a time when Bellesiles’ defense is so critically in need of assistance? Do you have an alternative theory which explains their ominous silence, or will you suggest that these organizations have also been cowered into silence by the “gun lobby?”
Please, Mr. Smith, answer my questions this time. I tire of distilling you complaints to their core issues only to have you abandon the ship, swim to some other shore, and launch a new attack which merely garnishes the same argument with an increase in rhetoric (I like “monomaniacal,” though, and I’ll have to store that one away for future use). You have previously demanded that we focus upon the thesis of Arming America. I have offered to do so with you on this very site, only to have you spurn my offer. You have suggested that this is not a good forum for you to express your views. I therefore took the unprecedented step of exposing my e-mail address as a gesture of my good faith request to take such a stimulating discussion private. You disappointed me by spurning this request as well. Now you have occasionally hit on the truth in your posts, Mr. Smith, but you cannot continue to ignore other truths espoused by Bellesiles’ many critics merely because they run counter to your position. Ignoring unhappy truths simply will not make them go away. I will be the first to tell you that reality does not bend to accommodate my desires, and I similarly doubt that it will do so for you. I am not a member of some “Gestapo” movement, and you cannot paint a brown shirt on me outside your own imagination. Have you ever heard me suggest that we burn Arming America? Have you ever heard me suggest that we should cover up its thesis because I do not want you or anyone else to know it for what it is? Your tarred brush paints a mighty wide swath, Mr. Smith, and I fear your inability to separate the wheat from the chaff when you launch into your sermons demonizing all of Bellesiles’ critics.
This leads me to my final point. (And, since you have consistently stereotyped myself and others as “gun huggers” and members of the “gun lobby,” I will now wallow in your own sin and stereotype you as one who believes that the Second Amendment does NOT grant an individual right to keep and bear arms. If I am incorrect in this assumption, then please correct me.) I remind you that the scope of our civil liberties is not measured by whether you personally believe they are being exercised for a good cause. Why must you continuously complain that the “gun lobby” has (in your view illegitimately) used the internet to make its views known to the various players in this drama? Is the consumption of our right to keep and bear arms not enough to slack your appetite? Must you gnaw upon our right of free speech as well? I believe I already know your response to these questions. You would say that you do not complain of the “gun lobby’s” exercise of free speech. Rather, you complain of its use as a method of intimidating others into agreeing with its views. If this would be your answer, then I respectfully ask that you produce the proof (rather than merely your own opinion) that the gun lobby has coerced the Brady Campaign, the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, Emory University, the individual members of the Emory investigative panel, The Boston Globe, the Contra Costa History Center, and others. I again await your response. . . .
Rick Schwartz - 12/30/2002
Just so I don't give short shrist to Mr. Benny let me add this to my other remarks...
"I would respond that these petitioners are asking for inclusion. "
No, they are not. They are asking for exclusion of all those who disagree with them. They are saying "If you want Augusta to remain "male only" then we are going to ~exclude~ you from the decision-making process. We are going to exclude, by force if necessary, your ability to golf with whom you choose." They are saying there is ~no~ room for male only clubs. That is not diversity-in-action, that is making Augusta part of one giant sound-alike, look-alike, and think-alike liberal vision for the world. All competing visions are ~excluded~.
Rick Schwartz - 12/30/2002
Just to clarify, that multiple post came from me. Who knows what happened to screw up my name with s subject.
Using logic to a gun-bigot equals "personal attack" - 12/30/2002
"Mr. Schwartz at least addresses the issues raised in an attempt to apologize for the actions of the gun lobby"
Who's posts you've been reading, son? If you can point to one word of "apology" in my post I'll send a hundred bucks off to you. Since you can't (and won't even attempt to answer) it's one more piece of evidence that you live in your own little fantasy world.
"He still repeats the unproven charges of fraud against Arming America "
Yeah... and the world is flat too. And NASA didn't really land on the moon. Maybe we should ask the notorious gun-lover Garry Willis why ~he~ chose to use the "f" word in describing his current views on AA.
"at least he does not deny the complicity of the gun lobby in this campaign of personal attack"
Typical liberal cant. Any disagreement with 'em is tantamount to a "personal attack." I think the problem is that their mommies never let them play with the neighborhood boys. That's where you learn basic rules of life such as being man enough to stand and take your deserved punishment for screwing up. Running to a momy figure when you're crossed is unseemly for an adult male.
"Let me use one of Mr. Schwartz’s allegories..."
Typical liberal response. ~Their~ motivations are pure as the driven snow, while people who take postions they don't like are obviously full of evil, and tools of the devil.
"threats and harassment that created the hostile environment that forced him to resign"
I missed something here. Did the review panel that Emory pulled together actually threaten and harass Bellesile? Why wasn't this in the news? Obviously the alledged T&H; didn't come ~before~ the panel was finished since Mike had no intentions of resigning at that point. It couldn't have come ~after~ since it was only minutes between the release of the report and his resignation. That only leaves the panel as the primary source of sufficient alledged T&H.;
"an NRA member here draws a parallel between his behavior and that of a rapist"
That's flat wrong and should not have been done. It's way to insulting to the rapist. At least a rapist eventually gets around to being upfront and honest about what he going to do to the victim. Mike is still pretending that he didn't do anything.
"I have been compared to one of Hitler’s inner circle "
Anyone who attempts the "big lie" technique draws inevitable comparisions to the Nazi proproganda machine sooner or later. It's part of the package.
"Mr. Schwartz seems to think that Arming America is a direct insult to the gun lobby. If so, cite the page or pages where this insult appears."
Perhaps Mr. Benny can explain away the cover blurb, "Michael A. Bellesiles is the NRA's worst nightmare."
"Is it hidden somewhere in the material on the probate records, since that’s what obsesses Mr. Schwartz’s fellow critics"
Further evidence (as if any is needed) that Mr. Benny has never actually ~read~ any of the numerous scholarly works concerning the errors of AA.
"hateful, hurtful campaign of personal attack "
You mean the people saying that Mike is a liar, a fraud, a cheat, and a lacky of the gun-bigot crowd, amoung other less kind phrases? You want the evidence that points this out? Okay... start on page 1 of AA and read to the end page. You'll find all the evidence you need between those two pages.
Your time is passing for Mr. Benny, like the dinosaurs. The public is tired of the act he and your associates have been pushing and some institutions are waking up to that fact. Truth is being called truth again, and liars are being labeled liars. I know that is upsetting to those who have an understanding that some "Greater Truth" can be served by a overwhelming dose of temporal lying, but they'll just have to get used to it.
Using logic to a gun-bigot equals "personal attack" - 12/30/2002
"Mr. Schwartz at least addresses the issues raised in an attempt to apologize for the actions of the gun lobby"
Who's posts you've been reading, son? If you can point to one word of "apology" in my post I'll send a hundred bucks off to you. Since you can't (and won't even attempt to answer) it's one more piece of evidence that you live in your own little fantasy world.
"He still repeats the unproven charges of fraud against Arming America "
Yeah... and the world is flat too. And NASA didn't really land on the moon. Maybe we should ask the notorious gun-lover Garry Willis why ~he~ chose to use the "f" word in describing his current views on AA.
"at least he does not deny the complicity of the gun lobby in this campaign of personal attack"
Typical liberal cant. Any disagreement with 'em is tantamount to a "personal attack." I think the problem is that their mommies never let them play with the neighborhood boys. That's where you learn basic rules of life such as being man enough to stand and take your deserved punishment for screwing up. Running to a momy figure when you're crossed is unseemly for an adult male.
"Let me use one of Mr. Schwartz’s allegories..."
Typical liberal response. ~Their~ motivations are pure as the driven snow, while people who take postions they don't like are obviously full of evil, and tools of the devil.
"threats and harassment that created the hostile environment that forced him to resign"
I missed something here. Did the review panel that Emory pulled together actually threaten and harass Bellesile? Why wasn't this in the news? Obviously the alledged T&H; didn't come ~before~ the panel was finished since Mike had no intentions of resigning at that point. It couldn't have come ~after~ since it was only minutes between the release of the report and his resignation. That only leaves the panel as the primary source of sufficient alledged T&H.;
"an NRA member here draws a parallel between his behavior and that of a rapist"
That's flat wrong and should not have been done. It's way to insulting to the rapist. At least a rapist eventually gets around to being upfront and honest about what he going to do to the victim. Mike is still pretending that he didn't do anything.
"I have been compared to one of Hitler’s inner circle "
Anyone who attempts the "big lie" technique draws inevitable comparisions to the Nazi proproganda machine sooner or later. It's part of the package.
"Mr. Schwartz seems to think that Arming America is a direct insult to the gun lobby. If so, cite the page or pages where this insult appears."
Perhaps Mr. Benny can explain away the cover blurb, "Michael A. Bellesiles is the NRA's worst nightmare."
"Is it hidden somewhere in the material on the probate records, since that’s what obsesses Mr. Schwartz’s fellow critics"
Further evidence (as if any is needed) that Mr. Benny has never actually ~read~ any of the numerous scholarly works concerning the errors of AA.
"hateful, hurtful campaign of personal attack "
You mean the people saying that Mike is a liar, a fraud, a cheat, and a lacky of the gun-bigot crowd, amoung other less kind phrases? You want the evidence that points this out? Okay... start on page 1 of AA and read to the end page. You'll find all the evidence you need between those two pages.
Your time is passing for Mr. Benny, like the dinosaurs. The public is tired of the act he and your associates have been pushing and some institutions are waking up to that fact. Truth is being called truth again, and liars are being labeled liars. I know that is upsetting to those who have an understanding that some "Greater Truth" can be served by a overwhelming dose of temporal lying, but they'll just have to get used to it.
Benny Smith - 12/30/2002
I appreciate the responsiveness and coherence in Mr. Schwartz’s post. Whereas other responders seemingly want to engage only in personal attack against Professor Bellesiles or myself, Mr. Schwartz at least addresses the issues raised in an attempt to apologize for the actions of the gun lobby. He still repeats the unproven charges of fraud against Arming America which characterizes the tactics of Bellesiles’s critics and he uses the phrase "simple minded questions" to describe my thread, but at least he does not deny the complicity of the gun lobby in this campaign of personal attack.
Let me use one of Mr. Schwartz’s allegories which illustrates my problems with his defense of gun rights groups. When he asks if I would object to petitioners lobbying for women to be admitted to the men-only Augusta national golf club, I would respond that these petitioners are asking for inclusion. That is quite different from members of the gun lobby who are seeking Bellesile’s EXCLUSION. Their attacks are directed personally against Bellesiles in order to restrict or deny completely his intellectual right, civil right if you will, to put his theses into print before the people.
You see that demonstrated in the threats and harassment that created the hostile environment that forced him to resign from Emory University. You can see that in the language used by his critics. For example, when an NRA member here draws a parallel between his behavior and that of a rapist. When oft-quoted critic Clayton Cramer draws a parallel between what happened to Bellesiles at Emory and the execution of a killer. For defending his right to academic freedom here, I have been compared to one of Hitler’s inner circle by one poster while another talks about my ‘personal destruction.’ Mr. Schwartz seems to think that Arming America is a direct insult to the gun lobby. If so, cite the page or pages where this insult appears. Is it hidden somewhere in the material on the probate records, since that’s what obsesses Mr. Schwartz’s fellow critics? Show me where and what this insult is that justifies the hateful, hurtful campaign of personal attack against Professor Bellesiles, his family and his supporters.
Richard Henry Morgan - 12/29/2002
I think you might be onto something there, Don. Any day now I expect Alan Sokol to announce that he is "Benny Smith". Maybe the experiment this time was to see if any on the postmodern left would bother to engage and refute Smith. You proved your point, Alan, so cut it out.
Don Williams - 12/29/2002
After all, Mr Smith's views appear to be:
a) that history is a work of fiction and one story is as good as another
b) that one can accept Arming America without bothering to look at what the original primary sources say
c) that one can dismiss criticisms of Arming America as "murky" without bothering to understand the criticisms or provide facts/logical arguments to explain why the criticisms are not valid
d)that one can choose to support Arming America and to denounce Arming America's critics with all the intellectual intensity that one gives to choosing which flavor of ice cream to buy at the supermarket
e) that the judgment of a moron is just as valid as that of a dutiful scholar
In reading Benny Smith, I thought I was on the verge of finally understanding postmodernism -- and why Bellesiles' work was so strongly and uncritically accepted by what are laughingly called gun control's intellectuals. The unwavering contempt for truth -- --the avoidance of logical argument and debate -- the idea that public discourse exists solely to promote a decided political policy --seems similar to that held by the Nazi propagandists and other supporters of authoritarianism.
Then I realized that Benny Smith is probably a NRA member in disguise --pulling our legs in a hilarious and wicked parody of the Ad Hoc Group of Historians.
Rick Schwartz - 12/29/2002
"Why are the murky charges that thrown at Arming America more damning than the 29 passages that the Los Angeles Times reported that Goodwin may have stolen from other authors for her Pulitzer prize winning work?"
Since we've already well established that Mr. Benny has not actually read any of the charges against A.A. we'll pass on the question of whether or not they are "murky."
Moving past that, AA was a specific, deliberate insult directed at a highly motivated group of people over a hotly debated political issue. Thoughtless little boys who poke sticks into bee hives sometimes get poked back. That's life.
And ask any district attorney which is a greater transgression, theft or fraud, and he'll explain that both can bring substantial punishment.
"The answer may be that Bellesile’s critics are without a doubt monomaniacal in their passionate quest for his literary scalp. Ever since NRA president Charlton Heston said that Bellesiles had too much time on his hands, he in essence put a bounty on Bellesile’s reputation that mobilized the gun lobby to action..."
What was the blurb on the dust cover? "The NRA's worst nightmare" or something along those lines. Mr. Benny's whining reminds me of the 90 lb weakling who kicks sand in the beach bodybuilder's face and then cries about how unfair it is after he gets his a$$ whipped big time. One of the first rules they used to teach boys was don't start fights you can't win. I guess that wisdom has escaped our younger generation.
"...a political witch hunt."
I don't recall any laws being passed on account of Bellesile's fraud... or censure from Congress or the office of the President. Perhaps Mr. Benny knows about some via the same secret sources that he consults to find all these ultra-hidden AA backers that he claims to represent.
"One gun lobby website listed the e-mail addresses for Columbia trustees and administration, urging gun enthusiasts to make their feelings known to the powers that would decide Bellesile’s fate."
I believe this is called the freedom to speak one's mind about an issue. It's also the freedom to petition. I find it mildly amusing that Mr. Benny has problems with these constitutional freedoms. Perhaps he can share with us how he also feels about the women who are petitioning the commercial sponsors and members of the Augusta golf club to persuade them to quit the club. Based upon his writings here I am sure he is against the campaign.
"Emory University was receiving multiple calls for Bellesile’s termination even before Emory had completed its own near-sighted investigation."
Horrors! People actually cared enough about an issue to make their feelings known. And for years we've been reading about the apathy of the American public. Last week I sent a letter to the Chicago Tribune stating my opinion that the Bears need to let their quarterback go... perhaps I should have waited until the season was over, eh? We can make that a new rule. All criticism must be held in abeyance until the season is complete.
"Most recently on another gun lobby website, someone boasted that pro-gun groups in New York were impelling libraries to take Arming America off its shelves."
Such an odd word -- impelling. Were they holding the head librarian hostage until their demands were met? Or perhaps threatening suicide bombings unless the book came off the shelf? Or were they exercising their first amendment right to politely ask the publicly tax-funded library to remove a book that now falls into the same general catagory as "The Protocals of Zion" and the Hitler diaries.
Speaking of Hitler, just recently a man was charged with 139 fraud counts for a scam to sell Hitler's personal gun for a couple of million dollars. He forged multiple phony documents and put together a very elaborate hoax. I guess that we should go ahead and let him sell it on ebay, since we don't want to censor him in any way.
"Knopf said the paperback version of Arming America will remain available to the public."
Good for them! Let the world know just where Knopf stands on integrity of their list. I and all the others here in flyover country can now assume that all their authorsbooks are infected at least at badly as AA.
"America has a right to read"
And I am sure that Mr. Benny feels exactly the same way about public libraries stocking "The Turner Diaries." While he's thinking that one through he can also dwell upon the reasons why the American Library Association has quietly encouraged their members to drop subscriptions to various consumer gun-oriented magazines. What does the anti-gun lobby not want them to know?
Remarc E. Notyalc - 12/29/2002
Benny --
Do your homework. Trustees of Columbia University control the awarding of the awarding of the Bancroft Prize. They do not control the awarding of the Pulitzer Prize.
Benny Smith - 12/29/2002
It appears that Columbia University, whose Columbia Journalism Review holds court over the nation’s press as the champion of journalistic ethics, has itself been less than ethical in its handling of literary prizes. On one hand, it hastily yanks Professor Bellesile’s Bancroft prize for "Arming America", yet it apparently is content to overlook charges of plagiarism that have been raised against Doris Kearns Goodwin’s No Ordinary Time, which won the Pulitzer prize in 1995. Why are the murky charges that thrown at Arming America more damning than the 29 passages that the Los Angeles Times reported that Goodwin may have stolen from other authors for her Pulitzer prize winning work? One literary observer said that there is no greater transgression in the publishing world than intellectual theft which he described as "intolerable and unforgiveable." Yet Columbia ignores one historian scholar’s alleged misdemeanors while summarily executing another historian scholar’s intellectual property. Why?
The answer may be that Bellesile’s critics are without a doubt monomaniacal in their passionate quest for his literary scalp. Ever since NRA president Charlton Heston said that Bellesiles had too much time on his hands, he in essence put a bounty on Bellesile’s reputation that mobilized the gun lobby to action and turned what should have been a scholarly debate over Arming America into a political witch hunt. Ms. Goodwin didn’t have such obsessive tormentors as those Professor Bellesiles has had to endure. Yet she also learned the ropes more quickly than Bellesiles as when she had her lawyer respond to the New York Times when it inquired about plagiarism charges with her prize-winning book this year. Bellesiles seems to have passed on using an attorney as a spokesperson even when it was obvious what the gun lobby was doing. The powerful political overtones should have been more than evident when Bellesile’s own senator, Zell Miller, paid homage to the NRA by lampooning Arming America at this year’s NRA convention.
One gun lobby website listed the e-mail addresses for Columbia trustees and administration, urging gun enthusiasts to make their feelings known to the powers that would decide Bellesile’s fate. Emory University was receiving multiple calls for Bellesile’s termination even before Emory had completed its own near-sighted investigation. A Columbia Spectator reporter commented that Columbia was most certainly listening to critics, although it never publicly said so-again this before Emory's investigation was complete. Most recently on another gun lobby website, someone boasted that pro-gun groups in New York were impelling libraries to take Arming America off its shelves. Although some may gasp as such gestapo-like tactics, there are many right wing zealots and gun huggers who are in sympathy. Thankfully, Bellesile’s publisher appears not to have the weak knees of the academicians. The efforts of book banners notwithstanding, Knopf said the paperback version of Arming America will remain available to the public. With all the controversy, America has a right to read what the gun lobby doesn’t want them to know.
James Lindgren - 12/27/2002
I sent a response to Mr. Williams offline.
James Lindgren
Professor of Law
Northwestern University
Right Wing Quantitative Analyist - 12/27/2002
Might. You would have to research each person. I documented regular firearms use by about 40 individuals over a period of years. Some died with guns in their hands (buggy went on train tracks in fog and you can guess the rest), etc. I have not checked all the probates yet (about half), but only one probate mentioned firearms.
The thing you historians gots to get in your headS is that quantitative is not always equal to reality, and that probates were not designed for the future use of historians. The latter is especially true in relation to firearms. First person observations, ie. travelogue, are much more valid.
I WOULD REALLY APPRECIATE IT IF SOMEONE NEAR DARKE COUNTY OHIO WOULD COUNT THE GUNS IN MRS. FRANK BUTLER'S ESTATE (PROBATE). FROM WHAT I HAVE READ, NONE WERE MENTIONED. THEREFORE, IF ONE BELIEVES PROBATE RECORDS OVER PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS, ANNIE OAKLEY HAD ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH FIREARMS (OR IF SHE HAD ONE IT WAS BROKEN, OR SHE COULDN'T HIT ... WITH IT).
Don Williams - 12/26/2002
In my December 18 posts to Ralph Luker below, I speculate re how Bellesiles could have gotten low
gun ownership rates if most of his probate samples were from 1776-1790s instead of 1745-1776 --
reasonable given population growth from 1745 to 1790. (As you and others have noted, Bellesiles
does not provide details on the design of his statistical sampling.)
My (unproven) hypothesis is that Bellesiles' probate study might have had an unwitting bias.
Briefly, a number of counties sampled by Bellesiles were in high
population coastal cities occupied by the British during the
Revolutionary War. Probate records AFTER the Revolution may have
shown low firearms ownership because private firearms in those
indefensible areas were probably either seized by the British or were moved out
of the area/impressed for the Continental Army to avoid seizure by the
British (as noted by Jefferson in his Notes on Virginia). In either
event, those coastal areas may have been "deserts" for private firearms
ownership for decades afterward (post-war depression,etc.) Inland
areas , by contrast, may have had a high percentage of firearms
ownership. However, the high-population of the coastal "desert" areas
could have exerted great weight on the overall regional percentage
figure.
Alice Hanson Jones' study , cited in your critique, would not have been affected by this bias
because she examined wealth in 1774.
Note that this bias would not necessarily have been the result of
conscious design by Bellesiles -- lacking proof, we are obliged to
assume that he was unaware of it. I myself wondered initially if he
might have "cooked the data" but I have since concluded that he probably
was unaware of the bias. The above explanation would have been a better
defense than whatever explanation he provided to the Emory Committee
--if he was aware of the effect he would probably have cited it to the
Committee.
Only further study of the probate records can show if I'm right or
wrong ---and I'm not a professional historian. Do you have any information
on whether my hypothesis might be plausible /worth further study??
More details are here:
http://chronicle.com/colloquy/2002/guns/158.htm
http://chronicle.com/colloquy/2002/guns/168.htm
Please note that my comment here is not intended to excuse the flaws in Bellesiles' scholarship
cited by your critique and the Emory University -- but, given that
Bellesiles cannot produce his research notes, it seems to me that we still do not really know
what private gun ownership rates were in the 1777-1790 period.
John G. Fought - 12/25/2002
Yes, I agree with you. In my paper on Guncite I suggested to Bellesiles that if he took a little drive away from the Emory campus he'd find plenty of causes of violence that had nothing to do with access to guns. And that paper you point to is excellent. I ran across it a while back and very much enjoyed reading it. I am very fond of the term 'gun-aversive dyslexia' too. There really is something to it, even if it can't be taken with full seriousness.
Dave LaCourse - 12/25/2002
Another key problem with the Kellermann Vancouver, BC and Seattle study is that the majority Caucasian population was actually slightly safer in bad-old Seattle with guns, while minorities were much safer in Vancouver, BC with more gun control. Even his own chart showed this, but he never discussed this development.
Sorry, but if guns were the real problem, ALL demographics should have suffered more in Seattle. Also, Vancouver has a much smaller minority population than Seattle, and the Blacks in Vancouver had a much better wage than those in Seattle.
So poverty and a variety of intricate socio-economic factors must be the cause of the violence, not guns themselves. Kellermann sought a simple solution to one of the most complex problems. Any surprise he was wrong?
A detailed breakdown is available here of several "studies"
http://www.guncite.com/journals/tennmed.html
John G. Fought - 12/25/2002
Mr. Lambert, I have read Kellerman et al. (1993) and I am not impressed. Here are some specific reasons why. Statistical analysis is the least of his problems. First, as has been pointed out elsewhere, the demographic variables in the control group were matched well, but the lifestyle variables were not. You can read this along with other related criticisms, by, for example, Buckner, a sociologist, whose summary review of the paper is at http://www.shadeslanding.com/firearms/kellerman-buckner.html Buckner writes that "In fact, Kellermann found that having a gun in the home ranked fifth out of six risk factors in the victims' lives. Using illicit drugs lead to a 5.7 times risk of being murdered, being a renter 4.4 times, having any household member hit or hurt in a fight 4.4 times, living alone 3.7 times, guns in the household 2.7 times, and a household member being arrested, 2.5 times." You may say that some of these crimes would not have taken place without there being a gun at hand, but you don't know this, and you don't know how many, if any, would have died in other ways. If you're a Kellerman fan, clearly you should be crusading against rental housing. Lots of homeowners will be out there with you on the picket lines.
Furthermore, and here I am relying on my own professional training in linguistics and methods for field studies of language and other manifestations of culture, you can't expect to find out important and potentially embarrassing or even actionable facts by simply asking questions of strangers and writing down their answers. They don't always tell the truth, not even for a $10 gratuity. Try talking about this issue with some of your local police. They'll be able to help you understand.
Finally, I continue to question the application of an epidemiological research model to this kind of research. Finding useful information on such issues is not so easy. Its use may seem justified because we are accustomed to hearing loose talk of epidemics, but bullets are not bacteria, and when medical tests are not available to separate true and false self reports, the method becomes merely a test of the reader's credulity. It's like an advertising focus group, or one of those quick and dirty opinion polls, in which the question "Do you still beat your wife?" would have been right at home.
So, this is the end of our dialogue, Mr. Lambert. I have reviewed your postings to HNN on gun related issues. I will try to spend my time more wisely in coming years. I am not interested in your opinions about this or any other issues, nor in your obiter dicta about others, nor even in your opinion of this decision or any posted or private reactions to it that you may have. They will not reach me. Good luck to you. Keep your powder dry.
Josh Greenland - 12/25/2002
I email the question to the editor of HNN and this is his reply:
Wills's book is not the December selection. It was a selection from a long time ago, before I learned that his book was based on Bellesiles's research (as noted in a History Grapevine edition a few months back).
I would not select the book today.
We've added a headline (that mysteriously had dropped off the page) indicating that only the first book listed is the December book of the month. The rest are PAST WINNERS.
Rick
Rick Shenkman
Editor
mailto:editor@historynewsnetwork.org
Josh Greenland - 12/24/2002
I'm wondering why Garry Wills' book A Necessary Evil: a History of American Distrust of Government is still listed as a Book of the Month on HNN? http://hnn.us/articles/407.html
If you burrow far enough down into the book's MORE link, you will see an excerpt from the book's first chapter http://www.simonsays.com/excerpt.cfm?isbn=0684870266
Wills attacks the performance of our Revolution War period militias in order to attack the modern U.S. militia movement. But the "facts" for this chapter seem to come from one place: Bellesiles' book Arming America.
I've read that A Necessary Evil relies heavily on Arming America for facts. Thus the facts in A Necessary Evil are substantially wrong. So should such a grossly untruthful book still be a History News Network Book of the Month pick?
Albert Pierce - 12/23/2002
Mr. Pierce, just what makes it safe to draw conclusions about alleged events?
--
Call it speculation. I am free to speculate. I am also free to be wrong.
--
Further, does everyone who holds an opinion belong to a corresponding "lobby", or only those who hold opinions you dislike?
I use the term "lobby" becuause most of the folks posting here seem to use it. Most folks who support an idea or policy do NOT consider themselves part of a lobby. I oppose many ideas without opposing the people who hold them. Being a "libertarian" of sorts (notice the small "L"), this is necessary. Otherwise I would have few friends with whom to discuss things -- except my friends in the "gun lobby," of course.
____
Do you feel that Bellesiles, who was actually paid both before and after the fact for what he wrote, was not politically motivated?
I have never met ANYONE who is not "politically motivated." It is pretty obvious that Mr. Bellesiles is highly motivated, politically, and that he doesn't approve of private firearms ownership. Most good academics (I believe) try to isolate their work, especially their published work, from their personal political beliefs. Whether this is a desirable goal, much less attainable, is another question.
-----
And finally, what is your motivation?
Please be more specific; my motivation for what?
Thanks for your response.
John G. Fought - 12/23/2002
Mr. Pierce, just what makes it safe to draw conclusions about alleged events? Are the conclusions to be drawn the same whether the events took place or not? Further, does everyone who holds an opinion belong to a corresponding "lobby", or only those who hold opinions you dislike? Just how does that work? Do I have some compensation owed me? Do you feel that Bellesiles, who was actually paid both before and after the fact for what he wrote, was not politically motivated? And finally, what is your motivation?
Albert Pierce - 12/23/2002
Good morning:
There WERE personal attacks on Mr. Bellesiles. And, I think it is safe to say that most of these personal attacks, including alleged threats against his safetey, were from the radical fringe of the gun-lobby. But if you are saying that what happened at Columbia is a RESULT of these attacks, I fail to understand your reasoning. Unless you mean that Columbia University is so gutless as to "give in" to a such silly meanderings. Even I have more faith in them that that.
The reason the "gun lobby" websites urged readers to condemn Bellesiles' work is that they are POLITICALLY motivated. That is WHY they exist. Jeesh.
As far as "attacking" the messenger, you are partially correct. It would seem that nearly every academic of every political stripe, who has looked carefully at Arming America, has concluded that, in this case, the messenger personally, and carefully "crafted" the message. The messenger IS the message.
Albert Pierce
Tim Lambert - 12/22/2002
Mr Fought:
Of course duplicating an error in a citation is strong evidence that the citation was copied. I don't dispute that and never have. My point, which you still don't seem to have grasped, is that just because someone copied a citation, it doesn't mean that didn't read the original article. Simkin and Roychowdhury offer some arguments to that effect, but those arguments are erroneous, as I have already explained and you seem unable to dispute.
The important number is "what percentage of people who copied a cite did not read the article?" S&R; believe that this percentage is close to 100 but have no evidence in support of this proposition.
By the way, Mr Fought, you accused Kellermann of cooking data, without any evidence at all, and without reading his paper. Have you got around to reading it? Will you retract your claim and apologize?
Georgi Porgi - 12/21/2002
What a joke. Only a bunch of dishonest libs would agonize over whether or not to continue publishing a book of proven lies. They should ask themselves: Would there even be a question about what we should do if we had been suckered into cheering a holocaust denial book? Of course not.
Dishonest is dishonest. No honest person, no honest publisher, no honest political movement would ever in a million years have anything whatsoever to do with Bellesiles's flimflam. But liberals would.
Josh Greenland - 12/21/2002
I'm not an academic, so I'd like to ask those of you who are if continuing to publish Arming America could significantly harm Knopf's reputation among historians, and if so, could that be a problem for Knopf?
John G. Fought - 12/20/2002
You may have read the paper, and you may even have understood it, though you give us no reason to think so. Their argument is not as you characterize it in the first sentence. Instead, they argue that copying a citation WITH EXACTLY THE SAME ERROR that appears in other bibliographies where it is cited is plausible evidence that it was copied from the secondary source rather than as a primary source. This in turn suggests that it may not have been read by those who so cite it. Their argument gains plausibility from the impressively long chains of identical errors they mention. Like everyone else, I am aware that statistical arguments hinge on matters of probability, not of deductive proof. That is their virtue, of course. Feel free to ignore them if you like, as I will ignore you.
Bryan Haskins - 12/20/2002
Yes, I am back, and in that sense you are a true prophet Mr. Smith. However, as long as you continue to provide me with such marvelous springboards then predicting that I will reply will remain as easy as predicting that the sun will rise tomorrow. I am pleased that you caught on to my allusion to “Star Wars.” Allusion is an effective tool of persuasion (particularly when couched in humor), and I am encouraged to find that you have finally recognized my use of it and are now attempting to use it yourself.
Let me turn now to the subject of your latest complaint. We are in an “open court” right now, Mr. Smith. It is the court of public opinion. Our jury has been sworn and they are no doubt reading these posts. I have already offered into evidence some examples of Bellesiles’ “lies.” Have you already forgotten my December 3 reply on your “Intellectual lynch mob mentality” thread?
“When he got caught lying about the San Francisco records, he could not resist taking a parting shot at the Contra Costa History Center. That organization then posted their response proving his lies about his claimed research with that facility. The e-mail controversy with Mr. Lindgren is yet another example. Mr. Lindgren claimed to possess an e-mail from Professor Bellesiles which contradicted his then current assertions regarding a portion of his research. Bellesiles promptly claimed that the e-mail was a forgery. Many people may have originally bitten on Bellesiles’ forgery claim because they believed that Mr. Lindgren had a personal motive to attack Professor Bellesiles. However, Lindgren was able in response to cite the reader to an earlier, recorded radio interview in which Bellesiles admitted sending the e-mail he subsequently claimed was forged.”
How would you characterize the above-referenced conduct of Professor Bellesiles in defense of his work? Would you soften the blow with politically correct phrases like: “he didn’t tell the entire truth,” or “mistakes were made,” or “his version went ‘walkabout’ from the truth,” or “his version did move into the realm of falsification?” I prefer the simple, direct, and, more importantly, accurate description of “he lied.”
Yes, Mr. Smith, you are correct when you complain that I have previously said Bellesiles lied in defense of his work. You may also cling to your mistaken belief that my use of the dreaded “L” word is a slanderous attack on Bellesiles. Yet the truth is an absolute defense to a slander allegation, and I am certain you remember that your immediate response to this evidence was the mere suggestion that our jury might “be entertained by the academic soap opera of who said what to whom, when, where and why. But none of that proves anything.” No where in your response did I find any challenge to either the factual accuracy of my proffered evidence or my characterization of it. Now as self-appointed defense counsel for Professor Bellesiles, you may not be familiar with the contemporaneous objection rule, which requires you to object immediately to the introduction of inadmissible or falsified evidence. Your failure to make a timely objection then should act to prohibit your raising the issue now. However, it appears that your ignorance of this procedural requirement led you to believe that you were not required to immediately dispute the factual accuracy of my two examples of Bellesiles’ lies. Additionally, I do not wish to give Professor Bellesiles a reason to file a writ of habeas corpus against you on the grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel. Therefore, I agree to waive the rule and allow you to now present your reasons, facts, and/or arguments for why my two examples showing professor Bellesiles lied in his defense are indeed false. I await your answer on this point. . . .
“Ok, Ok, so maybe he did tell a few fibs” could be your response. I doubt your client would allow you to make such an admission before this court, but it does track well with your actual attempt to summarize the matter: “Yet, even after all his "lies" this and "lies" that, the most the jury will say is that Bellesiles on one table in a 600-page book "entered the realm of falsification." Was it not you, Mr. Smith, who had so recently railed against Emory “telescoping” (I believe that was your word) the focus of its inquest onto that very narrow portion of Arming America? Am I to understand that you are now attempting to conceal the “narrow focus” of the Emory investigation because you wish the jury to incorrectly conclude that the report exonerated the remainder of Arming America? Please slow down, Mr. Smith. I am no mental gymnast, and I am not capable of following such sudden back flips in logic.
Your summary is also a bit premature, I fear, for I have not yet rested my case. Additionally, I am not aware that there has been a suppression hearing in which you convinced our judge to prohibit my introduction of any evidence besides the Emory report. Have you not been exposed to the myriad other problems that have been found with Arming America which fall outside the scope of the Emory report? I hope that at the very least you have read the articles published by three distinguished scholars in the January 2002 issue of the William & Mary Quarterly. How do you explain away their expert testimony before our jury?
All lawyers are taught to develop a strong opening theme which will simplify your position for the jury as the case progresses. Your theme has been to attack each and every person who criticizes Bellesiles or Arming America by accusing them of acting either out of blind hatred or in mortal fear of those who do harbor such hatred. Yet here is the box that your argument has put you into: Gloria Main, Randolph Roth, Ira Gruber, Emory University at large, the student editors of the Emory Wheel, the professional historians who were members of the Emory investigation panel, the investigative reporters at the Boston Globe, the employees of the Contra Costa History Center, and the individual members of the Bancroft prize committee (as well as many, many others) can all irrefutably claim no connection to either the “gun lobby” or myself. Therefore, you cannot possibly believe that they are acting out of bias or hatred against Arming America and its thesis. Additionally, they cannot all be laboring under the influence of my Jedi Mind Trick, for I fear that the Force does not run so strong in my family. That leaves you with the argument that they are ALL LYING to our jury when they say that their rejection of Bellesiles and/or Arming America is NOT the product of any fear of the “gun lobby.” For weeks you have taken this very horse out for a trial canter before our jury. I had hoped that by now you would have realized this horse simply will not run no matter how often you apply the spur or the whip, for you argue against the irresolute willpower that embodies the human spirit. I believe that our jury will place more faith in the ability of those I have mentioned to resist the pressure of the “gun lobby,” and (with a final voice-over from James Earl Jones) “I find your lack of faith disturbing, General Smith.”
Tim Lambert - 12/20/2002
Mr Fought, I have correctly described their argument. If you read their paper (available from http://www.arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0212043 ) you will find that it does depend on the assumption that copying a citation means that always or almost always that the paper was not read.
Their first argument is that if you have read the paper you are citing it is just as easy to copy the cite from there as to copy from another source. Even if this was true (and it isn't as we will see in a moment) this implies that someone is just as likely to copy the citation from the original paper as from a secondary source, meaning that half of citations are copied even when the paper has been read.
Now, the paper that they examined the citing stats for was a chosen because it was cited frequently. This means that a researcher is likely to have multiple secondary sources for the cite but only one primary source, suggesting that cites are much more likely to be copied from secondary sources, even when the paper has been read.
They also argue that if an erroneous cite is used to look up the paper then the error will be detected with high probability. However, cites contain redundant information. You only need the volume or the year to find the right volume to pull off the shelf , so an error in the one you do not use will not be noticed.
Simkin and Roychowdhury make another error when they assume that cite copying will just as common among those who correctly cite the article (95% of authors) as those who incorrectly cite. This assumption is completely unwarranted, since cite copying is more likely to lead to errors in the cite.
I should also take note of your attempt to shift the burden of proof. I'm not asserting that scientists always read the papers they cite, so I don't have to prove that. Simkin and Roychowdhury are claiming that 80% don't read them. They are the ones with the burden of proving their claims. Which they haven't done.
And yes, unlike you, I do read the papers I cite.
James Lindgren - 12/20/2002
I very much appreciated the Report by the committee of outside experts for Emory University, who did a mostly excellent job in sifting through evidence in an extraordinarily difficult situation. In general, the Committee are to be commended for their care and fairness. The Report, however, made a few minor errors. I would like to point out one set of them implicated recently by a comment on this thread about my discussion of Robert Churchill’s work on the state of arms of the 1746 Connecticut militia.
A. THE EMORY REPORT DISCUSSES THE 1746 CT MILITIA
Pages 14-15 of the Emory Report point in part to a discussion of historian Robert Churchill’s findings about the state of arms for the 1746 Connecticut militia, which are described on pages 2205-2206 of my Yale Law Journal review of Arming America. I reported on what Robert Churchill had told me about the records and what he had written in the September 2001 Reviews in American History.
I reported what I understood to be Churchill’s four conclusions:
1. Arming America falsely reported the CT militia as being 43% armed.
2. The records actually showed it to be 82% armed.
3. Arming America reported the state of arms of the worst-armed unit as the state of arms for the entire militia.
4. Arming America flipped the number of that worst armed unit from 57% armed to 57% unarmed.
My Yale review presented the last two points as somewhat speculative after saying “It is hard to know exactly what Bellesiles did, but he may just have [done 3 & 4 above] . . . .”
The Emory Report confirmed the first three of these four claims I reported, though whether the second claim is 81% or 82% depends on how one counts. But about the fourth claim, the report said, at p. 14-15:
[BEGIN QUOTE]
"In Arming America, he [Bellesiles] wrote that in preparation for an assault on Canada, "Connecticut finally raised its six hundred troops, 57 percent of whom did not have guns." [Arming America, p. 141] Our assistant confirmed the problems other scholars had originally noted. The primary sources Bellesiles cites confirm that in extant reports from company captains 368 of 456 men (80.7%) were armed. Our hunch is that Bellesiles skimmed the surface of these sources, relying instead on a passage from Harold Selesky, War and Society in Colonial Connecticut, "The volunteers in 1746 were not vagrants, although a few were `very poor,' and many enlisted without a blanket or a gun. In some companies as many as fifty-seven of the hundred men lacked a firearm." [New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1990, 91.] Significantly, Selesky's "some companies" became for Bellesiles the whole. Selesky's own source is letter from Josiah Starr to Jonathan Law, August 6, 1746, which reported that he had a "full Compliment of Men Inlisted: all Clothed, & all of yt Company, Except fifty Seven provided, with a good Gun and are all Ready to move on first Notice." (Appendix B: 2. Militia Returns) Curiously, James Lindgren, too, seems to have misread Starr's letter. In his Yale Law Review article he claimed that Bellesiles had reversed the numbers, reporting 57% armed as 57% unarmed. In this case, Bellesiles' number was right."
[END QUOTE]
The Emory Report also includes a longer discussion in its attached memo from its research assistant (pp. 33-34):
[BEGIN QUOTE]
"Bellesiles claims that, when Connecticut attempted to build up its militia in preparation for an invasion of Canada, the colony managed with no small difficulty to raise 600 troops "57 percent of whom did not have guns (Arming America, 141)." James Lindgren, following the lead of Robert Churchill, has countered that the Connecticut militia was 81.7% armed, that Bellesiles considered only the least well-armed company out of five who made a return, and that he misread the one source he did use. According to Lindgren, 57% of the least well-armed militia company had guns; 43% were unarmed.
"The second part of Lindgren's contention is inaccurate. The inadequately armed company was under the command of Capt. Josiah Starr. In his 6 August 1746 letter to Gov. Jonathan Law, Starr wrote "I have Called my Company together & find I have my full Compliment of Men Inlisted: all Clothes; & all of ye Company, Except fifty Seven, provided with a Good Gun... (Connecticut Historical Society Collections, vol. 13, 276) "Since the six hundred men Connecticut was trying to raise were divided into six companies, it seems safe to assume that Starr's "full Compliment" consisted of one hundred men (Public Records of Connecticut, vol. 9, 211-14). If all "Except fifty Seven" were armed, then 57% were, indeed, unarmed.
"Lindgren is correct, however, in his assertion that Capt. Starr's company was exceptional. The Collections of the Connecticut Historical Society include four full and one partial return in the form of letters. Capt. James Church informed the governor that he had one hundred men, "But as to our Equipment we are not Compleet we want about twenty fire arms." Capt. Elisha Williams described his company as "compleat, well Cloathed, and furnished with Guns." Capt. Elisha Hall wrote "four men are not Cloathed & the rest will be ready to Embarque according to Order & Equipt as to Arms & Cloathing." Hall does not specify that his company was "complete," but neither does he mention any deficiencies in terms of the number of his men. Capt. Samuel Talcott's return was incomplete. He had enlisted 31 men, but "they want five guns and 3 Blankits have but two of them Hangers otherwise Expect they will be acquiped." Presumably by "hangers," Talcott meant that two of his men wavered in their commitment to enlist (OED, "hanger"). Talcott's First Lieutenant, William Smithson, also made a return which listed nineteen armed and six unarmed men (Connecticut Historical Society Collections, vol. 13, 269-76) .
…[research assistant computes by one method that (80.7%) were armed]
"If we assume, as Lindgren apparently did, that Talcott's two "hangers" decided to opt out of military service and his five men lacking guns were "acquiped" before the expedition left for Canada, then 81.7% of the militia was armed with 454 men were carrying 371 guns."
"Bellesiles's mistake might be understandable if he relied solely on Selesky's War and Society in Colonial Connecticut which he cites in his footnote along with selections from Records of Colonial Connecticut and Collections of the Connecticut Historical Society. Selesky states: "In some companies as many as fifty-seven of the hundred men lacked a firearm (Selesky, 91)." This is, of course, quite true albeit a little misleading. Bellesiles's statement that 57% of the Connecticut militia as whole was unarmed is, however, wrong."
[END QUOTE]
B. MINOR ERRORS IN THE EMORY REPORT
There are a number of minor errors in this part of the Emory Report.
1. The report says: “Curiously, James Lindgren, too, seems to have misread Starr's letter.” (p. 15)
The research assistant’s memo says: “Lindgren is correct, however, in his assertion that Capt. Starr's company was exceptional.” (p. 33)
Yet I never read, nor misread, nor cited, nor miscited Starr’s letter--nor did I ever mention Capt. Starr or his letter. In my Yale review, I was reporting on what Robert Churchill wrote and what I understood him to say to me. I cite Churchill as the authority in this section of the Yale review and cite no other primary or secondary evidence for my contentions, never mentioning Capt. Starr.
2. The assistant’s memo says, “Presumably by ‘hangers,’ Talcott meant that two of his men wavered in their commitment to enlist . . . . If we assume, as Lindgren apparently did, that Talcott's two "hangers" decided to opt out of military service . . . .”
There are two errors in this claim in the Emory Report. First, I did not read the word “hangers” in the CT records, because I did not read the original CT records, nor did I cite them or mention “hangers.” I explicitly relied on my reading and understanding of Churchill’s claims, whom I cited as my only source.
Second, a “hanger” is a sword, not a person—as some of the committee members may have known but missed in their review of their research assistant’s memo. The assistant cites the OED, but somehow misses the proper definition; a “hanger” is “A kind of short sword . . . .” This is not a recent discovery on my part; hangers were counted as bladed weapons in probate counts in my William & Mary Law Review article.
3. Robert Churchill informs me by email (no, I haven’t checked) that the research assistant’s assumption that Hall’s company was full is slightly in error. According to Churchill, the unit that the research assistant assumes had 100 men actually had 98 men in the detailed records he examined.
4. The research assistant’s memo (and to a lesser extent the Report itself) speculate that Bellesiles may have just used Selesky as his only source and then misread him, even though they note that Bellesiles cites the original records as well. But on another page of Arming America (AA, p. 101), Bellesiles describes the range of the state of arms for individual units in New England in 1746, saying that the highest level of arms were from Hartford and Providence, yet even these two well armed “towns reported those entirely unarmed numbering between 16 percent and 54 percent” (AA, p. 101). It is clear from this passage that Bellesiles looked (or claimed to have looked) at the reports for individual units of CT militia to determine which units had the highest counts, so the Emory Report’s speculation appears to be false on how Bellesiles could have made the error that Churchill identified, I described, and the Emory Report confirmed. Precisely how Bellesiles happened to make the error that we all agreed happened is something that my Yale review got half wrong, but the Emory Report’s possible explanation turns out to be very probably wrong as well, since Bellesiles claimed on p. 101 to have looked at the state of arms in individual CT units.
5. On this next point I am quibbling about misleading language rather than pointing out an actual error on the part of the authors of the Emory Report. The authors of the Emory Report are not confused on this point, but their chosen language would confuse most readers. Referring to fact that 57% were unarmed in the worst armed unit, the report stated, “In this case, Bellesiles' number was right.”
As the Emory Report makes clear, however, this number is not the right number for the state of arms of the Connecticut militia, which is what Bellesiles said the 57% applied to. It is the right number for the state of the worst armed unit, which is something Arming America offered no numbers for. So Bellesiles's number is not right as applied to what he applied it to (as the Emory Report makes clearer in other passages quoted above).
By analogy, if I were to say falsely that 79% of the probate inventories contained guns, when it turned out that 79% of the probate inventories contained clothes and only 54% had guns, I couldn’t defend by saying that the 79% “number was right.” Yet this is what the Emory Report does by saying that Bellesiles’s number is right, when it is not right for what Bellesiles applied it to—the state of arms for the entire CT militia. In short, the Emory Report said that Bellesiles incorrectly claimed that the 1746 CT militia was 57% unarmed, when Bellesiles should have said that it was 81-82% armed, but the 57% number would have been “right” if he had applied it to the worst armed unit--but his book didn’t apply it to just that one unit.
C. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
1. The Emory Report confirmed 3 of the 4 claims that I made about Churchill’s research on the 1746 CT militia. Arming America falsely reported the CT militia as being 43% armed, when it was 81-82% armed. The Emory Report rejected as erroneous part of the speculative explanation that I offered for this state of affairs. The Emory Report confirmed my and Churchill’s speculation that Bellesiles had used the state of arms of the worst armed unit as the count for the entire CT militia, but corrected the false statement in my Yale review that Bellesiles had flipped the state of arms in one unit from 57% armed to 57% unarmed.
2. In rejecting part of my story (which was based on my understanding of Churchill’s research) of how Bellesiles probably came to commit the error that we all agree he made, the Emory Report offered their own speculative explanation, which also turns out to be very probably wrong.
3. The Emory Report makes several small errors in describing the 1746 CT militia. It considers a “hanger” a person, when a hanger was a “sword,” an error that slightly affects their count of the state of arms. They assume that a unit has its full complement of 100 men, when Churchill reports that the background records show that the unit had only 98 men, another apparent mistake that slightly affects their count.
Most significantly for me, the Report claims that I misread documents that I never read, mentioned, cited, or claimed to have read, even attributing to me the research assistant’s own ignorance about the meaning of the word “hanger.” If I had counted the original 1746 CT records, I would have cited them, rather than citing just Churchill.
4. How did the error about the supposed flipping of the number from 57% armed to 57% unarmed arise? I got the incorrect idea that Bellesiles had flipped the number from my discussions with Churchill when we tried to figure out how Bellesiles had made the error that Churchill found, I reported, and the Emory Report confirmed. Either Churchill misspoke or (perhaps more likely) I misunderstood the details of his evidence. I then sent Churchill my draft review and specifically asked him to check the portions where I explicitly relied on him and cited him. For whatever reasons, Churchill did not see the error in the part of my manuscript where I described his research.
5. A Correction. On the last page of Justin Heather and my William & Mary Law Review article, we wrote: “Everybody makes mistakes (certainly we do).” When I read the Emory Report on its release at the end of October, I immediately contacted Robert Churchill to try to determine what happened. After a few days in which we discussed the matter and he reviewed the records, I immediately posted a very brief errata attached to the end of the copy of my Yale review article on my Northwestern website. I also sent the same copy to Glenn Reynolds, which he posted on his site. I also checked the link on HNN to the pdf version of my article and it pointed to my website version (with the errata).
When Churchill recounted his data in October, he changed his total from 82% to 81%, so I made that (unnecessary) change as well. To correct my Yale article, other than switching “57%” to “43%,” all I needed to delete is parts of two sentences. No other rewriting was necessary, since the point of that section of the review was that Bellesiles had reported substantially false data on the state of 1746 militia in CT, which the Emory Report confirmed. Here is my Oct. 29, 2002 Errata:
ERRATA: page 2206:
Line 5: Change “57%” to “43%”.
Line 7: Replace “,” with “.” and delete the rest of the sentence.
Lines 9-10: Omit “and flipping the results from armed to unarmed”.
Line 11: Change “2” to “1”.
6. What this Means. Given the secrecy in which the Emory Committee worked and the shortness of time, it is not surprising that they would make some small, innocent errors, most of which would have been caught in a more open scholarly process. Neither is it surprising that some of Arming America’s critics would make an occasional error—though it is instructive that even while pointing out this particular error involving the 1746 CT counts, the expert Emory Committee themselves actually made several more errors than the one they pointed out. I have to admit that I was a bit taken aback to read the Emory Report’s claims that I had misread specific documents that I never read, mentioned, or cited. But I just attributed these and other relatively minor Committee errors to their isolation, the time pressures they were under, and their prior unfamiliarity with the details of Arming America.
James Lindgren
Professor of Law
Northwestern University
Copyright by James Lindgren, 2002.
Not for republication except by permission.
Quotations from the Emory Report are as presented in Google’s HTML version.
Rick Schwartz - 12/20/2002
So, Mr. Smith, you have ~nothing~ to back up your posts except, as I surmised, even more attacks against evil right-wing gunlovers. That's so pathetic a response that even used-car salesmen would be embarrassed over the lack of integrity you've shown us.
Don Williams - 12/19/2002
I provided an answer to your Dec 14 question in the list below.
Basil Duke - 12/19/2002
It is simply a waste of time to continue this line of conversation with Benny Smith. He brings nothing to the forum but a leftist's typical contempt for American gun owners (Benny's motto: gunowners exist, therefore all charges leveled against Bellesiles must not be believed), and a remarkable inability to admit the obvious: Bellesiles is either an ideologically driven fraud and serial liar or an extremely poor example of a professional historian.
Grant Fritchey - 12/19/2002
Why I'm bothering, I don't know...
The Boston Globe article also pointed out where Bellesiles descriptions of the guns in question differed from the actual record. What the Globe article found, and you pointed out, was that Bellesiles research was, at best, sloppy and did, in fact, move into the realm that could be interpreted as fraudulent.
Thanks for critizing my sentence structure. Attacking my grammer is going to be much easier than finding facts to support your arguments. However, you are correct. I forgot about that part of the report. Prof. Lindgren did make a mistake. That's one. I stand duly chastized on both my poor use of the English language and the point I was trying to raise.
Then, of course, you go on to tie my statements in with the "innuendo" and "false charges" of the "gun lobby." Funny, I thought I was a DBA, not a lobbyist. Further, you're resorting to the problems you've demonstrated on most of your posts. Attacking the messengers (poor ones like myself, or talented ones like Prof. Lindgren) is not defending the facts in Prof. Bellesiles books. You still defend the man and his thesis. You still attack the crits. You're still not defending the essential facts of the thesis.
Benny Smith - 12/19/2002
Scholarship takes time, Mr. Schwartz. One of the most unfortunate consequences of this whole said affair is that it has reduced the historical discipline to the same level as those nightly ‘talking heads’ news shows where serious debate is replaced by sound bites and personal attack. ‘Internet scholars’ recite their own research as if it were gospel. Politics replaces reason.
Professional historians are not as stupid as some of your comrades would have us believe. They are not going to stick their necks out to try to reason with a horde of ideologues, most admittedly biased, particularly after they see the treatment that Professor Bellesiles has received. Bellesile’s critics have the most powerful lobby in America on their side. They also have in Professor Lindgren an advocate who has practically thrown himself at reporters to get his voice into print. They have one historian in tow who goes so far as to seriously suggest censorship and book banning. The message to historians is clear. Side with Bellesiles and be subjected to an unprecedented attack so sustained and shrill that even supposedly independent academic institutions will not support you.
Benny Smith - 12/19/2002
Mr. Fritchey demonstrates the problems of trying to conduct a serious debate about Arming America. Innuendo, accusations, and lies are passed on by Professor Bellesile’s critics as if they were true. Mr. Fritchey says, "All of the published work I've seen so far shows that Bellesiles' "errors" were in favor of his thesis. Every time." Mr. Fritchey surprisingly neglected to read Bellesile’s "Disarming the Critics." In it, he pointed out that a Boston Globe’s correspondent’s account of Bellesile’s mistakes in counting guns in more than one case found that Bellesile’s had counted guns where there were none, in fact. Those errors were not in line with his thesis.
Also, Mr. Fritchey asked, awkwardly, "Please, show one fact that was pointed out as false by any of Bellesiles critics was actually true." Again, if you had bothered to do your own fact checking, you would have discovered in Emory’s ad hoc panel’s report, page 15 on my summary, "In his Yale Law Review article he (Professor Lindgren) claimed that Bellesiles had reversed the numbers (regarding armed versus unarmed militia). In this case, Bellesile’s number was right." This is a surprising admission from the committee, given the overall adversarial tone of its report. Was that mistake by Lindgren a lie? Sloppy scholarship, perhaps? Given the countless number of hours that Professor Lindgren has devoted to his attack scholarship (does he work at Northwestern anymore?), I am surprised that he would be that careless if it were not deliberate.
So you can quickly see the monumental obstacles anyone would have in trying to conduct a serious scholarly debate with so much misinformation, innuendo, false charges, and ignorance shown here. It may serve the purposes of the gun lobby since they have strength in numbers, but it doesn’t serve the cause of truth or justice, both of which already have been sacrificed.
Don Williams - 12/19/2002
I forgot to note that Alice Hanson Jones' study would not show the bias I mentioned above because it was done for wealth in 1774, i.e., before the Revolutionary War.
Frank A. Baldridge - 12/18/2002
Very well said Mr. Cramer, and THANKS FOR EVERYTHING!!!!
I gotta go check out John's hummingbirds. Love Selasphorus. I am working on a new book. The thesis is that there were no hummingbirds in colonial American, at least none with long bills. And most of the short bills were broken. I know cause I checked some probates and read a traveloge. More later. Regards.
Frank A. Baldridge - 12/18/2002
Well said Charles!
Don Williams - 12/18/2002
Sorry for the delay -- it was not my intent to put you off needlessly, but I was waiting for something. Given my promise to you, I have decided to go ahead with the discussion.
In my August 25 post below ("I think you are all wrong"), I said
"My guess, and it is just a guess, is that Emory received information on 22 August which was not addressed by their panel and the information pointed out something that the panel had not realized. Hence, the need for further study. My guess is that the new info to Robert Paul came from a surprising and most unlikely source. (not me, by the way) 21 4930
In my opinion, if Emory is focusing solely on narrow specific charges, then Emory may reach a Scotch verdict "not proven"
because of an inability to prove something was not a stupid mistake. If Emory's investigation is more broad , then Bellesiles, in my opinion, will have difficult problems with criticisms not mentioned in the media yet "
The number above --which intrigued Mr Gunn -- is the timestamp for a comment I made in the Chronicle of Higher Education here:
http://chronicle.com/colloquy/2002/guns/158.htm
Followup comment here --note third to last comment:
http://chronicle.com/colloquy/2002/guns/168.htm
The forum itself is here: http://chronicle.com/colloquy/2002/guns/re.htm
Bryan Haskins - 12/18/2002
I love reading your posts, Mr. Smith! “[I]t’s really about attacking the messenger instead of the message.” What a wonderful quote! With one devastating sentence you summarize everything you have posted on this site. For example, when you could find no way to attack the substance of my message you chose to begin several reply posts with an oblique personal attack upon me by calling my work habits into question. Yet this is hardly the only example of your ability to “attack the messenger.” Why, in just the last month or so you have posted the following about those who have dared to voice a critical view of Bellesiles’ Arming America:
11/17/02—“Bellesile's critics continue to allow their prejudices to interfere.”
11/17/02—(separate posting from the one above) “Few of Bellesile's critics posting on internet message boards have claimed to have read Bellesiles' book and even a smaller franction of them claim any scholarly expertise in the requisite disciplines.”
11/19/02—“[T]he gun lobby and its allies want to stay focused on intellectual character assassination and the still unproven charges of fraud and fabrication, rather than discuss the overall theses of the book. Kill the messenger and the message will die as well. That appears to be their agenda.”
You know I offered you just such a chance to “discuss the overall thesis of the book” without “killing the messenger.” I even offered to take it private if you feared doing it here. Your disappointing response was to blanch, fall silent, and leave me in possession of the field, only to later reappear elsewhere with the same “attack the messenger” theme. Your theme continues:
11/26/02—“[T]he gun lobby continues to fan anti-Bellisiles hysteria.”
11/27/02—(In a direct reply to a post from Mr. Swanson) “If you had done any independent research instead of responding so quickly with typical gun lobby boilerplate…”
11/27/02—(separate posting from the one above) “[E]xtremists who vent nothing but personal attack based upon ideological bias.”
12/3/02—“[T]he sideshow being produced by the gun lobby, right wing dogmatizers and a scant few others who, for whatever reason, are carrying out their own personal vendettas.”
12/16/02—“[A] welcome illustration of what the gun lobby is trying to accomplish in their personal attacks on Professor Bellesiles. Although they may claim to want to focus on issues, this is merely a smokescreen. Whether it’s the destruction of Bellesiles and his family, or the destruction of other people who don’t agree with them....”
I must admit that I am impressed, Mr. Smith. The overall consistency in your own posts presents a remarkable strategy of never straying from your target theme of “attacking the messenger.” However, I don’t think you can claim credit for originating this strategy. Looking back on your posts tickled my memory, for I have heard of others who have used such a strategy of constant repetition before. A brief search of my home bookshelf revealed this much earlier example:
Again, I learned a lot; especially that the rank and file are usually much more primitive than we imagine. Propaganda must therefore always be essentially simple and repetitious. In the long run only he will achieve basic results in influencing public opinion who is able to reduce problems to the simplest terms and who has the courage to keep forever repeating them in this simplified form despite the objections of the intellectuals.--Paul Joseph Goebbels, The Goebbels Diaries, 1942-1943, edited and translated by Louis P. Lochner, Doubleday & Co, Inc. New York, 1948, at Page 56 (from a private diary entry dated January 29, 1942).
The intellectuals have been speaking for months now, and they have uniformly decried Arming America as everything from the product of sloppy scholarship to scholarly perjury. You remain undeterred, however, and you have managed to remain “essentially simple and repetitious.” According to your posts, there are only two types of people (or organizations) which have criticized either Prof. Bellesiles or Arming America. They are: 1. The rabble that is the “gun lobby” and its deluded allies, whom you classify as “extremists who vent nothing but personal attack based upon ideological bias” and 2. Those who are not members of the “gun lobby” but are nevertheless coerced into parroting whatever the “gun lobby” demands of them because they cower in fear before the “political juggernaut.”
I must grudgingly admit that your strategy of attacking any critic of Arming America is brilliant in its simplicity, for it requires not one shred of proof or verifiable fact to fuel it. It’s all lies, you proclaim. Emory lied when it claimed to appoint an “independent panel.” The Bancroft Committee lied when it claimed the vote to rescind its award “was based solely on the evaluation of the questionable scholarship of the work and had nothing to do with the book's content or the author's point of view.” Now please don’t misunderstand me, Mr. Smith. I’m not trying to condemn you for your use of the “attack the messenger” strategy. On the contrary, I think it is the only logical choice you have based on the events we are now seeing. Still, I must say that it appears remarkably disingenuous for you to vilify others merely because you feel they are effectively using your own methods.
What is even more remarkable is your ability to remain steadfast and consistent while Arming America’s friends have been showing their backs to the enemy and deserting you in ever increasing numbers. I do not believe in worldly re-incarnation. If I did, however, then I could only assume that in a past life you were one of the immortal 300 bodyguards of Sparta’s King Leonidas at Thermopylae. Surely you would have stood firm when, in response to the Persian emperor Xerxes’ demand to either lay down your arms or be overwhelmed by his vast invading army, your king shouted “Molon Labe!” (Come and take them!) I believe that the loyalty you show to Professor Bellesiles is just as stubborn as that shown to Leonidas by his 300, who to a man chose certain death over the dishonor of abandoning their king. However, it is painfully unfortunate that such admirable loyalty is now being spent on a far less worthy cause. Still, one can only admire your “courage to keep forever repeating [your message] in this simplified form despite the objections of the intellectuals,” and I look forward to reading your future posts.
Clayton E. Cramer - 12/18/2002
"However, I think that in general, peer review has worked better in the sciences than it did in the Bellesile case for the reasons given by Mr. Baldridge, namely the expertise of the reviewers is in the same narrow field and methodology as the author."
And one other reason: the hard sciences aren't anywhere near as political. Bellesiles's claims were very attractive politically, which meant a lot of historians simply put their brains in neutral. Can you imagine anyone getting anywhere near as emotionally engaged with say, differing theories of sediment depositation as they get with gun control?
Another part of the problem is that as the humanities have been taken over by post-modernists, the entire notion of truth has evaporated. I have had way too many interactions with history grad students over the years that demonstrated that they believed that there was no objective truth about anything. "What is truth?" one grad student disgustedly asked me. At least he didn't wash his hands afterwards.
Clayton E. Cramer - 12/18/2002
"Cramer and many of the other early critics were not idealistic amateurs engaged in an objective search for "the truth," but passionate advocates of gun rights, who found Bellesiles arguments threatening to their own positions."
You assume that because I am a political activist that my
pursuit of the problems with Bellesiles's work was not
the result of an "objective search for 'the truth,'" but
some sort of political search and destroy mission. If you
had read some of my published work on the subject, you would
know that this is not accurate. I have had some critical
things to say about historians who are on the same side
about the gun rights issue. My book _Concealed Weapon
Laws of the Early Republic: Dueling, Southern Violence,
and Moral Reform_ (Praeger Press, 1999), started out with
one set of politically very advantageous assumptions, and
found something quite different.
There have been people involved in this scandal who were
"passionate advocates" for a political position, and it
prevented from finding truth--or even trying. But they are
history professors, with names like Bellesiles and Wills.
"The fact that their charges of academic fraud were ultimately demonstrated to be true doesn't change this fact. The time-consuming work required to demonstrate that fraud was carried out by the long, hard work of a number of people--both amateur and professional historians and by some more committed to struggle for objectivity than others."
Sorry, but there was NO activity checking Bellesiles's claims until I had made a nuisance of myself for many months. Go back and check the logs of H-OIEAHC.
Grant Fritchey - 12/18/2002
Amazing. I've read as many of your posts as I can track down. Not a single time have you addressed a factual statement about Bellesiles work. Not once.
OK. People have called him names. Some of these names may, or may not, be justified. However, a very large amount of work has been done checking Bellesiles facts. Not just his probate work, but his entire book. All of the published work I've seen so far shows that Bellesiles' "errors" were in favor of his thesis. Every time.
You seem to fervently believe that Bellesiles is being unduly maligned. Please, show one fact that was pointed out as false by any of Bellesiles critics was actually true. You've defended Bellesiles person. Now defend his work.
If you can only defend the man, but not defend his work, then the critics are right and some of the names being used are accurate.
John G. Fought - 12/18/2002
I would never never try to prove anything to you, Mr. Lambert. But their argument is not as simple as your message artfully suggests. If you read an article, you have the original source reference available to retype or to copy and paste. If you instead copy (either by retyping or by pasting) from a secondary or more remote source which has a corrupted version of the reference, you will be as likely copy it accurately as you would the original. The probability of the same mistake being repeated by accident can be estimated, as can the chances of it being copied with the same mistake in 20 or 40 different bibliographies. That is the basis for their claim. However,I don't see any reliable basis for yours, just an assertion, based apparently on the unwarranted assumption that every other citation is a direct copy from the original. Are we also supposed to believe that you always read all of the works that you refer to (that's not clear from your message)? And that you understand them? If so, I hereby grant you peer review exemption No. 0003. I hold No. 0002. I got it from Bellesiles.
Tim Lambert - 12/18/2002
The study summarized in the New Scientist draws an erroneous conclusion. Just because someone copies the volume, page no and year for a cite from some other paper, it does not follow that they haven't read it. In fact, I usually try to cut and paste such information from online sources since I'm more likely to introduce errors by typing it an again than copying from a source where there has been a chance for correction.
To show that scientists don't read the papers they cite, you would have to look at patterns of errors where they have mistated the findings of papers.
Charles V. Mutschler - 12/18/2002
Gentlemen - Mr. Fought, Mr. Baldridge,
I presume I'm the party who started the Peer Review thread. I thought I was being explicit when I said that as practied now, peer review needs a serious overhaul. I don't know that I would go so far as to say ithat peer review is hoplessly broken.
Mr. Baldridge is, I believe, correct, that the Bellesile article would probably never have gotten published if people who were truly experts in the subject and methodology had been the ones reviewing the manuscript. The peer review process is not absolutely foolproof, however. Mr. Fought's remarks about the cold fusion fiasco are correct. However, I think that in general, peer review has worked better in the sciences than it did in the Bellesile case for the reasons given by Mr. Baldridge, namely the expertise of the reviewers is in the same narrow field and methodology as the author. I think peer review needs work, but I'm not ready to scrap it yet.
Thanks for reading.
Charles V. Mutschler
Thomas Gunn - 12/18/2002
12-17-2002 ~2310
Rick,
Somewhere in this run of posts is an offer of, IIRC, White Castle™ Hamburgers to the poster who finds the first instance of a quote or cite in ARMING AMERICA that runs counter to Bellesiles theory. AFAICT No claim has yet been made. It is a miraculous happenstance that there is no material conflicting Michael's thesis. Maybe!
thomas
Rick Schwartz - 12/18/2002
Mr. Smith...
It is a reasonable request that you provide us with cites to recent articles from brand-name scholars/authors that back up your statement/claims about the excellent research done in Arming America by Mr. Bellesiles. Five is a good round number. Surely you can come up with that many?
If not, or if you choose not too and answer this post with another attack on "right wing zealots" then perhaps you can see where one might consider your contributions to the discussion at hand rather pointless.
(tick, tick, tick)
Thomas Gunn - 12/18/2002
Mr. Lewenberg,
It must be noted that yours is not the first time a claim has been made here based on the information gleaned from a confidential source.
In past instances the confidential source has been asked to provide the information to a disinterested observer. IIRC Our host Rick Shenkman has served successfully in that capacity.
In other instances the source has seen fit to reveal himself openly.
For myself, I will withhold judgment until the process peer review has completed its glacially moving investigation. ;-o) Or until further damning information comes to light.
thomas
Rick Schwartz - 12/18/2002
"one table"
It was obvious from the beginning that Mr. Smith simply never read ~any~ of the scholarly criticism leveled against Arming America by anyone. He continues to make that abundantly clear with each post. It's
Benny Smith - 12/18/2002
Mr. Haskins once again uses my post here as a springboard to continue his personal attacks upon Professor Bellesiles. And as usual in these types of attacks, Mr. Haskins uses the word ‘lie’ or ‘lies’ to describe Bellesiles’s work, four times by my count. If Mr. Haskins, as the busy assistant prosecutor he claims to be, were to use such tactics in open court, he certainly would be remonstrated for "assuming facts not in evidence."
Or to put in a more relevant perspective for Mr. Haskins, who prefers space fantasy analogies, let us suppose that Mr. Haskins is Darth Vader, who is prosecuting Bellesiles for lying in his book. Vader has secured himself many advantages: he has had over a year to gather material, he has the dedicated assistance of the empire (gun huggers, right wing zealots and a scant few other obsessed souls), Bellesiles is representing himself without the benefit of counsel, and Vader has been disseminating prejudicial accusations over the internet and right wing media sources like the National Review ad infinitum. Also, Bellesiles has lost his notes and must rely on memory to reconstruct events that happened almost a decade ago. That leads to lapses in memory, the inability to recall certain events, and inconsistent/contradictory testimony - as it would with any other normal witness trying to recall details from that long ago. Vader, as a prosecuting attorney, certainly is aware of the problems that time causes with witnesses’ recollections and takes full advantage. This should be a slam dunk case for him.
Yet, even after all his "lies" this and "lies" that, the most the jury will say is that Bellesiles on one table in a 600-page book "entered the realm of falsification." Of course, Vader realizes that such creative language in a verdict such as this will never stand appeal. However, it is enough for Vader and his empire to intimidate the timid, and Columbia and Emory willingly sacrifice Bellesiles to be free of the clutches of Vader and his army.
Hopefully, this will provide a better understanding of the situation. I doubt that it will change your behavior, however. Like other Bellesiles’ critics, you will be back tomorrow or the next day to continue your intellectual demonization, to recite the same ad hominem attacks, to try to do whatever you can to discredit those like Bellesiles and myself, who disagree with your admittedly biased view of early America.
Benny Smith - 12/18/2002
A claim that a gun lobby website is a repository for objective, undistorted commentary on Bellesile’s Arming America is about as absurd as Mr. LaCourse himself claiming to be an credible disseminator of information on the subject. Mr. LaCourse’s admission that he is professionally associated with the gun lobby makes it clear as to where he stands and why. And why he wishes for the "destruction" of people like myself and Bellesiles, however he puts it. You may claim now that you are a known quantity, Mr. LaCourse, but you never admitted your relationship to the gun lobby until I revealed the connection here.
Although I don’t believe you would respond to my posts unless you saw their merit, perhaps you would still do best to follow your own advice and restrain yourself from responding. Otherwise, your credibility may be further damaged.
Ron Lewenberg - 12/18/2002
"There is something entirely implausible about Mr. Lewenberg's account. The mailboxes of history professors in Fayerweather Hall are in a public hallway. Anyone can leave material in the mailboxes at any time. We receive not only mail, but term papers, announcements of campus events, etc. in these boxes. They have large slots in the front and his materials could easily have been placed in each mailbox without the permission of anybody. In addition, I absolutely deny throwing out materials relating to this controversy or anything else -- I would never do such a thing. "
Professor Foner is correct in so far that anyone can simply put documents into mailboxes. However, I was not simply putting a paper in a professor's mailbox. My intention was to put a packet and invitation in every professor's mailbox. Because of this distinction, I asked the secretary for permission.
Perhaps I should have been less polite, but I gave the secretary a copy and followed her directions.
If Professor Foner wishes to insinuate that I am not telling the truth, that is his perogative. I will not endanger the TA, who confidentially told me what Foner did, to protect my reputation. Perhaps, I made an error in passing on this information.
Frankly, this is a minor incident compared to the larger story of a committee that cared more about politics than about facts.
Foner can call me anything he wishes to. The fact remains that the Columbia History department is dominated by a leftist clique, who put politics above history. I hope that the Bellesiles's case makes this abundantly clear.
Richard Henry Morgan - 12/17/2002
from an article by Melissa Seckora on the National Review website:
Before the Bancroft Prize was awarded in 2001, scholars had already shown that Bellesiles's main probate data were mathematically impossible, and that he had miscounted, misinterpreted, and made up substantial portions of information. When asked by National Review last fall, Arthur Goren, professor emeritus of Columbia, then chair of the prize committee, said he wasn't aware of a public debate or serious questions about Arming America when the committee considered it: "We reviewed 150 books over a four month period. As you undertake that process and seek to recognize innovative work, among other things, it is probably inevitable that some of the books will touch on controversial topics." This, despite the fact that one of the original Bancroft panel members, Rutgers historian Jan Lewis, had been sent a scholarly manuscript detailing most of these problems.
What's more, on April 18, 2001, the day that Columbia presented Bellesiles his prize, the Columbia College Conservative Club (CCCC) held a roundtable discussion on the author's work. Not a single Bancroft committee member or member of the school's history department attended. "On April 4, I e-mailed members of the history department and the Bancroft committee with a summary of the case against Bellesiles including some clear cases of fraud. I received no responses," explains Ron Lewenberg, then president of the CCCC. He tried again and was shunned again. "I was not allowed to put the packets in the mailboxes of professors and staff, so with the approval of the secretary, I placed them on the desk. According to a friendly TA, whose anonymity I have kept secret for the protection of his career, Professor Eric Foner, saw the handouts and threw a fit. All of the packets were thrown out."
After what Lewenberg interpreted as Foner's attempt to suppress knowledge of possible problems with the book, Foner last week defended the committee's ignorance in comments to the Associated Press: "The Bancroft judges operate on a basis of trust. We assume a book published by a reputable press has gone through a process where people have checked the facts. Members of prize committees cannot be responsible for that."
Say it ain't so.
Alec Lloyd - 12/17/2002
Personally, I like the idea of Columbia's faculty being "bullied" by NRA email.
So that's the secret of getting people to do an about-face on core issues of academic integrity. Glad I know that now...
John G. Fought - 12/17/2002
Frank, I wasn't gunning for you, so to speak. I was replying to several preceding pieces which seemed to suggest that peer review just needs to be tightened up a little and all will be well, and I was betrayed by the automatic subject line. My view is that it doesn't work and won't work better even if we all wish for it very hard. By bench sciences, I meant laboratory sciences, where typical work generates many measurements and fits into a larger theoretical framework which generates detailed expectations: physical and biomedical, mostly. I've seen the term someplace, and just picked it up.
By the way, we normally run more than a dozen head of hummingbirds here at the ranch, though at this time of year the herd thins out: Anna's, Costas, Black Chins, Rufous, and who knows what? Of all of them, the Rufous seem to be the feistiest, like some comicbook supervillain: "I drink now!" We're very fond of them. You're lucky to work with such distinguished birds.
Dave LaCourse - 12/17/2002
Glad Mr. Smith responded.
Yet he misses the point yet again. His destruction was as an objective observer in this debate, not as a person. He claims bias against all Bellesiles critics, but ignores his own. That was my point. I note my bias, and make sure to back my points up with some facts.
In my post on Mr. Smith, I even link back to my business website. I am a known quantity. Mr. Smith is not.
In fact, the page in that post is linked off of an extensive page showing articles from both sides of this issue.
http://www.saf.org/pub/rkba/general/GunsInEarlyAmerica.htm
Unfortunately for Mr. Smith (and Bellesiles), other than at The Nation, I can't find many articles supporting Bellesiles any more. Wonder why that is? Did the gun groups take over the Internet too? We are powerful!
Guess we are down to The Nation, Mr. Smith and Bellesiles supporting Arming America. And none of them present an argument supporting his Bellesiles' data. Just attacks of bias. Funny how that is.
More historical articles are coming, Mr. Smith. At some point, other than claiming bias, please, for once, link to a scholarly rebuttal supporting Bellesiles in probate records, travel journals, war battles. Anything, and make it from the last four months. Or write your own. I will link to it.
Until then, you are an unknown person unequal to all the historians lined up against Arming America. They have much more credibility in this debate.
Present a case. Defend Bellesiles. Drop the bias whine, as you are far worse and less honest about it.
Respond to the links provided to you.
Come on, surprise me. Just even provide your top five reading list for understanding Arming America. You have studied this issue, haven't you?
Benny Smith - 12/17/2002
Mr. LaCourse’s "Benny Smith's Destruction" subject line is a welcome illustration of what the gun lobby is trying to accomplish in their personal attacks on Professor Bellesiles. Although they may claim to want to focus on issues, this is merely a smokescreen. Whether it’s the destruction of Bellesiles and his family, or the destruction of other people who don’t agree with them, like myself, it’s really about attacking the messenger instead of the message.
What happened at Columbia University is simply the end result of such personal attacks. Although Mr. LaCourse may claim the gun lobby had nothing to do with Columbia’s rescinding of the Bancroft prize awarded to Arming America, why did a gun rights website list the e-mail addresses of Columbia trustees exhorting readers to "demand that they revoke the award they gave Michael Bellesiles?" In a Washington Times article that appeared immediately after Bellesiles resigned from Emory University, the headline read "Columbia Feels Heat from Gun Groups over Bancroft Prize" and quoted representatives of the gun lobby including a Dave LaCourse of the Second Amendment Foundation. I don’t think Mr LaCourse and other pro-gun representatives would engage in such lobbying efforts if they saw it as an exercise in futility. They have an agenda and that agenda is the destruction of Professor Bellesiles.
With that in mind, certainly I am not foolish enough to reveal personal information about myself to those whose agenda includes character assassination. And if that means that Mr. LaCourse or others of his ilk will not respond to my posts, so be it. In fact, I would prefer it that way.
Frank A. Baldridge - 12/17/2002
John: I think you missed what I was trying to say, especially with your reference to "bench sciences" whatever those are. Most of my work was with endangered birds in the field, and I never saw a bench. Also my comments are in reference to the JAH article, not the Bancroft, and my thesis is that with proper peer review that article never would have been published in that form. I believe there are certain elements of truth in so far as the creation of a "gun myth," but other institutions than the NRA are responsible.
As I understand it, whether in science or history, the purpose of peer review is to separate the wheat from the chafe, so that meaningful contributions are made to the field, and that the integrity of the journal (or field) is preserved. With that in mind, my ms on hummingbirds was put out for review by those who were then generally acknowledged to be the authorities on hummingbirds. If I had more statistics in it, it would have also submitted to someone familiar with quantative analysis. Those people were already familiar with the pertinent literature, and arguably in the best position to assess the potential contribution to the field. Also the editor always can suggest that the study, even if it has good merit, is best suited for another journal. Its basically a question of common sense. So why wasn't Bellesiles original paper submitted to historians with demonstrated expertise firearm or shooting sports history, probate records, or quantitative analysis. Those referees might have suggested changes that ultimately might have saved Bellesiles and academic historians a bunch of hassels.
The fact that that approach was not taken suggests that Bellesiles article was judged more on its political agenda than historical merits, which appears to be far too common in the historical academic press nowadays. Gotta get back to my thesis. Regards.
Bryan Haskins - 12/16/2002
Welcome Back Mr. Smith! I was beginning to fear that we had lost your strident voice. I for one am pleased to find that my fears are unfounded. Like you, I wish I knew why the members of the Bancroft Committee decided to rescind Bellesiles’ “major award.” Unlike you, I do not believe that they submitted to any imaginary “gun lobby” pressure. After all, the committee members can only be presumed to have been aware of the potential for intense “gun lobby” pressure when they made their original decision to grant the award. If they are so frightened of the “political juggernaut” that is the “gun lobby,” then why did they agree to step into its path in the first place? Nevertheless, the members have rescinded the award based on the report prepared by “the three distinguished scholars who reviewed the case for Emory.” Since the committee hasn’t told me the “secret” motive which you suggest it must have, I can only guess that it could no longer tolerate the embarrassment caused by its hasty endorsement of Arming America. I disagree that the Bancroft Committee’s decision springs from cowardice, however. Rather, I feel that the committee’s admission of error took an extraordinary amount of courage. Perhaps the members felt they had to act to avoid further tarnishing other, more deserving recipients of the award
I agree that Prof. Bellesiles should have retained counsel early on. A good lawyer would have asked Bellesiles to first run his explanations by him to decide whether he should offer them to his critics. His lawyer would have immediately seen that his answers were anything but honest and open, and he would have suggested that it is in his best interest to keep his “prolix, confusing, evasive and occasionally contradictory” answers to himself. Had Prof. Bellesiles only taken your advice, Mr. Smith, he would have avoided being caught lying about the San Francisco probate records and the Prof. Lindgren e-mail issue, to name two examples. Now some may dismiss these lies as nothing more than a “soap opera of who said what to whom,” but even you must admit that his case would have been better off if he had not undermined it by swearing falsely in its defense. Nevertheless, he can still take your advice, hire a lawyer, and challenge/rebuke these “slanderous accusations.” I somehow doubt that he will.
The right to remain silent is the most underused civil liberty, and Prof. Bellesiles has, like many others who thought they could lie their way out of trouble, leaned the truth of the following axiom: “If you are going to be stupid, then you have got to be tough.” If you are going to be stupid enough to lie in your explanations to your critics, then you have got to be tough enough to face the music when you get caught. He apparently is not. Fortunately for him, however, he has friends like you who remain steadfast to his cause. If Bellesiles were in the Death Star trench complaining “they’re coming in to fast,” then you would be his wingman demanding in a cool voice that he “stay on target.” I have to admit that I admire such loyalty. I’m just afraid that I am not able to see your target now that it has once again been cast aside by another organization which has absoultely no ties to the "gun lobby."
Richard Henry Morgan - 12/16/2002
John,
the other professor's field was American Jewish history, perhaps interesting in its own right, but hardly relevant to Arming America (relating to something else I worked on, the first Jewish community of NYC was a bunch of transplants from when Dutch Recife in northeastern Brazil was retaken by the Portuguese).
Along the lines you're discussing, I knew a grad student who got raked over the coals at her dissertation defense not because her citation was wrong in your sense, but because for years it had been used to support what it in fact did not, and this had been repeated and repeated uncritically, without anyone actually reading the original article (though that didn't stop them from citing it).
Of course, this is only compounded by translation and copying in the old, pre-xerographic age. I think it was a translation into English of Geoffrey of Monmouth's Latin (he had translated into Latin what was Welsh) that had Arthur going into battle bearing a cross upon his shoulder (scutulum -- actually 'shoulder blade'), when it probably should have been his shield ('scutulum' is also a small shield). In the film First Knight, with Sean Connery, they rationalized the two views by having the knights with tiny little shields, with crosses emblazoned, strapped to their shoulders!!
But that was only Welsh to Latin to English. Medieval and earlier practices of translation were very free, closer to an exegesis, with interpolations, etc., adding up over the ages. If I remember my classics correctly, Aristotle's Poetics survives in fragmnets, and from only three manuscripts, the least of which went through three intermediate languages and translations to Latin, and at least one manuscript going through five. With the fragmentary nature of the remains, and all the ages' accumulation of "helpful" additions, you could by varying editorial choices produce any number of different texts as the Ur-text.
I'll look up that New Scientist link. BTW, look in your mail box tomorrow for a short, two to three page note called "Garry Wills, Classical Learning, and the Etymological Fallacy".
Frank A. Baldridge - 12/16/2002
Well said Mr. Mutschler.
Might I add as a long suffering student of American Historiography as MA candidate that most of the eras in, and the study of historiography, concerns political thought, ie the progressives, the new socials, the neo-marxists, etc. The words quantatitive analysis are often used, but most forms of what might be termed methodology are ignored to focus on the political agenda of the era. As Lundgren pointed out the use of probates is frought with danger. To me as a scientist, and all of us as historians, the question is how well do they represent reality (even with a valid quantatitive analysis. Based on personal research involving about 40 known "shooters" residing in Sacramento in the late 1890s, they don't. Why should earlier records be any better? It is a big world, and not all PhDs are equally knowledgable. And as Mr. Cramer showed us, they haven't cornered the market.
John G. Fought - 12/16/2002
Some time ago the names of the Bancroft panelists who were thought to have evaluated AA were revealed on HNN. As I recall, two were specialists in women's history, and the other specialized in something equally irrelevant to the book. All three refused to comment when contacted. I posted a note on the workings of the peer review system on HNN on Oct. 28. I still believe it is useless in its present form. Notice that at each stage in the Bellesiles affair, somebody has offered as an excuse that peer review can't be expected or was never intended to catch X. What this really means is that nobody wants to take the trouble to check each claim in an article, much less a book.
I do think that peer review in the bench sciences works better, but it too has its weaknesses. Something like the 'cold fusion' affair gets caught pretty quickly. However, I suggest a look at any of the recent conference proceedings on peer review in the sciences. On Dec. 14, an article was summarized (and linked to) on NewScientist.com that discusses the probability that the most frequently cited papers in a field are not always read by those who cite them. The method of research is a more mathematically sophisticated version of the standard philological method of reconstruction of a work's family tree by error analysis (when old mss were copied, the errors were copied also, usually accurately; sometimes new errors were introduced, and these too were copied, etc.). The authors noticed that incorrect references to standard or classic papers tended to appear in more than one bibliography with exactly the same error -- sometimes in dozens of bibliographies. Apparently, such references are often (maybe 3 times out of 4) just cut and pasted from one bibliography to another without passing through anyone's brain.
I can't see how the process can be tightened up under the current rules, since there are simply no penalties for failure to act responsibly. Tenure, which may have been intended to protect brave and independent souls from coercion by crass and conformist administrators, more often protects lazy or careless or malignant scholars from their colleagues. 'Nothing can be done' turns into 'why bother'. I'm willing to bet that each of you who has worked inside the academy knows a number of people who routinely and successfully abuse the system under the protection of tenure. The way the Bellesiles case turned out is an exception, but no thanks are due to ordinary peer review. As historians have good reason to know, under such conditions, one can confidently expect the worst.
david schnyer - 12/16/2002
This will, I realise, be considered "mere anecdote" but in support of Mr. Duke's remarks about the passing on of guns without will or probate, I have in my possession a .38 caliber revolver given to me by the sister of a deceased friend as a memento mori. When it comes my turn to take up duty "guarding heaven's scenes" it has been long understood in my family that my daughter will have my Colt service model .45 automatic and my Ka-Bar field knife as well as the above mentioned revolver, (the deceased friend was a close friend of hers too.) This is and has been a common practise in many families down through history, though I will admit it is more common that daughters usually get the mothers jewelry and the sons get the land, if any, tools and weapons.
Dave LaCourse - 12/16/2002
Mr. Mutschler wrote:
"When the Bancroft Award was made, there were already vocal critics complaining that *Arming America* was flawed. Would it not have been prudent to get some specialists in the specific subjects of the book to read it closely?"
This is an excellent point that raises two very serious questions.
#1. Whether peer review was feasible sooner to stop this mess. In hindsight, that is very clear now that it could have helped then, but was it feasible to go to all the probate records in a timely manner? Tough work to do both quickly and right (And some records likely didn't exist, so how do you find them? Remember, Bellesiles had people going everywhere for the San Fran. records!). The only easy answer is that no award should have been given without a better review--especially while big concerns had already been made. Columbia had some information on these problems, and blew it off.
#2. Giving the award despite these questions, sadly gives plenty of ammunition to the charge that the Academics in general WANTED to believe Bellesiles and use his book to attack the individual right position on the Second Amendment and gun ownership in general.
Possible, even likely for people like Gary Wills. But whether due to a lack of study of the field by historians in general, general trust of their fellow scholar, or bias on the part of many, the result is the same--Bellesiles got a pass until his problems began to embarrass everyone associated with his "work."
Benny Smith will try to claim otherwise, but Bellesiles was put up high and mighty by his allies for reasons unproven. And the bigger they are, the harder they fall. No award should have been given at that time, and now the mess is bigger than it should have been.
Who wants to read Bellesiles' new book on early gun control laws? Sure it will be an award winner, but maybe not forever...
Charles V. Mutschler - 12/16/2002
Good questions. Perhaps someone at Columbia will give us the details on how many books were nominated, and how many people review the books, and what their qualifications for commenting on them is. Professor Foner's argument that the committee should be able to take the value of a book for granted because it went through the peer review process and was published by a respected press is true, up to a point. However, I think trying to argue that the Bancroft Committee is not responsible for any share of the current situation is not reasonable either.
Mr. Baldridge makes the point that in the sciences there is a greater concern with having people who are experts in the specific subject evaluate mauscripts and pass judgement on them prior to publication. These are people actually engaging in scholarship in that specific area of the field. In other words, the author's peers. Clearly the definition of "peers" used at the Journal of American History and later at Knopf was not as narrowly interpreted as scholars in the sciences understand the term. Neither organization has pointed to a person with expertese in statistics, or firearms and military history in colonial America. These should have been obviously desirable areas of specialization needed to evaluate Mr. Bellesile's manuscript.
When the Bancroft Award was made, there were already vocal critics complaining that *Arming America* was flawed. Would it not have been prudent to get some specialists in the specific subjects of the book to read it closely? Scholarship is often a slow, contemplative business. What was the rush to make the award to Arming America especially since substantive questions were being raised? I think this is where the Bancroft Committee failed. They appear to have brushed off the criticisms of Arming America because they did not come from their fellow academic historians. Given the already existing controversey over Arming America, what the committee might have wanted to do is precisely what William & Mary Quarterly soon did - get some people who were real experts in the field to take a good close look, and see if the book really merited the award.
Peer review, as it is practiced in history, appears to need some work. Thanks for reading.
Charles V. Mutschler
Charles V. Mutschler - 12/16/2002
Good questions. Perhaps someone at Columbia will give us the details on how many books were nominated, and how many people review the books, and what their qualifications for commenting on them is. Professor Foner's argument that the committee should be able to take the value of a book for granted because it went through the peer review process and was published by a respected press is true, up to a point. However, I think trying to argue that the Bancroft Committee is not responsible for any share of the current situation is not reasonable either.
Mr. Baldridge makes the point that in the sciences there is a greater concern with having people who are experts in the specific subject evaluate mauscripts and pass judgement on them prior to publication. These are people actually engaging in scholarship in that specific area of the field. In other words, the author's peers. Clearly the definition of "peers" used at the Journal of American History and later at Knopf was not as narrowly interpreted as scholars in the sciences understand the term. Neither organization has pointed to a person with expertese in statistics, or firearms and military history in colonial America. These should have been obviously desirable areas of specialization needed to evaluate Mr. Bellesile's manuscript.
When the Bancroft Award was made, there were already vocal critics complaining that *Arming America* was flawed. Would it not have been prudent to get some specialists in the specific subjects of the book to read it closely? Scholarship is often a slow, contemplative business. What was the rush to make the award to Arming America especially since substantive questions were being raised? I think this is where the Bancroft Committee failed. They appear to have brushed off the criticisms of Arming America because they did not come from their fellow academic historians. Given the already existing controversey over Arming America, what the committee might have wanted to do is precisely what William & Mary Quarterly soon did - get some people who were real experts in the field to take a good close look, and see if the book really merited the award.
Peer review, as it is practiced in history, appears to need some work. Thanks for reading.
Charles V. Mutschler
Thomas L. Spencer - 12/16/2002
I have to agree about "Smith". From the sound of his posts he appears to be a troll, someone who comes on to a board trying to stir-up a commotion. The best thing for all would be to ignore the posts from here on. Sounds like some undergrad who doesn't have better things to do than razz the Profs.
Dave LaCourse - 12/16/2002
I have read Mr. Smith's comments with great interest on several boards for some time before finally commenting on them. I always doubted his claims of only being concerned about the bias in those accusing Bellesiles of everything from poor quoting to fraud.
As more evidence against Bellesiles poured in, I kept wondering when Mr. Smith would explain all his scholarly qualifications and data in support of Bellesiles' theory while discounting all the evidence against Arming America. He never did.
Now, he wants to know:
“Who are those anonymous "professional historians" who now believe the scholarship is flawed to the extent that a major award must be rescinded. What are their credentials, relevant scholarship and motives?”
Again, I must ask Mr. Smith, Who the hell are you? What are your credentials, relevant scholarship and motives? Others have shown theirs to you, now provide yours!
This is why I recently commented, mostly in jest, that Benny Smith must be Bellesiles. Mr. Smith's explanations in supporting Bellesiles are just as baffling as Bellesiles' excuses on where he found probate records and why he missed clear passages in travel records, and ignored other travel guides over the ones he hand picked.
Now that the Columbia University (NRA controlled?? Get real) has withdrawn the Bancroft Award, and asked for their money back, Mr. Smith's destruction as a relevant "objective" observer are finally complete.
His continued posts should now be ignored, and replaced with the discussion on the many travel records supporting an Armed America, including during the first Thanksgiving, and numerous sources Bellesiles cited, but ignored key passages.
Good examples are available here:
http://hnn.us/comments/5300.html
And while VERY dated, and from a gun-control-leaning individual, this posting also highlights Bellesiles’ travel journal problem:
http://www.saf.org/pub/rkba/general/BellesilesBookReviewOld.htm
In short, Benny might not be Bellesiles, but his undying devotion to the fallen professor in the face of all the evidence removes him from any serious debate. No serious discussion can continue with him responding by simply blaming the NRA or gun-huggers for all of Bellesiles' mess.
Bellesiles did this to himself, and he made his supporters look foolish in the process. Maybe if the OAH withdraws the Binkley-Stephenson Award from Bellesiles for the earlier journal article, even Mr. Smith will get the hint. Until then, I recommend against responding to Mr. Smith with any logical arguments. It is a waste of time.
At most, just remind Mr. Smith that he is far more biased than all the gun-huggers combined when it comes to Bellesiles. After all, at least they have some facts on their side. And credentials? Put up or shut up, Mr. Smith.
Sure he will be on the Emory Board next, without any supporting evidence to back up his position.
Reid Mitchell - 12/16/2002
How many books were nominated for the Bancroft Prize that year?
If every book nominated demands an expert in that field of study, how large would the committee have to be? If the committee needs to doublecheck footnotes, who long would that take?
Frank A. Baldridge - 12/16/2002
Richard Williamd doesn't live in the same world I do. In my academic world as a graduate student in history, I have had only one professor out of about seven that didn't use class time to bash the NRA. As an historian interested in firearms, I can't buy a pair of antique pistols being sold as a set at auction because in my state a individual can only buy one gun per month. Sure there are lots of stupid books in the library. But the purpose of the academic press is to filter out stupid books. Most people would look at a Bancroft prize winner, or anything published in the academic press, as being creditable. Not being graduate students, they are unaware that most of what gets published today in the academic press is crap. Look at Linda Gordon, she got a Bancroft, and stated Michael Goldwater made the family fortune hauling government freight. Not true at all, but it went well with her agenda. There is more speculation in the Arizona Orphan Abduction than there is on Wall Street.
Powerful Gun Lobby Controls the "One Ring" - 12/16/2002
"First Bellesiles... then the Universe!!! HAHAHAHA!!!"
Ralph E. Luker - 12/16/2002
That's what you said the last time I asked.
Charles V. Mutschler - 12/15/2002
Mr. Luker, I came to the conclusion some time ago that the peer review process as the historical profession operates it is seriously in need of an overhaul. Professor Foner's statement strikes me as evading the point. The Bancroft Committee, just like the peer review process at the Journal of Ameriican History for the article, and later at Knopf for the book, all *should* have included people who were experts in the field. That clearly did not happen. For starters, perhaps historians should go back to the idea of fact-checking all the foot notes. That seems to work well for the legal scholars. I recall being in seminars where we all exchanged not only papers, but boxes of research notes and critically analyzed and fact checked each other's work.
Charles V. Mutschler
Frank A. Baldridge - 12/15/2002
I am afraid I am going to have to go with Don. As the day passed Richard Williams really blew it. In regards to his original communication there some some element of truth in it, but basically Richard and Eric Foner are copping out, and Richard is in denial. The reality is that the "review" of "academic" historial works suck.
That opinion is based on undergraduate work in biology (a science), followed by a professional carear in ornithology that included the publication of articles in the top ornithological journals (I have more publications in scientific journals than some PhDs). As Richard and Eric may be aware, there are many kinds of birds out there, doing different things. So editors send manuscripts to scholars with expertise with the type of bird or problem under discussion. Those scholars don't do research to verify the author's conclusion (as Richard suggests), they assess the potential contribution to the literature based on their specialized knowledge of the field, and the authors methodology and apparent creditability.
As far as I am aware Bellesiles JAH article was NOT sent out to review by any scholar with expertise in firearm's history, probate records, or quantatitive analysis. And it had a very obvious political agenda that should have raised questions about its creditability. For whatever reason, Bellesiles article DID NOT receive the examination it should have. Overconfident, Bellesiles took his "research" public, and thanks to people like Lindgren and Cramer was exposed for the political hack he really is.
The thing that really bothers me as a graduate student in history is that many of the books I am forced to buy and read for reading seminars are similar to Bellesiles in that the authors constantly selectively quote, misreprsent souces, and otherwise knowingly distort the past to argue the political agendas of today. The "learning experience" of Richard's is basically a combined textbook and brainwashing pyramid scheme. It is especially prevailent in "Environment History," where individuals who couldn't pass Ecology 101 have become cult leaders. Carolyn Merchant and Roderick Nash serve as examples.
And I have not seem any of my professors in the archives lately, or ever.
Don Williams - 12/15/2002
Check back here on Tuesday or Wednesday of next week.
Don Williams - 12/15/2002
As usual, parsing the content of Mr Smith's long posts reduces down to him stating that he likes Bellesiles and he doesn't like Bellesiles' critics. Note that Mr Smith makes no attempt to present facts to refute the many specific criticisms of Arming America --nor does he attempt to engage in rational discourse. Relying on his intellect appears to be a dangerous abyss that Mr Smith is careful to avoid --and has been careful to avoid since he posted on the Emory Wheel in August. As a supporter, Mr Smith is more of an embarrassment to Bellesiles --by the example Mr Smith presents-- than a help.
Benny Smith - 12/15/2002
Once more, with Columbia trustees merely rubber stamping Emory University's narrow, short-sighted Arming America report, we are presented with academic cowardice at its most disgraceful. Again, action is taken hastily at the end of an academic term when the decision-makers can simply run and hide from pertinent questions. Is there any courage left in the ivory towers of academia?
If Arming America is so fatally flawed, why was this not evident to the Bancroft prize committee or to countless other credible historians? Who are those anonymous "professional historians" who now believe the scholarship is flawed to the extent that a major award must be rescinded. What are their credentials, relevant scholarship and motives? Do they believe other Bancroft prize-winning works could withstand similar microscopic scrutiny? Why didn't the Columbia trustees take the more circumspect route of the Organization of American Historians instead of caving in to political pressure?
Bellesile's only crime in all of this may have been his naivete in trusting that honesty and openness would ultimately result in fairness as well. He did not realize that such a strategy is futile against a political juggernaut such as the gun lobby can muster. Had he retained appropriate counsel early on, the slanderous accusations may have been challenged and rebuked appropriately. It's a sad lesson that all scholars must now learn from.
Richard Williams - 12/15/2002
Gee, John, you're probably right in your suspicion that I am a fictional invention (maybe a postmodern one!) Since my observations on academia are so radically different than yours, it must be the case that I don't teach history at all. I've never even been near a college or university. Actually, I'm a hairdresser, but for some unexplainable reason I've decided to come to the defense of the history profession.
The " if you really are who you say you are" tactic has always been a favorite tactic of the paranoid right. When it defies all logic and reason, it reveals much more about the accuser than the accused.
But your evidence that postmodernity reigns in History departments around the country seems, er, ireffutable. After all, it comes from compelling evidence--numerous anonymous posts over the last few months on HNN!
Time for me to go "boil over."
Enjoy your endless debate. And watch out for those postmodernists. They're everywhere!
John G. Fought - 12/15/2002
Richard Williams has contributed three messages to this thread as I write this. They may well be parodies, as I thought at first. It is hard to extract a coherent argument from them, and it may not be worth the effort, but there are a few points that should not be shrugged off, just in case this Mr. Williams is real and teaches history somewhere. First, Mr. Williams, you have no better grounds for asserting that Bellesiles' non-academic critics are "passionate advocates of gun rights" who felt threatened by Bellesiles' "arguments" than you have for asserting that "as a discipline we [he means capital-H Historians] are by and large committed to striving for objectivity". These are simply your own personal opinions, in all their uninformed splendor. You are wrong on both these counts. As regular readers of this section know, B's critics cover a broad political spectrum, and some favor gun control. Furthermore, there are numerous history departments where postmodernism still reigns, in which only a freshman would think of objectivity without smiling, and where the notion of progress is so five minutes ago. There's also been some discussion of this here in months past.
It is you, Mr. Williams, not the critics of Bellesiles, who are guilty of sweeping and simplistic characterizations, in portraying us all as right-wing ideologues. You predict that "when cooler heads prevail, it will be clear that academia dealt with the Bellesiles affair professionally and creditably." I'm afraid it's obvious already that academia dealt with this only reluctantly, and did only as much as it was obliged to do to keep from soiling itself more. Anyway, your own head begins to overheat in your second and third postings, where you assert, again on your own personal authority, that Bellesiles' work was not a significant element in the anti-gun appeals process in recent 2nd Amendment litigation. Again, a bit of easy, web-based research would have revealed to you, as it has to others for some time, that Arming America is cited in favor of collective rights interpretations in two recent Federal Circuit appeals cases (one in the 5th Circuit and one in the 9th), and again in one of the decisions. Then you boil over, asserting, again on your own authority, that Randolf Roth's piece in WMQ was "far more damaging" to Bellesiles than the work of the volunteer nonhistorians. How is that, exactly? Roth, like some other papers in that forum, cites Lindgren & Heather's work several times, and the editor's introduction to the forum articles cites Cramer's work along with Melissa Seckora and Joyce Lee Malcolm on the same footing as academic sources in footnote 3 (p.203). Once again, it is you who are out on a shaky limb. It is evident that without the chorus of critical writing about the book, there would have been no forum in WMQ, let alone damage control by Emory University. Like you, they would have been happiest to go on writing history with a capital H. As in AHA and OAH, two organizations which have yet to face up to their responsibilities in this matter, perhaps for reasons similar to yours.
Ralph E. Luker - 12/15/2002
Although the notion that George Will did any fact checking on Bellesiles's _Arming America_ is amusing, Richard Williams' several observations here about peer review, publication, prizes and time are surely on target. I shudder at his denial of an analogy between a Bancroft and a Miss America contest, however, because it appears that the two have become too analogous. A fine publication house, excellent prose, a provocative argument and the appearance of widespread research and weighty documentation: voila, a Miss America. But, apparently, we must now pinch the flesh to see if it is real. I recommend the observations of Eugene Volokh at his website about the law journals' use of law students to do fact checking. Historians must rethink whether our peer review processes are broken.
Ralph E. Luker - 12/15/2002
The _Journal of American History_ is not obliged to publish Clayton Cramer's submissions any more than it is obliged to publish mine. My most recent submission there, for example, "falsified"* the work -- not of a mere Bancroft Prize winner -- but of a Pulitzer Prize winner. The editor was prepared to publish a part of my article. I was unwilling to cut it up and, consequently, have sent it elsewhere. The point is that publication in any journal is not an entitlement.
*I put the word in quotation marks here because it is not one which I would ordinarily use. The word as used by lawyers and as I use it here seems to mean "disproved," but it sounds to me as if it means, not that, but that in my case that I misused or misinterpreted the work of the Pulitzer Prize winner. I didn't.
Richard Williams - 12/15/2002
Henry Bowman writes:
"The fact that certain reviewers were prompted to challenge Bellesiles' work because of an innate political or philosophical disagreement with his conclusions may well be true, but is entirely irrelevant. The issue here is why they were the ONLY researchers with the apparent incentive to put Bellesiles' 'extraordinary claims' to the test."
You are repeating the GREATEST MYTH of the Bellesiles affair. Cramer et al were not the ONLY researchers to put the claims to the test. They just got the most attention. Espcially from journalists on the right (read recent articles by George Wills and Jay Ambrose, for example.) Far more damaging evidence against Bellesiles' claims form the careful, non-ideologically-driven work of Randolph Roth at Ohio State, to name just one of the MANY academics who took the time to review Bellesiles' sources.
The key word here is TIME. Non-academics just don't understand how long it take for academics, whose job involves doing more than just research (most do substantial amounts of teaching and academic governance), and whose travel and research sources are limited, to simply GET to the sources and find uninterrupted time to examine them carefully. If you haven't done extensive archival work, you just don't get it.
Bowman also writes:
"If one wishes to insist on perpetuating the characterization research by the political predilections of its creators, then so be it."
--It is Bellesiles critics who have done this.
And Bowman also writes:
"And the fact that Bellesiles and his sycophants continue to frame their excuses around the ideology of their critics (while ignoring their irrefutable and devastating disproof of his entire thesis) underscores the accuracy of that 'simplistic characterization.'"
--Re-read my post. It is a defense of academia's response and not Bellesile's work. Of course it is more comfortable for you to lump together the academic review process with a defense of Bellesiles, but it is a profoundly dishonest thing to do.
And What would it take to convince you that I'm not one of Bellesiles "sycophants?" The many gun-rights-defending students at the Appalachian college where I teach, who have written papers on the Second Amendment in my classes (and received their share of A grades) would be puzzled and amused my such a characterization. They're also smart enough to recognize the difference between an ad hominem attack and a reasoned argument.
Ralph E. Luker - 12/15/2002
Nine weeks ago, you were coy about this:
"In the discussion which followed your article here at HNN, I made the comment (June 15):
'There's no reason for academia to hold off discussions about Arming America just because Emory is doing an investigation. I can make a strong case that such silence may hurt Bellesiles rather than help him.'
I think the evidence to support my comment is lying in the open -- I find it comical that you don't perceive it in spite of my hints to you. Perhaps after Emory announces their verdict, I will point it out to you."
Mr. Williams, the Emory Report is in, Bellesiles has resigned and the Bancroft Prize has been revoked. Please, oh please, fount of self-evident but secret knowledge, enlighten me. Help me to understand my offishness for failing to see the obvious. If you don't, I'll just have to assume that your wisdom wasn't.
Henry Bowman - 12/14/2002
Richard Williams writes:
"The loudest and most numerous voices against Bellesiles have long complained that Bellesiles won awards because the academic community is left wing and anti-gun, a pretty sweeping and simplistic characterization, but one that perhaps has a grain of truth in it. But they have denied the reverse applied to them--Cramer and many of the other early critics were not idealistic amateurs engaged in an objective search for 'the truth,' but passionate advocates of gun rights, who found Bellesiles arguments threatening to their own positions. The fact that their charges of academic fraud were ultimately demonstrated to be true doesn't change this fact. "
Nothing illustrates the failure of the faulty review process under discussion better than the statement above. It is clear that the author not only "doesn't get it," but is still operating from the same set of political standards that got Bellesiles' cheerleaders into trouble in the first place.
It is not in the allowable purview of reviewers to prejudge research in terms of the mindset and political assumptions of its writers. The research should first be judged on its merits as much as possible using objective, demonstrable, repeatable criteria.
For example, if a reviewer finds that the text cited in a footnote clearly does not say what the author claims it says -- or worse, says exactly the opposite of what the author claims it says -- then the political predilections of the reviewer and the author are irrelevant when it is time to judge which has done the more scholarly research.
The fact that certain reviewers were prompted to challenge Bellesiles' work because of an innate political or philosophical disagreement with his conclusions may well be true, but is entirely irrelevant. The issue here is why they were the ONLY researchers with the apparent incentive to put Bellesiles' "extraordinary claims" to the test.
If one wishes to insist on perpetuating the characterization research by the political predilections of its creators, then so be it. In that case, what we can say in retrospect is that the research done by the right-wing ideologues was necessary in order to find the truth, and was proven superior in the end to that done (never done?) by the "academic community that certain voices say is left-wing but that is a simplistic characterization."
And the fact that Bellesiles and his sycophants continue to frame their excuses around the ideology of their critics (while ignoring their irrefutable and devastating disproof of his entire thesis) underscores the accuracy of that "simplistic characterization."
Richard Williamd - 12/14/2002
Your reply suggests a level of "conspiracy" within the academia that can only be held by a very paranoid mind. First, you grossly overestimate the influence of the work of academic historians. Second, cited or not cited, Bellesiles bad data on levels of gun ownership is hardly a "lynchpin" in building an argument for or against the "collective right" interpretation--in fact even if Bellesiles data proved correct, it would hardly aid the "collective right" argument. The heart of this argument (for and against) can be found in legal scholarship, not in the work of a social historian counting guns.
Our libraries are filled with books with "bad" and "harmful" information. I could walk over to my College's library right now and quickly pull off the shelf a dozen books with demosntrably false (and racist) interpretations of the Era of Reconstruction, for example, or western expansion. We don't get rid of them. We use them as teaching tools. I am responsible for ordering books on American History for our library, and never did order Bellesile's book. But if it weren't for my reluctance to send him a few more dimes of royalty money, I'd be tempted to do so. It, too, can be an excellent teaching tool.
Your complaint about the "damage" Bellesiles argument did to your cause points out the "problem" of free exchange of ideas. Imagine just for a second, his data had proved correct? Would his argument have been any less or more damging to your particular political viewpoint? Bad ideas and bad scholarship will continue to come forward from the left and right. It's not through censorship that they will be exposed. But through debate and for study. And this is a time-consuming process, that will never satisfy the demands for speediness this age expects.
I don't know what world you live in. But in my world, everyone who wants a gun has one. And the idea that gun rights are threatened is laughable.
Van L. Hayhow - 12/14/2002
As I have said before, you are going to have to do a lot better than the sparse evidence you are using to convince anyone who is not already a gun advocate that there is a conspiracy to overturn the second amendment. If you can't I will only conclude that your post is aptly named.
James Lindgren - 12/14/2002
Actually, Alan Brinkley and I were involved in the same project--a rating of presidents that was published in the Wall Street Journal and the scholarly journal Constitutional Commentary. Brinkley was one of the 2 historians (the other was Forrest McDonald) who selected the presidential historians to be surveyed (4 other experts picked the political scientists and legal scholars to be surveyed).
I was brought into the project after data were collected. I did the data analysis and was the primary author of the study (along with Professor Steven Calabresi). In the course of writing up the study, I called Brinkley to determine the demographic makeup of the sample of historians he co-picked for the project I was completing. I knew little about him other than his famously unjust tenure denial at Harvard and his good reputation as a historian. My discussion with Brinkley took place in November 2000, less than 2 months before my work with Justin Heather on probate materials became public.
I seem to recall that in February, 2001 (while the Bellesiles discussions were widespread), a producer for National Public Radio told me that she had asked Brinkley to appear with me on Talk of the Nation with Lynn Neary to talk about the presidential study. My memory is vague on this, but I think she said that Brinkley declined because he hadn’t been too deeply involved in the study. Instead, Robert Dallek and I (in different studios) had a lot of fun for an hour talking about presidents with Neary and fielding calls.
You know, it's funny, but I had never heard of Michael Bellesiles until a day or two before I asked him for his data. When people write in different (but overlapping) areas and go to different sets of scholarly meetings, that's really not too surprising.
James Lindgren
Professor of Law
Northwestern University
Richard Henry Morgan - 12/14/2002
People, even historians, even prize commmitees, even, hell, Foner, are responsible for their assumptions. Prize committees perhaps can't be held responsible for discrediting statistical conclusions based on archival research, but they can be held to the standard of due diligence. Many of the non-statistical problems with Bellesiles' work were discussed in h-net forums and book reviews months before the Bancroft Prize Committee bestowed its largesse upon Bellesiles. Since the Prize Committee members were academics, with access to research libraries and the web, a single afternoon in the stacks would have been sufficient to do the job on Bellesiles when it comes to those non-statistical problems already discovered and discussed in public forums. Hell, when a work presents statistical conclusions without stating the population size, alarm bells should be ringing loud enough to wake the dead.
Alan Brinkley, the chair of the Columbia History Department, served up an encomiastic introduction to Bellesiles at the Bancroft Prize awards ceremony, while later admitting that he hadn't read the whole book, and that he had never heard of Lindgren, Cramer, and Malcolm!! Arthur Kellerman, a colleague of Bellesiles' at Emory, offered that the evidence against Bellesiles was thin, but he couldn't say he had read Lindgren!! He could though, he admitted, divine the insufficiency of the criticism by reference to the people who were making it, and their divined motives -- they were outraged that people were questioning a cherished myth. This pattern of relexive and uninformed defense reveals not the peculiarities of the prize-giving business, but the mindset of the people who exhibit that pattern.
We may debate the speed with which the problem was addressed -- it was lightning speed by comparison to other such events in the past, but everything is quicker now (was it as quick as it could have been?). The problem is that some people didn't do their job to begin with, that the book was embraced and rewarded uncritically despite the fact that it made claims that ran against the grain of previous interpretations (extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence), and now nobody wants to take responsibility for it -- it just happens, that's too bad, etc. The rush to embrace it was so headlong that even as careful a scholar as Jack Rakove, in his Chicago-Kent contribution, devoted the better part of a page to citing Bellesiles' book and claims as support for Rakove's interpretation -- and the book hadn't even been published yet, much less been subjected to the rough and tumble of post-publication review!! In fact, the Chicago-Kent Symposium was almost the Woodstock of Bellesiles amorists. One thing can be said -- he certainly gave them a "usable history".
Don Williams - 12/14/2002
eom
Don Williams - 12/14/2002
Arming America was part of a concerted campaign by a group of very prominent historians to overturn the Second Amendment in US vs Emerson. Prosecutor's brief, court briefs, amicus curiae,etc all had extensive citations to Arming America and to the predecessor article in the 1996 Journal of American History(JAH). See http://historynewsnetwork.org/articles/article.html?id=741 .
JAH is the in-house organ of the Organization of American Historians (OAH), of which I am a member. The Emory Investigation itself criticized the lack of editorial checking performed at JAH -- and one of the Emory Committee members is on the Executive Board of OAH.
The much vaunted, secretive academic "process" dragged on well past the point at which the Supreme Court received US vs Emerson. After being told for a year that we should withhold
discussion in deference to this magical process, we find that the Investigation was narrowly focused and ignored much in Arming America that is questionable. Even the area addressed by the Committee was treated in what I consider a shallow and superficial manner.
Meanwhile, the liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (federal) is citing Bellesiles in it's ruling that the Second Amendment provides only a "collective right" -- and buried deep in that ruling is the imputation that the "collective right" is obsolete today. The Ninth Circuit Court also cited the Chicago Kent law review articles --which extensively cite Bellesiles and which were the output of a Symposium -- sponsored by pro-gun control Joyce Foundation-- which was expressly called to defend the "collective right" interpretation.
Please note that if Bellesiles and his allies had been successful, gun owners would eventually be disarmed, a fundamental protection of the Constitution would be destroyed, and anyone resisting would face years in prison and loss of civil rights as a convicted felon --instead of academic censure.
It is absurd to speak of "academic freedom" when academia makes the Foucaultian move that they did in Emerson, refuses to seriously criticize, discuss, or defend Arming America when challenged, and throws Bellesiles to the wolves as they scurry back to their Ivory Towers.
Note that Arming America will be on the shelves for decades and that future Supreme Courts considering Second Amendment cases may well be swayed by the questionable history contaminating the US vs Emerson case file.
Richard Williams - 12/14/2002
"What a crock?" No. the truth. Foner's comments speak to a deeper problem in the way that the Bellesiles affair played out. The loudest and most numerous voices against Bellesiles have long complained that Bellesiles won awards because the academic community is left wing and anti-gun, a pretty sweeping and simplistic characterization, but one that perhaps has a grain of truth in it. But they have denied the reverse applied to them--Cramer and many of the other early critics were not idealistic amateurs engaged in an objective search for "the truth," but passionate advocates of gun rights, who found Bellesiles arguments threatening to their own positions. The fact that their charges of academic fraud were ultimately demonstrated to be true doesn't change this fact. The time-consuming work required to demonstrate that fraud was carried out by the long, hard work of a number of people--both amateur and professional historians and by some more committed to struggle for objectivity than others.
The non-academic critics of Bellesiles and academia wanted this whole affair to be resolved the way such conflicts are dealt with in American politics and the popular media--after enough charges and accusations pile up, the academy was supposed to quickly pressure Bellesiles to resign not on the basis of careful review of the evidence, but simply because the mounting charges were an embarassment to the academy. To their credit, Historians did not. Instead they engaged in the time-consuming search for the truth, and put together a panel of highly qualified professionals to review the evidence and draw conclusions. Their conclusion--Cramer et al were right; Bellesiles committed fraud.
Instead of praising professional historians for their commitment to finding the truth, however, these "right-wing" don't want to relinquish the myth they've depended upon so heavily--that academics are all left-wing ideologues committed to promtoing a certain agenda. So the complaint becomes two-pronged: 1) Academia should not have given Bellesiles' work awards in the first place or 2) Academia didn't act fast enough.
As to the first charge, this presents a problem (and this is not the first time this problem has occurred). How can academia offer annual awards to new books without occasionally getting it dreadfully wrong? The timetable simply doesn't allow prize committee members (busy with their own teaching responsibilities and research activities) to visit archives and check footnotes--and this is what is required to prove academic fraud. I can see no simple solution, other than issuing book awards only to ten year old books. Non-academic critics fail to understand that this problem is a fairly common one--books are published all the time with novel and sometimes radically revisionist arguments. (Most of the time the political implications of the arguments are not of the sort to draw the attention of non-academics). After a first year of positive buzz and favorable reviews, these books inspire other scholars to look at the same or similar issues. Some prove in the long run to be worthy arguments, supported by additional research, other arguments are gradually undermined and ten years later, the book is considered no longer credible. That's just the way my discipline works. I'm proud of the work of acadmeic historians not because I believe all of my peers are objective. As humans we all have our own political views and biases--but as a discipline we are by and large committed to striving for objectivity, and i think we have advanced substantially along the path toward truth in the last 100 years.
As to the second charge--that academia didn't act fast enough-- don't look to the academy for speedy results. It is our responsibility to be deliberate and careful. We are not CNN. we are not Washington-style politics. We are not the Grammys, and we are not the Miss America contest. Thank God for that!
When cooler heads prevail, I think it will be clear that academia dealt with the Bellesiles affair professionally and creditably. A conclusion that won't sit well with those who find comfort in a myth of a "left wing conspiracy" in academia. Because that myth allows them to ignore the conclusions of any scholarship that threatens their fixed world-view.
Ralph E. Luker - 12/14/2002
Friday, the 13th, was a big day for withdrawals. Cardinal Law resigned. Henry Kissinger resigned. The Bancroft Prize was revoked. Senator Lott took some viagra and vowed to persist, but the thrill is gone ...
Richard Henry Morgan - 12/14/2002
Eric Foner told the AP: "The Bancroft judges operate on a basis of trust. We assume a book published by a reputable press has gone through a process where people have checked the facts. Members of prize committees cannot be responsible for that."
What a crock.
Kasper - 12/14/2002
http://www.austin360.com/aas/life/ap/ap_story.html/Entertainment/AP.V8605.AP-Bancroft-Prize-.html
Peter Boucher - 12/12/2002
Just that Ralph has contributed a lot to this discussion, nothing more.
If you think I'm with Benny, I suggest that you read the other three posts I've made here.
Bryan Haskins - 12/12/2002
I'm sorry that I have run Mr. Smith off. I had hoped that he would stay and continue to offer us his insights, but it appears that he has moved on in search of a safer harbor to post his views. Please come back, Mr. Smith. I for one like to hear what you say even if I completely disagree with it.
I would like to thank those of you who have responded to this thread. This dialogue is exactly what I was hoping for. Mr. Duke has in my poor opinion hit the nail squarely on the head with this last post. I also believe that a review of probate records will always create an underestimation of the true number of firearms held in private possession. Like myself, I am sure that many of you have witnessed your older relatives, perhaps at a time when they know their death is near, looking back on their lives and giving away (often sentimental) items of their property to their loved ones. Such items, whether they be jewelry, antique furniture, or a gun that caused them to fondly remember a day together in the woods, are never captured in an estate inventory.
Here is another hypothetical example which shows the difficulty of accurately predicting private property ownership rates from probate records: Before I became a prosecutor I worked as a private practitioner for 5 years. In that time I drafted approximately 50 wills for various clients. Every single one of these clients drove their car to my office to execute their will. Not a single one of them asked me to include the car in their will as a specific bequest to a loved one. In fact, my experience in dealing with estates has shown that many people will often give their car to a relative or sell it when they realize that their death is near. 200 years from now someone may review the probate records which accompany the wills I drafted and come to the conclusion that cars were actually very rare in late 20th. Century America. Imagine the press such a book would generate! The sympathetic headlines would read thus: “The myth of America’s great love affair with the automobile has been brilliantly exposed!” Such a startling revision of popular history would undoubtedly be challenged, however, and the author may feel that he is being persecuted/ridiculed for his conclusions. Still, he would have a tempting scapegoat for the volume of criticism leveled at him. After all, he could easily blame the “witch hunt” against him on the evil propaganda spewed forth by the right wing American Automobile Association and its allies….
Frank A. Baldridge - 12/11/2002
Excuse me Mr. Boucher, but what exactly does this have to do with Michael Bellesiles? Do you know Benny?
Peter Boucher - 12/11/2002
Basil Duke - 12/10/2002
Your research into the Sacramento shooters bears out something I mentioned many months ago when debating the Bellesiles situation: To wit, firearms traditionally are passed from one generation to another without the transferral finding its way into the legal proceedings. Basically a "when I die, the .20 Ithica is yours, son." A good friend's father is a case in point. He owned more firearms than anyone of my personal acquaintance, and yet his will didn't mention so much as a pea shooter. Upon the man's death, every one of his guns were dispersed to sons, daughters and grandchildren, as per his oral instructions. And yet, were a Bellesiles to stumble across his probate papers, he would be classified as having owned no firearms of any kind. The reliance on probate records as a means of assigning gun ownership totals to a particular population group always struck me as nonsensical.
Basil Duke - 12/10/2002
This exchange with Benny should serve as a warning to anyone tempted to discuss the history of firearms ownership in the United States. On the one hand, we have Mr. Haskins, who thoughtfully expresses his views on the subject and solicits the opinions of others on same. On the other, we have Benny, who, other than sneering at Haskins for being gainfully employed and having the ability to compose lucid posts, claims all of the drama swirling about Arming America is a sham because, well, because the NRA has an axe to grind. And anyone who agrees with the NRA is a rightwing nut. So there.
I agree with Mr. Haskins on the 'meaning' of the Second Amendment, so I'll not go into it. But when Arming America first came out to such wild acclaim from the Bennys and the rest of the 'better angels' of the world, I instinctively caught a nostril full of that bad hay Haskins mentioned earlier. The interior of the North American continent, circa '1700s, was by and large one huge expanse of settler-killing dangers - American Indians, carnivorous panthers and bears, sociopathic fellow settlers, etc. To think that the westward movement through Kentucky, Tennessee, Illinois and thither across the Mississippi was accomplished by a hardy pack of settlers who brought with them nothing but candle molds, a loom and the stray broken axe was clearly ludicrous. It was a violent world that was circumvented largely at the end of a flintlock musket. Anyone with a basic knowledge of America's late 18th/early 19th century history understood this. A cursory review of Lewis & Clark's journals is an excellent case in point. Embarked on the ultimate recon patrol, the explorers were understandably obsessed with two central matters: defending themselves against any dangers they might encounter and killing enough wild game to supplement the crudely preserved food stores they brought with them on the flatboat and piroques. Both were accomplished not with the family Bible, nor with good intentions - but with those dreadful guns that Bellesiles couldn't seem to find. The swarm of settlers who followed in the Corps of Discovery's wake were no different. Couldn't have been, or so it seemed to me at that first thought.
From this perspective, and having observed the almost frantically giddy approval that instantly greeted Arming America from all the usual 'progressive' types, my non-PhD'd brain screamed 'foul.' Almost makes me glad I never did get that doctorate.
Frank A. Baldridge - 12/9/2002
So who is this Benny Smith guy? How does academical freedom mean the freedom to lie? Maybe Benny can come up with some data to substantiate Bellesille's claims. Get to work Benny, and check back when you grow up.
Frank A. Baldridge - 12/7/2002
Personally, I fail to understand how being a professional historian makes an individual crediable. As Mr. Wood pointed out the history profession is full of individuals short on knowledge and long on agenda. In many respects Bellesiles sins are no worse than those committed by Gray Brechin in Imperial San Francisco, J. M. Faragher in Women and Men on the Oregon Trail, or Linda Gordon in the Great Arizona Orphan Abduction (which also won a Bancroft). All misquote and misrepresent sources in order to agrue a politically correct agenda. But mainly they are books us graduate students are forced to buy and read, and go un-noted by the general masses. Basically Bellesiles erred when he picked a "hot-button" issue and assummed the general public was as lacking in knowledge, and as unable to detect a politcal agenda, as the editor and referees of his journal article. We could all have been better served by the OAH.
As a professional historian, I increasingly take pride in the fact that I obtained my degrees in science. Most graduate courses in history are nothing more than an introduction to neo-marxist polemic, and most historians have little concept of what quantatitive studies are all about.
On the subject of Bellesiles thesis, I have studied the history of firearms in California for the past six years. They were abundant here amoung the "Anglo" population before the Gold Rush, and gunsmiiths were numerous in that period. Most were immigrants whose artisan skills allowed them to escape the Industrial Revolution. Germans were important and played a large role in that profession and the western expansion. Their schutzen socities were much more prominent than the NRA, which was not prominent at all until the 1930s. I could go on, but will leave with the observation that after documenting regular gun use at trapshooting events over 20 (1870-1900) years by about 40 residents of Sacramento, according to probates only one had "firearms ($125 worth)." I guess everyone else was using his gun?
Part of what I am trying to say is that Bellesiles also deficated on the goals of the "new social history" to examine the roles of immigrants and the "little people," and abused history to argue a political agenda. But he was probably let go because his ability to obtain grants was diminished, which is really what being a professional historian is all about.
Richard Henry Morgan - 12/6/2002
I saw a C_SPAN program a few years back where Justice Thomas was addressing the annual meeting of the circuit he supervises, and he made a joke about the reversal rate of the 9th circuit (it was something like 30 out of 33 cases that year) and the judges there all laughed. The 9th isn't just such a joke that the Repubs want to break it in two, but Reinhardt has a reputation as the loopiest of the group. I just read Cramer's posting, via instapundit.com, and quelle surprise(!!), Bellesiles butchered another quote. I think this was just Reinhardt's way of sending one back at the 5th circuit. Judicial conservatism would have demanded that the 9th Circuit take the easy way out -- the Supreme Court has never ruled that the Second Amendment is incorporated, via the 14th, as a restriction on state action.
I also remember a few years back, the California ACLU and other plaintiffs, in the wake of the California Anti-Affirmative Action proposition passing, went forum shopping. The proposition, being state law, they went and found a senior federal judge(!), a former head of the California ACLU himself, who took the case out of the random assignment hopper for himself, to issue a restraining order on enforcement of the proposition, pending a full hearing. The standard for issuance of a restraining order is both likely damage if not restrained, and a likeliness to win the case on the merits. To get to the federal courts right off the bat, the plaintiffs had to argue that the ant-discrimination proposition was itself discriminatory!! This little trip into Wonderland was rewarded with a restraining order. The state appealled the restraining order, and a three judge Circuit panel not only lifted the restraining order, they were so outraged by the machinations of the senior judge that they ruled on the underlying matter, holding that "the Constitution hardly demands what it barely prermits" (speaking of affirmative action).
Richard Henry Morgan - 12/6/2002
Bryan,
all you had to do was go to the Emory Wheel boards to discover that Benny never engages in debate. Like Bernstein, he wishes to discuss everything but the merits of the case. He drops by just long enough to drop a verbal bomb, and then off he goes.
Rick Schwartz - 12/6/2002
The 9th Circuit Court, in its absolutly laughable Silveira vs. Lockyer ruling handed down yesterday, referenced Bellesiles' "Gun Control: A Historical Overview."
The Court found "...the Second Amendment does not confer an individual right to own or possess arms..." The opinion is found at:
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/661116A4ECB1A7BE88256C8600544DCB/$file/0115098.pdf?openelement
Thank God they are the most overturned Circuit Court.
Bryan Haskins - 12/6/2002
I am sorry that I ever brought up the subject of my employment, because your intense fascination with discerning my work habits has merely served to distract your attention away from my message. Let me begin with this and get it out of the way: I prosecute in Pittsylvania County, Virginia. My wife prosecutes in the neighboring jurisdiction of Halifax County, Virginia. Yes, we often bring our work home. I do take my time writing these messages because I believe only fools open their mouths without having first thought about what they wish to say. My daily work schedule is filled with too many interruptions for me to compose these “lengthy” posts there. I do post these messages at work because I have T1 net access there, while the crappy rural phone lines here at my house limit me to the excruciatingly slow speed of dial-up 28.8 with frequent drop-offs. I have read the suppositions that you are in reality Professor Bellesiles. I don’t know if you are or not, but it is a fascinating question. Are you really Professor Bellesiles? If you are, then we share something in common. As Chuck Heston has said in a quote much-maligned by (your?) supporters, you have “too much time on [your] hands” while according to you I also have “a lot of time on [my] hands.” In my defense I will say that I don’t watch much TV at night, and this certainly beats “Survivor” in my book.
I realize that you feel yourself to be the “voice crying in the wilderness” here. It was for this reason that I took the extraordinary step of offering you my e-mail address so we could take the discussion private. I am sorry that you have decided to shy away from my offer to engage in a serious debate over the merits of Arming America. Although I realize that it is beyond each of our abilities to change the other’s viewpoint on these matters, I assure you that I did look forward to a civil discourse with you on the subject you have suggested we focus upon. It may be that you feel me to be unqualified. I agree that I cannot count myself among the class of “prominent professional historians” whom you feel are the only oracles capable of divining what is true and what is false in Arming America. Yet I would feel ashamed to count myself among those who through lack of intellect must patiently wait at the foot of Mount Olympus for the professionals to tell me how to think.
I am also afraid you missed the point I tried to make with my “prosecute the devil” quote. The point was that you have to accept what is true regardless of whom you hear it from. As I have previously said, it is human nature for people to make up their minds too quickly. It is also a part of human nature to later refuse to admit when you are wrong. People who fall prey to these human weaknesses can be described as ideologues, and for any important issue they will exist on both sides of the spectrum. For persons with this mindset, the truth is enslaved by ideology, and nothing may interfere with the position adopted. Anything which contradicts the position taken must be a lie, and is best ignored. If it cannot be ignored, then it is to be attacked as a partisan lie. The “demonize the messenger” tactic which you so correctly complain of is derived from the face-saving necessity to support ideology over objective truth. Examples of this tactic include the following: “the gun lobby’s mindset in driving this witch hunt,” and “the sideshow being produced by the gun lobby, right wing dogmatizers and a scant few others who, for whatever reason, are carrying out their own personal vendettas.” These statements are the exact opposite of the directive to “focus on the message, don’t demonize the messenger.”
I was so hopeful that we could have turned the debate away from “demonization,” and I am afraid that I must accept some of the blame for the failure to realize this dream. My first post on this thread was an attempt to use humor to make my point, but it apparently contained too much sarcasm to be viewed in the innocent light it was intended. I am sorry if any of my previous words have offended you, Mr. Smith. That was never my intention. I am equally sorry that I have failed to draw you out into an open and civil debate. It appears that all my efforts have been in vain, and have served to merely drive you further into the shadows from which you choose to snipe at those who do not share your ideology.
Peter Boucher - 12/5/2002
"While Mr. Haskins asks me not to demonize Professor Bellesile’s critics, even casual observers will find those who are demonizing Bellesiles are not prominent professional historians. Instead, they are Second Amendment fundamentalists, right wing zealots, and a few others with their own axe to grind."
Bellesiles' employer wanted to get rid of an award-winning professor because Emory University is run by Second Amendment fundamentalists, right wing zealots, and a few others with their own axe to grind.
Thus, they chose an "impartial" panel that was actually composed of Second Amendment fundamentalists, right wing zealots, and a few others with their own axe to grind.
Liberal gun-control supporters such as Lindgren and Roth are in actuality Second Amendment fundamentalists, right wing zealots, and a few others with their own axe to grind.
Wake up and smell the Postum, Mr. Smith.
Benny Smith - 12/5/2002
Maybe I have mischaracterized Mr. Haskins posts here. When he said he was composing his responses at his desk while viewing evidence from a murder, I assumed he meant he was at work. Apparently he had taken these photos home with him to view, composed his response to me there as well, then returned to work to log into his computer and then send his response. My mistake. I apologize.
Mr. Haskins has summed up the Bellesiles debacle very succinctly in my view though probably without meaning to. His statement "if you want to prosecute the devil, then you’ve got to go to hell to find witnesses" could very well describe the gun lobby’s mindset in driving this witch hunt. While Mr. Haskins asks me not to demonize Professor Bellesile’s critics, even casual observers will find those who are demonizing Bellesiles are not prominent professional historians. Instead, they are Second Amendment fundamentalists, right wing zealots, and a few others with their own axe to grind.
They also have a lot of time on their hands, as Mr. Haskins’ lengthy posts will attest. And they feel the proper forums for deliberating academic works like Arming America are chatrooms, message boards and web sites like this one where strong lobbies such as the NRA can win consensus by numbers rather than reason, relevant academic credentials and scholarly research. If Mr. Haskins or another critic feels he has the evidence to prove that early America was populated with the Davy Crocketts and Daniel Boones that we often see portrayed by Hollywood, then let him write the definitive book. I won’t be drawn here into listening to yet another series of unqualified attacks on Arming America in the interests of ‘exchanging views.’ There has been more than enough hateful personal attacks directed against Professor Bellesiles and his family in the interests of ‘exchanging views.’
Bud Wood - 12/5/2002
Is not this Internet communication mechanism a truely great medium? These back and forth comments are fascinating. But I fail to see the big deal; Bellesiles is certainly not unique in "cooking the books", so to speak. Seems to me that these things are signs of the times; relax and be entertained.
Thomas L. Spencer - 12/5/2002
Mr.Smith, or whoever you are:
GET A LIFE! I'm a registered Democrat, voted for Bill Clinton twice, and can see through Bellesiles. His book/thesis is about as phoney as a $3 bill. You are raising non-issues here. GROW UP!
Bryan Haskins - 12/4/2002
If you do not believe that I am what I claim to be then just say so and I will provide you with ample proof, but please do not try to suggest that I am neglecting my duties by posting these messages. I compose these messages at night on my own time, and I post them whenever I have a chance to log on at work. I have not sought to “demonize” you as you believe that others have already done, and I will accept any assertion from you that the false patronization with which you have opened your last two postings on this site is not an attempt to “demonize” me. I also don’t view my previous response to your posts as an “interrogatory,” for I readily agree that I cannot have you held in contempt for refusing to answer my questions.
I agree with you this time, Mr. Smith. We should “focus on the message” and not “demonize the messenger.” I agree with your criticism that I have not focused enough on your message. Additionally, I believe that you should focus on the messages provided by Professor Bellesiles’ critics instead of dismissing them outright by stereotyping them as members of “the gun lobby and its allies” or “those with an axe to grind.” I have learned that people with an “axe to grind” can still tell the truth. When we catch a street level crack dealer selling a $20 rock to an undercover informant we often attempt to turn him “state’s evidence” and use him to catch the bigger fish that are his suppliers. Defense attorney’s love to argue that I want to put their “big fish” client in prison based solely on the word of “a confessed crack dealer.” My response typically is “if you want to prosecute the devil, then you’ve got to go to hell to find witnesses.” The point of the matter is you have to take the witness as you find him or her. Yes, it is perfectly legitimate to inquire whether they are biased or have an “axe to grind,” but you cannot dismiss their evidence merely because you question their motives for coming forward. If they have lied, then it should be easy to prove their lies. But if in spite of their bias they have told the truth, then you have to accept it. This is a fundamental concept in criminal law, and I believe it applies equally to the current debate over Arming America.
Yet another concept that applies equally to the current debate is this: “a bad lie is often better than a good confession.” Confessions are frequently little more than exculpatory statements that minimize a person’s involvement. “I participated in the robbery, but all I did was act as lookout.” “I hit my wife, but only after she threatened to cut me with a knife.” Getting caught in an outright lie is a far more damaging prospect, for once you catch a man lying about any aspect of his case his credibility is irrevocably shattered. In my opinion this truism applies equally to Professor Bellesiles’ predicament, and it is for this reason I cannot ignore the “soap opera of who said what to whom, when, where and why.” In my world this “soap opera” comprises the crucible within which I am able to divide what is true from what is false. I am prepared to accept whoever tells the truth regardless of their motive for doing so. Similarly, I will view with caution explanations offered by those whom I believe have already been caught lying. I believe that Professor Bellesiles has been so caught, and I simply cannot place any further confidence in his “prolix, confusing, evasive and occasionally contradictory” answers to his critics.
Now I do not believe that by saying this I have broken out my crayons and drawn horns on Professor Bellesiles’ head. I am not capable of hating someone whom I have never met and who has never attacked me. I am, however, capable of deciding whether I trust such a person based on their previous statements. Therefore, this is not “hate filled rhetoric” or an attempt at “demonization” directed at Professor Bellesiles. It is merely my poor view of his veracity, or, more appropriately, his lack thereof in his handling of this “sordid affair.”
Nevertheless, it is time, as you correctly suggest, to “focus on the message.” In a previous posting (tempest in a teapot) I attempted to turn this debate away from Professor Bellesiles’ integrity and towards the larger issues surrounding gun control. I am glad, Mr. Smith, to read that you offer to join me in this quest with your assertion that the “theses advanced by Bellesile's Arming America should be the focus.” I believe that a discussion of his thesis must necessarily involve a discussion of whether or not you believe the thesis is correct. Why don’t we then set aside the author and discuss, as a starting point, whether we believe in the “theses advanced by Bellesile's Arming America?” I’ll tell you again how I feel, and you tell me how you feel. From there we can proceed to provide our reasons for why we believe/disbelieve Arming America’s theory. I think we can do this amicably, without you having to resort to calling me a “right wing extremist gun nut,” and without me having to stoop to calling you a “misguided gun grabbing fool.” We may even be able to encourage others to join us in a civil debate of these issues. Now how can you say no to that?
Benny Smith - 12/3/2002
Although I appreciate Mr. Haskins once again setting aside his criminal prosecutorial work to compose a prolonged interrogatory to my post, his efforts are a bit misguided. My views of Emory University's kangaroo court are not the issue. I am not the issue. In fact, neither is Professor Bellesiles. The theses advanced by Bellesile's Arming America should be the focus and would be if it were not for the sideshow being produced by the gun lobby, right wing dogmatizers and a scant few others who, for whatever reason, are carrying out their own personal vendettas. NRA members like yourself might be entertained by the academic soap opera of who said what to whom, when, where and why. But none of that proves anything. It does, however, serve to fuel the flames of intellectual demonization, which is really what this sad, sordid affair has become.
Bryan Haskins - 12/3/2002
If I understand you correctly, Mr. Smith, the only fault you can allege with the Emory report is the use of the phrase “does move into the realm of falsification.” Do you then accept the remainder of the report, or do you still suggest that it is the byproduct of some as yet uncovered bias or subtle coercion? I will answer your one complaint with my own opinion of that quote. I view this quote as a politically correct way of calling Professor Bellesiles a liar. Additionally, you seem to completely accept his claim that Emory has become a “hostile” work environment. I repeat my question to you: Can you name anyone who can affirm his claim?
I have listened to the myriad and “contradictory” explanations Professor Bellesiles has offered for the problems with his work, and I find them lacking the ring of truth. When he got caught lying about the San Francisco records, he could not resist taking a parting shot at the Contra Costa History Center. That organization then posted their response proving his lies about his claimed research with that facility. The e-mail controversy with Mr. Lindgren is yet another example. Mr. Lindgren claimed to possess an e-mail from Professor Bellesiles which contradicted his then current assertions regarding a portion of his research. Bellesiles promptly claimed that the e-mail was a forgery. Many people may have originally bitten on Bellesiles’ forgery claim because they believed that Mr. Lindgren had a personal motive to attack Professor Bellesiles. However, Lindgren was able in response to cite the reader to an earlier, recorded radio interview in which Bellesiles admitted sending the e-mail he subsequently claimed was forged. Now I have prosecuted rapists who have at first sworn that “I did not have sex with that woman,” and later claimed “Oh, so you matched my DNA to the seminal fluid found on the victim. Well then, I did not rape her, she consented to have sex with me.” Forgive me if I sound cynical, but I have found that Professor Bellesiles’ “contradictory” answers follow a strikingly similar pattern. You will no doubt assert that it is my NRA induced bias which leads me to this conclusion.
However, bias is not something that is conferred upon a man when he joins an organization. It is not like a cloak or a secret handshake. When I joined the NRA about 4 years ago I received a hat, some firearms theft insurance, and a magazine subscription. No one gave me a bias injection as a new member. My worldview had been shaped long before. The capacity for bias exists within all of us, Mr. Smith, and it is impossible to resist. We humans simply hate to sit on the fence. Take college basketball, for example. If you watch late night TV you will eventually see a game between two schools you have never heard of. I promise that within 5 minutes you and everyone else will have chosen sides and begun pulling for one team over the other. That subtle bias will then influence your view of how the officials are calling the fouls. This is why attorneys are taught that the opening statement is the most important stage of a trial, because it is a proven fact that jury members are already looking to take sides at this early stage.
Similarly, I am not a member of any political party, but I will assure you that I have a personal bias towards many political issues like health care, environmentalism, and yes, firearms ownership. Nevertheless, you seek to equate your lack of membership in any gun advocacy organization with a lack of personal bias. Behold, a man in who there is no guile! I am not so blissfully free of the ravages of intelligence to believe that. Even your choice of language belies your assertion of neutrality. For example, your use of the phrase “the gun lobby and its allies” mirrors the language used in press releases from the Brady Campaign and Violence Policy Center. Doesn’t your use of their labels suggest that you are sympathetic with their views? Surely you have your own personal views on these matters. You do a fine job attacking the views of the “gun lobby,” but you and I both know it is far easier to attack than to defend. What are your core beliefs on the issue of private firearms ownership in America? I believe that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, and I am prepared to defend that view. How do you view the Amendment? I believe that, contrary to Professor Bellesiles’ assertions, firearms were plentiful in early America. What do you believe about this issue? Does Arming America ring true with what you already believed about firearms ownership? I note that you are in a distinct minority on this site. If you feel uncomfortable discussing your views here, then my private e-mail is haskman@earthlink.net. I do not seek to condemn you, Mr. Smith. I merely want to understand what drives you to remain so steadfast to Professor Bellesiles and the theory his work represents in spite of the evidence against both him and it.
Wm Whitelaw - 11/30/2002
Having slogged through damn near every word written on this topic since the book made its baleful appearance, I'm fairly certain that Bellisles wouldn't have confused "reek" (as in "... seek to reek havoc ...", from Smith's post of November 26, 2002, 9:22 PM) with the appropriate homonym "wreak." And I don't think B. is quite crafty enough to have inserted that in the cause of misdirection. He's a facile writer but, as we all know by now, not a very convincing liar. So I tentatively conclude that Smith is genuine, and an obtuse loon in his own right.
G. Swanson - 11/28/2002
You can bet that, if (when?) Columbia University revokes the Bancroft Prize, thus bringing the Arming America dispute to a final end, Benny Smith will say that Columbia caved to the pressure of the NRA.
What Benny fails to see is that it is the gun lobby's opposition that was Bellesiles's strongest card to play on his behalf (it certainly convinced people like Benny not to look at the evidence). Bellesiles had no facts, so all he could do was appeal to people's prejudices. There are always a few dupes only too happy to think that the Columbia University history department, which probably doesn't have a single conservative on the faculty, would cave to the NRA because of emails to the administration. I suspect that Benny Smith hasn't spent much time hanging around Ivy League history departments or he would know how ridiculous his claims are.
As for the gun lovers, save your time spent emailing Columbia. They will pull the prize (or not) based on their reading of the merits.
Dave LaCourse - 11/28/2002
After reviewing this board, the Emory Wheel Board, as well as many others, I can only conclude that Michael Bellesiles, like his daughter, has changed his name. Michael Bellesiles is now Benny Smith.
This seems a likely explanation for Benny's blind love of the "work" of Bellesiles, without providing ANY evidence his critics are wrong. In fact, he refuses to divulge his research into the Bellesiles mess (other than google searches), much as Bellesiles refused to (or couldn’t) provide his AA sources. But if Benny is not Bellesiles, then certainly he is the president and founding member of the shrinking Bellesiles fan club.
As for my credentials, Benny, you show everyone else yours, and then they’ll show you theirs. Why should I believe your opinion supporting Bellesiles is so right, while all the academics fleeing his position are somehow mistaken? Why are book reviewers now recanting or ducking questions on Bellesiles?
The “gun huggers” have a good webpage showing much of the Bellesiles debate in chronological order here: http://www.saf.org/pub/rkba/general/GunsInEarlyAmerica.htm
Remember, it is far better to be silent and thought an idiot than repeatedly open your mouth and end all doubt. Blindly following Bellesiles into the abyss could look much worse for you if the Bancroft Award is revoked.
I personally think it will be revoked, and if you aren’t Michael, then I expect a better explanation than the “NRA won” at that point. Face facts, if the anti-gunners like YOU could save Bellesiles with evidence in support of his thesis, they would have already done so.
Sincerely,
Dave LaCourse
Benny Smith - 11/27/2002
I appreciate that a busy chief assistant prosecutor like Mr. Haskins takes time away from pursuing criminals to compose a lengthy response to my post here. But yes, Mr. Haskins, as someone who is not a member of any gun advocacy group, I can make my own judgments regarding the Bellesiles affair without ideological bias. And, no I didn't appreciate the tenor nor the adversarial tone of Emory's independent committee's report. Although they were hamstrung by the unusually rigid and narrow charge given them by Emory, their efforts do not reflect the integrity and demeanor I would expect of professors with such credentials. " . . . does move into the realm of 'falsification'" is a phrase I would expect to find in a Lewis Carroll story rather than in a scholarly investigative report, one which appears to have been hastily compiled as well. Perhaps, asking a group of academicians to conduct a serious inquiry at the end of the academic year is like assigning a college student a serious task the week of Christmas.
But my issues here have more to do with the vile, hateful nature of the rhetoric which is personally directed at Professor Bellesiles and has no place at all anywhere. And Mr. Haskins' failure to criticize or distance himself from it puts him on the same philosophical plane as those extremists who vent nothing but personal attack based upon ideological bias.
Benny Smith - 11/27/2002
Yes, I do believe Bellesile's statements of threats and harrassment. If you had done any independent research instead of responding so quickly with typical gun lobby boilerplate, then you might have learned about the Indiana elementary schoolteacher who recently was driven out of her position by gun lobby threats and harrassment. That after an article appeared in an NRA periodical that was critical of an assignment she gave on the Second Amendment. She is now suing the NRA for slander.
Bryan Haskins - 11/27/2002
Mr. Smith, you had asked in an earlier response for those of us in this lynch mob to declare just what our credentials are. In that response you imply that our views are worthless because, unlike Mr. Bellesiles, we do not have the academic awards to prove otherwise. I say again this:
You cannot have it both ways, Mr. Smith. You cannot credibly ignore us by claiming that we are not notable scholars and yet refuse to accept the judgment of those who are merely because your own bias prevents you from doing so. Now I would assume that those chosen by Emory to conduct the investigation into Arming America could provide you with their "degrees earned, papers presented, scholarly articles published" etc. Additionally, no one as of yet has suggested that they are guilty of harboring any bias. Why will you not accept their "qualified opinion?" Do you consider them part of the “lynch mob?”
I am certainly not a scholar of early American history. I am, however, the chief assistant prosecutor in my jurisdiction, and I regularly deal with gun violence crimes. I have prosecuted several murders that did and did not involve the use of a firearm. On my desk as I write this lie several pictures of our latest capital murder victim, who was shot 5 times at a distance of less than 6 feet with #8 shot from a 12 gauge shotgun. I wrote the grant that obtained federal funding for a new prosecutor in our office to target gun crime. I could be a poster child (if I weren't so ugly) for gun control if I wanted to be. Yet my own poor opinion leads me to believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms. I will not ask you what your credentials are, because I have learned in my profession that every opinion counts. I do not count the sheepskins on a person’s wall before I decide what credit I will attribute to their opinion. To think otherwise is to conform to a sense of elitism which suggests that you cannot possibly be as smart or a discerning as I am because you don’t have the degrees that I have earned.
I assure you sir that I am NOT a participant of a lynch mob merely because I am an NRA member who has spoken my own belief on the worthlessness of “Arming America” and the lack of veracity contained in the several defenses proffered by its author. The NRA has not called me and said: “Bryan, I am your father, join with me and together we will rule the galaxy. The Emperor, Charlton Heston, has foreseen this. It is your destiny.” I’m sorry guys, I missed the order that was issued by Charlton Heston requiring us to coerce the Bancroft Committee into retracting the award give to Mr. Bellesiles. The NRA must have deleted my e-mail address from the secret gun lobby lynch mob list.
Now I may be wrong, Mr. Smith, but I do believe that NRA has not cut a back room deal with Emory to fund a new classroom building in return for the censure of Mr. Bellesiles. It has not paid for the University’s investigation. It has not paid off those who conducted the investigation. It does not maintain a slush fund to finance the student editors of the Emory Wheel in the performance of their admirable investigative work proving the lies of Mr. Bellesiles. Nevertheless, Mr. Bellesiles suggests that Emory is now a “hostile” work environment. Can you name a single person who either works for or attends the university who will affirm this claim?
I recognize that there are many who remain steadfast to Mr. Bellesiles. I have read what they publish, and I have concluded that they ignore anything which is critical of his work. As soon as they see something which takes this tack they slam the book shut and refuse to read further. They do so because they choose to place their own political bias above the truth, and they believe that any truth which disputes their world view is to be either suppressed or ridiculed. Their reaction is as instinctive as the dismissive snort you get from a horse that has just smelled what it thinks is bad hay. I trust that you are not one of these individuals, Mr. Smith. Yes, perhaps I am as guilty of stereotyping them as you are of us. However, I read everything I can find on this issue, and I recognize how my own bias acts as a filter for the information I see. Do you recognize your own bias, Mr. Smith?
G. Swanson - 11/27/2002
If Columbia pulls the Bancroft Prize, you don't really think it will be because some gun-huggers on some website are sending emails to the Columbia administration, do you? Columbia would like nothing better than to thumb its nose at the NRA--they did it by awarding the prize in the first place. If they pull the prize, it will be because the book merits it being pulled. You obviously don't understand how academics works and who sits on these faculties and boards of trustees. That they would be influenced by emails from a gunsite is absolutely ridiculous.
You don't really believe that personal safety nonsense, do you? Bellesiles has never denied stories that he moved from Atlanta before the book came out, not after. You are just one of the many dupes of Michael Bellesiles. Two of the supposed harassment stories have already been debunked--the office door on fire story and the hacking his website story--now it is the moving story.
Last, you don't really believe that his daughter changed her name for personal safety reasons, do you? Given that several of the harassment stories are fabricated, a much simpler explanation is that she is ashamed of her father and knows his strengths and weaknesses a lot better than you do. That is very sad, but it is not a reason for you to continue your nonsense and abuse.
Just like the rabid anti-Bellesiles crowd on HNN needs to do (and are not doing), it is time for you to grow up and move on.
Benny Smith - 11/27/2002
As the gun lobby continues to fan anti-Bellisiles hysteria, the decision by the Organization of American Historians to sit back, take a deep breath, and see the bigger picture is refreshing. What they may find is that this intellectual lynch mob mentality is not serving the best interests of scholarship. When internet gossip replaces research, the truth is lost. When hate-filled rhetoric replaces reason, the truth is lost. And when a gun lobby’s website such as this one: http://keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=3522
demands that Columbia University revoke the Bancroft prize it bestowed upon Bellesiles and gives readers a vehicle to e-mail University administration to lobby that this is done . . . not only is the truth lost, but academic freedom is severely threatened as well.
I don’t expect those with an axe to grind will relinquish their attacks upon Bellesiles. They may have contributed to the hostile atmosphere at Emory University that brought about his resignation. Or they may have been the reason his daughter was forced to legally change her name. But when misguided ill will drives such a debate as this, reason and compassion become the casualties. I hope Columbia will follow the lead of the Organization of American Historians and put some distance between itself and the mindless political forces that would seek to reek havoc on free-thinking academics.
Richard Henry Morgan - 11/26/2002
I'll check out the 'Magic History' paper. Should be fun. As somebody once said, "Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, ...
Richard Henry Morgan - 11/26/2002
Thanks Clayton. I just read your web site at the points specified, and it confirmed some of my suspicions (as you point out, it doesn't look like he actually read the Virginia statutes in question). I think you might profit by comparing the citations of Hening's statutes in AA, Bellesiles' 1998 article in the Law and History Review (available through the e-library at UPenn -- just put "electronic journals" in your search engine), and in Malcolm's To Keep and Bear Arms, from 1994. I'd be interested to hear what you think.
Bryan Haskins - 11/25/2002
You cannot have it both ways, Mr. Smith. You cannot credibly ignore us by claiming that we are not notable scholars and yet refuse to accept the judgment of those who are merely because your own bias prevents you from doing so. Now I would assume that those chosen by Emory to conduct the investigation into Arming America could provide you with their "degrees earned, papers presented, scholarly articles published" etc. Additionally, no one as of yet has suggested that they are guilty of harboring any bias. Why will you not accept their "qualified opinion?"
I am certainly not a scholar of early American history. I am, however, the chief assistant prosecutor in my jurisdiction, and I regularly deal with gun violence crimes. I have prosecuted several murders that did and did not involve the use of a firearm. On my desk as I write this lie several pictures of our latest capital murder victim, who was shot 5 times at a distance of less than 6 feet with #8 shot from a 12 gauge shotgun. I wrote the grant that obtained federal funding for a new prosecutor in our office to target gun crime. I could be a poster child (if I weren't so ugly) for gun control if I wanted to be. Yet my own poor opinion leads me to believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms. I will not ask you what your credentials are, because I have learned in my profession that every opinion counts. I do not count the sheepskins on a person’s wall before I decide what credit I will attribute to their opinion. To think otherwise is to conform to a sense of elitism which suggests that you cannot possibly be as smart or a discerning as I am because you don’t have the degrees that I have.
I started this thread because I believe that the debate over Arming America has led us down a rabbit trail away from the real issues at hand: Does the Second Amendment guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms? What is the scope of that right? What authority, if any, does the Federal government possess to restrict that right? What factors cause a sane person to shoot someone else? Does the mere presence of a firearm cause gun violence? Are the methods currently used to deter gun violence successful? Are there other methods that would help prevent gun crime? If there is anyone in this thread (including you, Mr. Smith) who has the courage and the desire to amicably discuss these issues, then here is my e-mail: haskman@earthlink.net
Thomas Gunn - 11/25/2002
11-25-2002 1305
John, that is the one I have for you from a link to your gig guest spot in PRC
thomas
Thomas Gunn - 11/25/2002
11-25-2002 1245
Hi Derek,
"As it is these discussion lists [can] become a giant time-suck . . ."
Even antagonist can agree occasionally! I'm on vacation though.
thomas
John G. Fought - 11/25/2002
You can email me at jgfought@earthlink.net to start with. It's an old account, and if it gets messed up by unwelcome correspondence I'll just change it. That address is also on my old 'Magic History' paper about Bellesiles posted on guncite.com in the Second Amendment section (shameless plug for both). I think I'm still the only one to have wondered how he made all the 'Germans' disappear from American history.
Clayton E. Cramer - 11/25/2002
I have quite a collection of Virginia militia statutes up on my web site at http://www.claytoncramer.com/primary.html#MilitiaLaws.
Thomas Gunn - 11/25/2002
11-25-2002 1215
Richard,
My memeory is not what it used to be. I was sure I recalled John's email in the bio under his name in the articles posted here at HNN. I am apparently mistaken. I have an email for him if he is still doing a guest spot.
"research is so much easier when someone else has done the heavy lifting, isn't it (I guess that applies as much to me as Bellesiles)?"
That is why Bellesiles' book is so insidious. It will be used as a source for years to come and the truth about his mass of lies will be obscured.
I look forward to the article you are preparing for HNN. Amazingly, even when one recognizes the techniques (rhetorical) how it is to pass right over them.
Re your thoughts on "peer review", both Columbia and OAH are examining how Bellesiles "slipped through the cracks". It's kinda funny to see the anti-rightser's scratching their collective heads over one of their own lying to them. I hope Derek doesn't get into another huff over my characterization.
Re the conspiracy to "paper the Law Review", I've seen that mentioned before. There is a problem from the collectivist POV. Much of the individual rights interpretation "papering" is coming from avowed gun controllers.
thomas
Ralph E. Luker - 11/25/2002
Mr. Morgan,
Your report of Montesquieu's uses of "necessary evil" is correct, as I recall, but he was widely read by the founding fathers. Whether Paine read M or not, I'm not sure, but it may be known and it is entirely possible that a writer recognizes a useful concept such as "necessary evil" and applies it to other subjects. The notion was commonly invoked in writing about slavery, for example, and the relevance of "natural rights" is fairly obvious there.
Richard Henry Morgan - 11/25/2002
The three contexts from Montesquieu that mention 'necessary' and 'evil' in a related manner, even when not contiguous, speak of, respectively, contradictory decrees, eunuchs, and hospitals, rather than government and natural rights. Paine would seem the source of inspiration, but I thank you again for a great resource.
Richard Henry Morgan - 11/25/2002
I'm back from a very satisfying sojourn in the land of the Buckeyes. I hadn't meant to suggest that Wills had plagiarized an expression (can one plagiarize a two-word expression in common use?), only that it certainly wouldn't serve his purpose to relate his title to Thomas Paine (and thereby grant it some authority, of sorts), as Wills believes that government is not a necessary evil, but a necessary good. In fact, he views the "necessary evil" thesis as a misunderstanding of Locke and his view of the relation of legitimate government to natural rights. Given the very specific context of Wills' remarks, I'm fairly certain that Paine is the inspiration, but I'll have to study Montesquieu more before I'm sure. Thanks for the heads up, Mr. Luker, on concordance.com.
As for Virginia statutes, I had come across a quote useful to semantic analysis of a term from one statute in Bellesiles' Law and History Review article of 1998, entitled Gun Laws in Early America: the Regulation of Firearms Ownership, 1607-1794.
I'm stuck in the sticks, more than 100 miles from the nearest research library, and had trouble getting on inter-library loan William W. Hening's The Statutes at Large, Being a Collection of All the Laws of Virginia. And at this point, I'd be more than a little foolish to accept a Bellesiles source at face value, wouldn't I? Then I remembered that Joyce Malcolm had quoted much from this source back in her 1994 book, To Keep and Bear Arms: the Origins of an Anglo-American Right. There's an interesting mapping of Bellesiles' sources in his article onto Malcolm's previous effort, vis-a-vis Hening -- research is so much easier when someone else has done the heavy lifting, isn't it (I guess that applies as much to me as Bellesiles)?
In any case, I found what I needed in Malcolm. But in reading Bellesiles I was surprised to find, in his footnote number three, a reference to Clayton Cramer's book by Praeger, 1994 -- it's a small world after all, and everybody seems to have crossed swords at some point.
A note for John Fought. Since you are interested in the anthropology of the gun-control crowd, I think it was either Andrew Herz in his Boston University Law Review article, or perhaps one of Denis Henigan's articles, that started the complaint that individual rights theorists were papering the law reviews, and they had to be stopped, or met with an even greater outpouring from the collectivists. Then Carl Bogus, in his UC Davis Law Review article, subsequently penned this:
"The Second Amendment became the subject of a constant stream of books, articles, conferences, symposia, and even entire organizations. This is not the the result of mere chance; it is part of a concerted campaign to persuade the courts to reconsider the Second Amendment, to reject what has long been a judicial consensus, and to adopt a different interpretation..."
"The gun lobby apparently decided to suspend efforts to have the courts reconsider the Second Amendment until a body of secondary authority could be developed to support its position."
It seems to me that it is precisely those most prone to conspiratorial thinking that see conspiracies on the part of others, and engage in a brand their of own, justified in their minds as a necessary response. I seem to remember Wills expressing the view that he was shocked, shocked that law reviews weren't peer-reviewed (after assuming they were). It will be interesting to see who, if anybody, edited Wills and peer-reviewed his work. Of course, the great advantage of law reviews is that they actually check sources to see if they exist, and if they say what is claimed of them -- to some, a great disadvantage in climbing the greasy pole of academic success. Could there be some relation to the flight to Constitutional Commentary by the collectivists, a journal that makes the twin boast that it is peer-reviewed (I know I sleep better knowing that), and that it dispenses with the usual degree of documentation (and yes, Bellesiles was published there, too)?
Am redoing the long work, folding in an analysis of the rhetorical tools of Wills. I'm also doing a short, page or two survey of the most outlandish stuff, to be submitted to HNN. Will find a different forum to vent spleen in the future, restricting my remarks here to Bellesiles. BTW, where on the site is Fought's e-mail address?
Derek Catsam - 11/25/2002
Yes, it is. And as a pro-rights person I can't wait to take on the racists who oppose me! In all seriousness, I rather prefer whan the issues on HNN are somewhat outside of my immediate penumbra. As it is these discussion lists become a giant time-suck, and I don't even contribute all that regularly!
Thomas Gunn - 11/25/2002
11-25-2002 1010
Hi Derek,
"I can't wait for affirmative action to appear as a topic for response on HNN so I can feel free to label everyone who disagrees with me as "racist."
You are already free to label anyone anyway that you wish. That is one of the freedoms guaranteed in the BOR. (With certain reservations concerning their rights. eg. slander)
The Ideal of affirmative action while noble in theory may be just another form of discrimination and racism in practice.
Any discussion should be spirited. Is affirmative action a topic close to your heart?
thomas
Derek Catsam - 11/25/2002
I'll try one more time because the point is clearly not getting across: calling people who disagree with you "anti-rights" is what I have problems with. But here's the deal: since many (not just you) feel free to label those who disagree with you on second amenmdment issues as "anti-rights" I can't wait for affirmative action to appear as a topic for response on HNN so I can feel free to label everyone who disagrees with me as "racist."
John G. Fought - 11/24/2002
Yes, that is the way supposedly benign authoritarianism works,
until it meets resistance.
I'd be happy to serve as a relay between you two. Fire away. I wanted to talk semiprivately about this Wills project anyhow. I'm interested.
Thomas Gunn - 11/24/2002
11-24-2002 0050
John,
Far be it from me to dispute the expertice of Justice Holmes. "Freedom of speech doesn't extend to falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater. Nor does it preclude one abusing the right.(with punishment to follow) As I tried to explain to Mr. Catsam, only on the rarest of occasions is speech subject to prior restraint, requiring a court order. Not so the second. Law-abiding citizens having done nothing wrong must apply to the fed for permission to exercise the rights guaranteed under the second.
Throughout the history of the United States and the interpretation of the Constitution, the direction taken is toward an expansion of individualrights. You may note, and Ralph should note and now Mr. Catsam will understand, when I refer to anti-rights in general, I refer to those who, rather than expand rights put restriction on rights. Usually upon those who have done nothing to merit it and in response to those who abuse their rights and are given a pass by those more concerned with the "rights of the accused".
Some of the conversations I've had with Richard Henry Morgan are likely outside the scope of this forum. I offered to relay my email to him through you, since your email is posted on this site. I hope you don't mind.
thomas
Thomas Gunn - 11/24/2002
11-23-2002 2300
Hi Derek,
Where to begin . . .
How about with the word "crap". Your word. Used for effect, no?
Why do you take such exception to it when it is turned 'round and pointed in your direction? If you don't like, don't use it. Even more serious from a Catsum POV is why you don the cloak of an anti rights. If it doesn't apply to you why put it on?
The term "anti rights" appears in this thread in reference to those who continue to defend Bellesiles' pack of lies. Is that you?
"It's an attempt to label and smear." Are you refering to "crap" or "anti right"? See how this works? It does your cause no good to use the tactics you rail against. Particularly when you are mistaken.
I have no objection to you tieing rights together. In fairness you must apply them equally. You seem to support the "rights of the accused" and give them the benefit of every doubt. Not so the rights of the second. Roadblocks of every manner are thrown up to restrict the rights of the second.
Don't bog yourself down over-analysing the above. Lookit your speech example, and my response to it. Only in the most extreme and narrowly defined cases is speech ever censored before the fact. Note now, how folks wishing to avail themselves of the rights guaranteed under the second must prove themselves worthy before they can exercise the right. There is no prior restraint on speech but there is for arms.
I disagree with you about discrimination. Discrimination against is just as evil as discrimination in support. Whether for one or a group, whether for advantage or recompense, discrimination is evil.
I believe I know what the term 'ARMS" means in the second. There is a discussion going on about that elsewhere on HNN right now. Arms were clearly defined when the second was written and the definition was reconfirmed in 1939, and again last year.
"As for your last line, "why is this so tough for people to understand," [BTW you misquote me. My exact words were, 'Why is this so dramatic and difficult a concept for some people to understand?'] it seems to claim a comprehension or intellectual capacity that is beyond the rest of us. Perhaps, shockingly, we fully understand. Maybe, just maybe, with good intentions and an equal sense of virtue, we disagree with you."My last line is a paraphrase of your very words. "Why is this such a dramattic[sic] and difficult stance for some people to accept?" link: [http://hnn.us/comments/5160.html ]
Irregardless (I love that word) Your last line does "[seem]to claim a comprehension or intellectual capacity that is beyond the rest of us. Perhaps, shockingly, we fully understand. Maybe, just maybe, with good intentions and an equal sense of virtue, we disagree with you."
thomas
Thomas Gunn - 11/24/2002
11-23-2002 2300
Hi Derek,
Where to begin . . .
How about with the word "crap". Your word. Used for effect, no?
Why do you take such exception to it when it is turned 'round and pointed in your direction? If you don't like, don't use it. Even more serious from a Catsum POV is why you don the clock of an anti rights. If it doesn't apply to you why put it on?
The term "anti rights" appears in this thread in reference to those who continue to defend Bellesiles' pack of lies. Is that you?
"It's an attempt to label and smear."/i> Are you refering to "crap" or "anti right"? See how this works? It does your cause no good to use the tactics you rail against. Particularly when you are mistaken.
I have no objection to you tieing rights together. In fairness you must apply them equally. You seem to support the "rights of the accused" and give them the benefit of every doubt. Not so the rights of the second. Roadblocks of every manner are thrown up to restrict the rights of the second.
Don't bog yourself down over-analysing the above. Lookit your speech example, and my response to it. Only in the most extreme and narrowly defined cases is speech ever censored before the fact./i> Note now, how folks wishing to avail themselves of the rights guaranteed under the second must prove themselves worthy before they can exercise the right. There is no prior restraint on speech but there is for arms.
I disagree with you about discrimination. Discrimination against is just as evil as discrimination in support. Whether for one or a group, whether for advantage or recompense, discrimination is evil.
I believe I know what the term 'ARMS" means in the second. There is a discussion going on about that elsewhere on HNN right now. Arms were clearly defined when the second was written and the definition was reconfirmed in 1939, and again last year.
"As for your last line, "why is this so tough for people to understand," [BTW you misquote me. My exact words were, 'Why is this so dramatic and difficult a concept for some people to understand?'] it seems to claim a comprehension or intellectual capacity that is beyond the rest of us. Perhaps, shockingly, we fully understand. Maybe, just maybe, with good intentions and an equal sense of virtue, we disagree with you."/i> My last line is a paraphrase of your very words. "Why is this such a dramattic[sic] and difficult stance for some people to accept?" link: [http://hnn.us/comments/5160.html ]
Irregardless (I love that word) Your last line does "[seem]to claim a comprehension or intellectual capacity that is beyond the rest of us. Perhaps, shockingly, we fully understand. Maybe, just maybe, with good intentions and an equal sense of virtue, we disagree with you."
thomas
Derek Catsam - 11/24/2002
Wait a second -- what I said, and this is fairly clear from reading my post, is that it is crap to start calling people who disagree with you "anti rights." It had nothing to do with discussion. But I guess it is too much to ask for a fair characterization of what I actually wrote.
I do not purport to know where the lines of rights are drawn. Again, I'd like to see where I drew lines at all. Where I said that I know where rights can be safeguarded. I simply never even implied such a thing. For someone. I find all of these mischaracterizations of what I said, seeing things where they do not exist, ironic given that this whole thing started about Bellisles misrepresentations of evidence "Tsk" all you want about things that never came from my message. I actually have no idea exactly where the lines should be drawn on gun control. I would surmise that the line should be somewhere between total prohibition and no checks whatseoever leaning closer to the side of the latter.
I assumed that "falsely" was implied -- you don't need to see a conspiracy. Saying "falsely" would not have affected my argument one bit.
Derek Catsam - 11/24/2002
When you purport to tell me that I am "anti rights" because I don't agree with your litmus test, I have every right to call it "crap." It's an attempt to label and smear. You are telling me I am "anti rights." As a historian of race, politics and social movements in the US and South Africa, I take serious offense at that.
I tie different rights together because of the tendency that many on HNN have to call people "ant- rights" when those people disagree with them on gun policy. I'd hazard a guess that most people who are ardent supporters of the rights of the accused are to the left of you on gun policy. Who, in that scenario, might be anti-rights.
No, "sophomoric name cvalling" is something that lots of people on this do, left, right or center, anmd I think it is almost always beyond the pale. To call an idea or issue sophomoric is certainly not the same thing as an ad hominem attack, that is an attack against the person. Would that more people criticized ideas and not one another in this cyber world we inhabit. People say things about one another and in a tome of email (if you will) that they would NEVER dare say in public, and that would (rightfully in soem cases) get them smacked in the teeth.
Generally an individual rights interpretation makes sense. I do, however, support group rights interpretations when they involve groups that have been oppressed, kept out of the process, marginalized, discriminated against AS groups.
I don't buy the laryngectomy analogy, but I at least appreciate it as analogy.
I don't think it is an emotional argument to claim that the second amendment says "arms" not merely guns. "Weapons of Mass Destruction" is a current coinage, and may not even be the best one (see Greg easterbrook's recent article in the New Republic for an interesting take on this). I find accusing me of making an emotional argument is interesting. So let me get this straight -- it's ok to compare, say, gun control or free speech with forced removal of the larynx, but it is not ok to compare guns with other weapons?
As for your last line, "why is this so tough for people to understand," it seems to claim a comprehension or intellectual capacity that is beyond the rest of us. Perhaps, shockingly, we fully understand. Maybe, just maybe, with good intentions and an equal sense of virtue, we disagree with you.
John G. Fought - 11/24/2002
Justice Holmes actually wrote that freedom of speech doesn't extend to _falsely_ shouting fire in a crowded theater. I wish this misrepresentation were always just a trivial slip, but I think it may not always be due to carelessness or coincidence that he is usually quoted without the magic word. I sense that some people I've heard quoting this without mean for me to visualize the whole thing burning down around the crushed theater-goers piled around the exits, all because I had to yell 'Fire!' just for fun, conjuring this virtual outcome as a useful parable of the excessive damage caused by free speech, and other 'excessive' freedoms. Mr. Catsam's post seems consistent with this outlook. He knows just how much freedom we can safely be granted, starting with freedom of speech, and moving on down the list of amendments from there. All this discussion crap has made him impatient with us. Tsk.
Thomas Gunn - 11/24/2002
11-23-2002 1735
Hi Derek,
I will try not to become anal nor mention the "G" word, that is not the purpose of this forum.
I am curious, when you use the term "crap" are you refering to an opinion you feel I hold, an opinion you hold or are you simply demonizing that with which you disagree?
We could debate the "rights of the accused" and those who support them, but I find it odd that you tie the support of those rights with controls on the tools folks use to defend against the accused.
We could discuss "sophomoric name calling", but I have the sense it is only sophomoric name calling when it refers to that which you support.
I consider myself a "good liberal" and support the "individual rights" interpretation of the Second Amendment. I would never stoop to the emotional argument that the second guarantees individual ownership and use of biological, nuclear, or chemical weapons of mass destruction.
Nor would I subscribe to the idea that one must undergo a laryngectomy before going to the movies to preclude him yelling fire! in a crowded theatre. I would support legal repercussions against one who abused his right of free speach to the injury of others.
I also believe folks should be held responsible for their actions and that all rights carry responsibility. My problem is piling responsibility on top of responsibility on top of responsibility until the right is restricted out of existance. A kind of right in "some form", just not THAT form.
Why is this so dramatic and difficult a concept for some people to understand?
thomas
Derek Catsam - 11/23/2002
Is there any way we could stop with the "anti-rights" crap? There's no election coming up, there are no votes to garner. Most people who support some forms of gun control don't necessarily want to eliminate guns, and even those who do have always tended to be the same exact people who have been supportive of things like the rights of the accused when many who support the pro-guns stance have opposed such rights. Any of us can be branded pro- or anti- rights depending oin the issue. I keep hoping the sophomoric name calling on these responses to articles will end, but there seems to be no hope of that. I consider myself a good liberal who suppports forms of gun control but who also thinks that fundamentally there is a clear rigtht to possess arms in some form. But given that I can't owmn my own nuclear weapon or anthrax cannon, and given that I can't threaten a public figure, and given that i can't scream "fire" in a crowded theater I realize that even the most inmalienable rights have checks on them, whether it's speech or the right to bear arms. Why is this such a dramattic and difficult stance for some people to accept?
Thomas Gunn - 11/23/2002
11-23-2002 1350
Ralph,
Thanks for the heads up re the blind alley of bogus charges of Wills' plagiarism. (a non-issue)
Would that you were as accepting of the heads up re the wide boulevard of Michael Bellesiles deceit.
The emotionally driven anti-rights clique has been very difficult to convince. Oddly there are those who continue to support Bellesiles' tome of lies. See the Amazon review. ;-o)
thomas
Ralph E. Luker - 11/23/2002
Promises, promises ...
Ralph E. Luker - 11/23/2002
Thomas, Thomas, Thomas, you fellows do hate to see a Red Coat left standing. There is nothing wrong with telling folk in advance that a particular alley is blind. I don't know whether Wills is more vulnerable for his use of Douglas Adair's dissertation in his federalist trilogy.
John G. Fought - 11/23/2002
I did read the earlier postings you refer to, Mr. Luker. Like the more recent ones, they are simply your own personal assertions. Your statement just above that you know something because you know some people and you have faith in their integrity, and your injunction that I should have more confidence in other people's judgment, are fine examples of what has brought us all together here to assess a serious, concrete, and well-documented instance of scholarly fraud perpetrated within a system that relies too much on trust and not enough on verified facts. Ad hominem argument is a broader category than you seem to realize. There's more to it than my nastiness, which by the way is not brittle but resilient and selective. Nothing is true just because one of your friends says so, nor even because you say so. You have finally convinced me of something, though. I'll waste less time if I leave you alone from now on.
Tthomas Gunn - 11/23/2002
11-23-2002 1220
Ralph,
I don't think anyone here was thinking plagiarism. I think it had more to do with the juxtaposition of the ideas contained therin. Paine v. Wills.
While the subject matter and the time frame may be loosely connected it certainly doesn't rise to the level of plagiarism. The more I think about this though the more I wonder how you arrived at the idea Morgan or I may have been alluding to. Because one disagrees with Wills does not mean one would accuse him of a scholarly crime. He is not after all Michael Bellesiles. ;-o)
thomas
- 11/23/2002
Ralph E. Luker - 11/23/2002
You will find a prior use of "necessary evil" in the Baron de Montesquieu's "The Spirit of Law" (1748), particularly in Book XV, "In What Manner the Laws of Civil Slavery Relate to the Nature ...": "We see in the history of China a great number of laws to deprive eunuchs of all civil and military employments; but they always returned to them again. It seems as if the eunuchs of the east were a necessary evil."
If you check concordance.com, you'll find many subsequent usages of the term. My sense of things is that two words in a row hardly counts as evidence of plagiarism, else we would all be guilty of it all the time. If I understand Garry Wills, he would prefer to think of Montesquieu rather than Thomas Paine as his source for the term. Indeed, Paine may have found Montesquieu's notion of "necessary evil" useful in his own writing.
Thomas Gunn - 11/23/2002
11-23-2002 1140
Richard,
I nosed around a bit and found this Clayton Cramer page:
[http://www.claytoncramer.com/changelog.html ]
Near the bottom of the page Clayton mentions links to Virginia militia laws pertaining to Arming America. Hope this helps.
thomas
ps. I hesitate to provide an e-mail addy for obvious reasons. I think John Fought's is listed here, I could forward mine through him, and take the clutter private if you wish. There are pros and cons to this: The entertaining portions of this forum are not cluttered by essentially private correspondence and personal messages are not lost in the voulme. On the other hand there are a lot of lurkers who enjoy listening to the conversation and often a bystander can point out a path less traveled.
t
Thomas Gunn - 11/23/2002
11-23-2002 1105
Richard,
I didn't know Wills' book title A Necessary Evil was derived from a famous piece by Tom Paine.
Paine's essay Common Senseis on the web and contains the recognizable quote and Wills' title:
"government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one;"
The entire quote begins, "Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in . . . ".
For those interested the entire read is here:
[http://www.pagebypagebooks.com/Thomas_Paine/Common_Sense/index.html ]
The quote is in the first chapter, second paragraph, here:
[http://www.pagebypagebooks.com/Thomas_Paine/Common_Sense/Of_The_Origin_And_Design_Of_Government_In_General_With_Concise_Remarks_On_The_English_Constitution_p1.html]
Sorry about the delay getting back to you. What is the 'colonial Virginia statute' you are hunting? I have some time to search.
thomas
Ralph E. Luker - 11/23/2002
Your central claim, "You haven't presented any evidence here, and your reaction to evidence presented by others is either to ignore it or to declare that more, much more is required," is meaningless. Those who claim "conspiracy" take on themselves the burden of proof. I do not believe there was or is a conspiracy here because I know too many of the historians who have been accused here of participating in it and I respect their integrity. I cannot prove a negative (that is why American jurisprudence holds a person innocent until proven guilty), so presenting no evidence except my personal testimony to the integrity of persons who have been slandered here doesn't damage my case in the slightest. Your pitiful innuendo, by comparison, is, well, pitiful ...
Ralph E. Luker - 11/23/2002
Professor Fought,
You really can't resist the ad hominem, can you? Take your personal hostility elsewhere. I recommend a confessional or a psychiatrist's office.
In fact, had you read the posts below, you would have seen my response to the questions to which I assume you refer.
_Really_, you ought to demonstrate greater tolerance for the judgment and opinions of people who disagree with you. Otherwise, you only add to the record of a brittle nastiness which characterizes so many of your posts here.
John G. Fought - 11/23/2002
That's a hot one indeed, coming from you. You haven't presented any evidence here, and your reaction to evidence presented by others is either to ignore it or to declare that more, much more is required. You were recently asked some interesting questions about this pattern. Any answers?
Ralph E. Luker - 11/23/2002
Sorry, boys, you haven't presented evidence of a conspiracy. You only believe what you want to believe.
John G. Fought - 11/23/2002
You're a devil, Mr. Gunn. I didn't use the C word this time, OK? I do indeed remember the advent of AA. When I first discussed it with an American History prof hereabouts, he ran patiently down the list of awards. He also knew B personally. And (unspoken) wasn't I just a LINGUIST? (Later, he was quoted as saying (with surprise writ large) "John was right!", and he did the honorable thing, bringing the book and some critiques, including mine, into class for a discussion about methods and critical reading.
I wonder how it has been handled in other courses.
I think there is a pair of intersecting and very interesting stories, never to be told, I expect, about both the individual and the group involved in this, how they found each other, and how they saw themselves as they worked together in all this. And after all, I must say again, I have never seen anything like this book. It took at least as much work to do it that way as it would have taken to do it right.
Ralph E. Luker - 11/22/2002
Thomas,
Now that you've got the charge of obfuscating, fish flopping, etc, off your chest, we can talk. As I've told you, I have no special expertise in constitutional interpretation, military history, or probate records. I entered the discussion to ask Bellesiles's critics to allow academic processes already on track to work themselves out _before_ attacking those who were responsible for making appropriate recommendations.
Already, Emory has rendered its judgment. Both the Oranization of American Historians and authorities responsible for the Bancroft Prize were apparently waiting for Emory. The OAH has now announced a series of discussions of professional responsibility. There may be some announcement regarding the Bancroft Prize in December. Have you any remaining doubt that the processes which I defended have been acting with deliberate speed?
I do believe that some of Michael's critics suffer from monomaniacal pre-occupation with him and his book. What further humiliation will satisfy them? Should we hold public burnings of the book? Have we so little confidence in the critical skills of readers that they must be protected from contamination by it?
Ralph
Richard Henry Morgan - 11/22/2002
Is the material from your presentation up on your website, Mr. Cramer? I ask because I can't get to a colonial Virginia statute I cite, and have to rely on Bellesiles' version of it -- necessarily, a dangerous move on my part. Or can I simply vet it with you?
Clayton E. Cramer - 11/22/2002
A full examination of Bellesiles's book would sink him even more thoroughly than the limited investigation performed by the external committee. Bellesiles is using this as an excuse; a detailed examination of his book (such as I have done) would demonstrate even more conclusively that he is either a liar, or has a truly astonishing reading disability, somehow undetected all the way through his Ph.D.
I gave a presentation at the American Society of Criminology conference last week in Chicago about Bellesiles's claims about colonial gun control laws, in which I took the cited sources, and showed the actual images of the statutes that Bellesiles claims to have looked up. There were a few people in the audience that, shall we say, looked less than thrilled. I presume that this was because they were looking for a way to poke a hole or two in my argument, and realized that Bellesiles shot himself in the foot, repeatedly.
Bellesiles lied. It is conceivable that he even lied to himself (which would be even a little more sad). The problems with Arming America aren't confined to the probate inventories--not even close.
Thomas Gunn - 11/22/2002
Sorry for the blank post above.
John,
Remember way back when the "C" word first showed up and Ralph opined that he hoped these distinguished scholars (possibly) involved were smarter than to be so easily discovered?
Have you noticed when a PC tenet comes down the pike those in support of it (VIP's at least in their own mind) assume everyone agrees it is the correct thing and any evidence to the contrary is suppressed? Fact to support the tenet is unnecessary and lies are acceptable proof of the tenet's veracity and goodness and need for immediate implementation. The most important 'proof of the pudding' is how it makes a supporter FEEL.
Recall the rosey glow that surrounded the supporters of gun control when word leaked out a new anti gun, anti NRA tenet was about to deliver a devestating blow to the individual right interpretation of the 2nd from which it would never recover. That devestaing blow was of course Michael Bellesiles' Arming America.
Note how difficult it was for Main Stream Historians and scholars to objectively look at Arming America. They could not, would not accept any criticism of it. They felt Arming America was the 'right thing' and were surprised when some said Arming America had no legs. Though thouroughly discredited the defense of it continues. Albeit along the lines of Michael loves his mother.
Every civilization has destroyed itself. I wonder if we are to join them? History is important for keeping us from repeating the same mistakes. If our Historians are dishonest there is no hope. I'm afraid the same mistakes are being made and our historians are behind it.
The conspiracy may be alive and well!
thomas
Thomas Gunn - 11/22/2002
Ralph E. Luker - 11/22/2002
Dear Tired, It is good that you have learned names of two parts of the human anatomy. There is much more for you to learn.
John G. Fought - 11/22/2002
As I read through the very odd interview with Bellesiles as published in the Chicago Tribune, a little bell went off and I thought I remembered something from B's dissertation front matter. Remember where he says, "Look, I've never been good at math"? I went off to dear old Irvine again and checked: sure enough: on page v, in the acknowledgments section, I found this:
"First I would like to thank Paul Liley, who took the time to introduce a poor student to the glories of the written word. Mr. Liley got me into college, where Page Smith, Jon Beecher, and Harry Choitner converted me from mathematics to history. My thanks to them." I'm not making this up. At least it must be said that if this is true, then there was a time when he thought he was at least somewhat good at math. If. Of course, a lot can be said about this, beginning with saying it's trivial and small-minded of me to bring it up. But, like some of the many small mistakes in AA, it hints at a higher truth. Something is very strange about this whole affair.
Tired of Luker's Shilling - 11/22/2002
You are shameless, sir.
John G. Fought - 11/21/2002
Yes, Mr. Howard, I agree that authoritarianism in its various forms is a fascinating subject that helps me to undertand a lot of American history, recent and not so recent. As I've said before, I find Prof. Bob Altemeyer's work the soundest, and many social psychologists seem to agree (even their endorsement doesn't shake me). I'm looking forward to trying to understand the left version of it better, and I feel I'm making some progress: Altemeyer worked on refining his research tools on the right version and some generalizations from that aren't obvious to me. Let me know if there are specific authors you'd recommend, especially including survey and other types of research on the authoritarianism of the left. The threads on this site have certainly included some strands displaying both kinds.
Richard Henry Morgan - 11/21/2002
I'm plugging away at it -- I just discovered, by the way, that the title of Wills' book, A Necessary Evil, comes from a famous piece by Thomas Paine (something Wills doesn't bring up, I think). Back to the grindstone.
Thomas Gunn - 11/20/2002
Dang it Ralph, I just pointed out your use of rhetoric to induce a belief in the reader with out actually stating what it is you wish to convey, and you go and do it again.
You can wiggle and flop around like a fish well hooked, it won't change the fact the purpose of Michael's book was to influence popular and legal opinion against the individual right interpretation.
That you continue to obfuscate the missing scholarship in Arming America with a rhetorical defense of the process and the person leads me to wonder why.
When I first started my covnversations with you I did a Google search and found some peripheral information. I decided not to delve further into the controversy b/c I didn't wnat it to color my relationship with you. I wanted to take you at face value. Unfortunately I am unable to discern who Ralph Luker is. He is too circumspect and shrouded for me to really see. I understand you likely have good reasons for that, but why do you play here? If you are not going to get into the game or at least be an enthusiatic bleacher creature why are you wasting your time?
Maybe that is one of the reasons I'd like to see Rick replace Spence and use you to blog for HNN. I'd like to get to know you better. And I'm confident you would not rag the conservative agenda just b/c it is the conservative agenda.
A note for Richard Henry Morgan:
I hope you will follow through with your threat to publish your "essay/manuscript". I enjoy reading you. You are clear of thought and resonably easy to follow with out a dictionary in hand. Besides you had to traipse up to the attic to retrieve it, you just as well put it to good use. ;-o)
A note for Don Williams:
Haven't we been in suspense long enough?
thomas
Ralph E. Luker - 11/20/2002
Thomas,
Your claim that "What Ralph fails to do is defend the scholarship in the book" is simply incorrect. I don't fail. I either choose not to "defend the scholarship in the book" or I succeed in not defending the scholarship in the book.
But I want to know what secret knowledge Don Williams has been withholding from us for the past three month.
Ralph
Thomas Gunn - 11/20/2002
I know you know and I'm pretty sure Ralph knows too.
For those who don't:
The complaint from the anti Bellesiles side is that Emory limited the review in such a way as to provide wiggle room for a failed theory and a defense from a civil suit. That nearly all of the HISTORY in Arming America is in error and contrary to the facts.
The pro Bellesiles side is claiming that by Emory not looking at the remainder of the book gives it a clean bill of health and some merit to the underlying theory. Though much of the early support is falling away like dead skin peeling from too much time in the bright sun light of truth.
What Ralph fails to do is defend the scholarship in the book. While at the same time he uses the rhetoric of defending the man and the process to confuse the issue of the purpose of the second and giving credence to Bellesiles' failed theory. Are you doing that with an ulterior motive, Ralph or will you continue to claim you are outside that part of the debate?
thomas
Richard Henry Morgan - 11/20/2002
I'm not sure that non-existent sources cited are any less "serious empirical errors" than non-existent archives. I take it we can agree that non-existence lays at the far end of "serious empirical errors". It has been the contention (and I believe that contention has been demonstrated) of such as Cramer and Lindgren that the empirical errors of Bellesiles go way beyond counts -- the most obvious example being Bellesiles discovery of what is expressly not on the page (a serious empirical error?) when it comes to reporting Benedict Arnold's not finding arms in the militia stores at Bennington. Another "empirical error": claiming that his predecessor miscounted "gowns" as "guns", when guns in 18th century parlance were naval pieces. Or perhaps the "empirical error" of dropping from a travelogue quote precisely those words that contradict the thesis for which the travelogue was cited as evidence. I could go on, but I don't think your division between "serious empirical errors" and other types (presumably less serious) does the work you want it to do. It is precisely the contention of Bellesiles' critics that the flaws outside the counts, empirical and otherwise, are every bit as serious as the flawed counts, and therefore, their exclusion from review is not based on a standard of seriousness.
Ralph E. Luker - 11/20/2002
Thomas,
First, Don Williams really owes it to the world to reveal to all of us the special wisdom he's been claiming in the Bellesiles case for the past three months.
Secondly, Thomas, I really don't see what your complaint is. Authorities at Emory asked the panel of outside readers to look specifically at precisely those parts of _Arming America_ which they had greatest reason to believe had the most serious empirical errors. In that sense, Michael had reason to claim that the panelists' report was prejudiced by the framing of its instructions. Now, you complain that the panel and the Bancroft advisors should look at the whole book. But, wait, isn't that what Michael's been saying all along? By golly, you and Michael are making the same complaint. Soon, I expect to read someone here attacking you as a Bellesiles defender.
Ralph
P. S. One correction to Rick's posting. The Tribune article says its reporter interviewed Michael at a coffee shop across town from Emory, not across the street from Emory. As Michael found out, it's really hard to get all the details right.
Thomas Gunn - 11/20/2002
"Columbia's board of trustees", "have asked a group of historians to review the 40-page report released by Emory's external panel". A report purposefully limited in scope, so the board can ascertain what to do re the Bancroft.
If the process which was so tauted by Dr. Ralph continues to limit the scope of review there will be nothing left to look at.
The Emory panel seems to have found fraud but Bellesiles' supporters counter that it was not a finding BEYOND A SHADOW OF DOUBTand anyway the rest of ARMING AMERICA was found fraud free. Now Columbia wishes to further limit the review to just that examined by the Emory panel.
Maybe the Columbia historians should look at the whole of ARMING AMERICA, and compare it to the Lindgreen article in the Yale Law Review.
thomas
Clyde W. Howard III - 11/20/2002
The anti-gunners strike me as having several (intertwined) agendas, or perhaps mindsets ratehr tahn formal agendas. One is the typical "government (or maybe just some collective group) knows what is best for individuals, who can't be trusted to take care of themselves" that ahs driven both liberal and right wing authoritarian behavior for many years. Another is a fear of weapons (Jeff Cooper has coined the evocative and useful term `hoplophobe' for this), especially weapons inteh hands of individuals who 9unlike the military or police0 can't be trusted to use them properly. Fianlly - we find what (my opinion) is the basis for all of the above (and much else inimical to liberty) - individuals aren't to be trusted to act in their own or anyone else's best interests, or to do right without some institution watching, monitoring, and insuring by coercion or the threat of coercion taht on the right thoughts are expressed, the right actions performed. Etc. What is "Right" being established based on some dogma or authority, of course.
Anybody recall what ahppens when that sort gain power unfettered by law? I cite NAzi GErmany, Fascist Italy, Marxist-Leninist Russia, Maoist China, JApan pre-1945, Somocista's Nicauragua, etc - the list is endless and includes such modern paradises as Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe. Or Tony Balir's Great Britain where gun ownership is highly restricted (handguns almost non-existent in private hands) and gun crime massively up and more occuring all the time. MAkes you wonder about how effective anti-gun efforts are, doesn't it?
Clyde W. Howard III - 11/20/2002
I think i find Mr. Benny Smith's description of Bellesiles critics as "gun-huggers" diagnostic as to his posiiton. and his own prejudices in this matter.
If degrees matter and experience, I have a BA and a JD, plus almost 30 years of experience in the courts. I'm fairly experienced in evaluating written material, and know something about military history, what going to a war is like (I made Vietnam before i went to law school), and am probably what Mr. Smith would call a gun hugger. I also know a bit about teh Constitution of the United States and the debates surrounding its adoption.
All of these things considered, I find Mr. Bellesisles a despicable example of all a historian should not be. If I,a s an attorney, was guilty of the sort of professional malfeasance Mr. Bellesilses has clearly committed, I'd be (prperly) without my license. If Mr. Smith feels Bellesisles has suffered atatcks, well, they were sort of brought on by Bellesisles's own actions - attacking Constitutionally protected rights with cooked and/or misrepresented (or just flat faked) data is the sort of behavior that (in my view properly) arouses retributive response.
Don Williams - 11/20/2002
A primary source either says XYZ or it does not. If I point to an eyewitness account of the Battle of New Orleans by Andrew Jackson's Chief Engineer and note that it is contrary to Bellesiles' account, then you should be able to look at that account and verify whether I or Bellesiles is telling the truth.
If I understand you correctly, however, you apparently think the only valid facts are those validated by a PhD with the politically correct axe to grind?? In other words, you let them do your thinking for you and your role in life is to merely defend them adamantly even though you have not bothered to verify whether they are correct or not -- "correctness" being way above your pay scale??
If you can provide historical facts to support your views, I'm interested. If ,however, you are merely a lapdog who yaps but who can't be bothered with providing evidence to support your views, then I see little reason why anyone should care what you think.
If Lindgren and Cramer were wrong, then I would think that Bellesiles' former allies would have shown that -- and that their counterattack would have been energetic. Instead, it seems to me that the Ad Hoc Group scurried for the dark cracks like cockroaches when a bright light was turned on Arming America. Consider the silence during the Emory Investigation -- and the silence since then. And how do you think Clayton Cramer pulled the wool over Don Hickey's eyes -- isn't Hickey one of those PhDs you hold in such awe??
Ira Gruber is one of the foremost authorities on the Revolutionary War militias. In the January William and Mary Quarterly, what judgement did Gruber voice re Bellesiles depiction of the militias?? Did the Emory Investigating Committee support or reject Gruber's judgment?? Or do you not know?
Benny Smith - 11/20/2002
The Chronicle of Higher Education article that you referred to was one of the few balanced features that delved in depth into the Bellesiles affair. Its documentation of Lindgren's zealotry in pursuing Bellesiles is revealing, though it did not probe Lindgren's motives.
Unfortunately, as with the Arming America debate, the gun lobby and its allies want to stay focused on intellectual character assassination and the still unproven charges of fraud and fabrication, rather than discuss the overall theses of the book. Kill the messenger and the message will die as well. That appears to be their agenda. That would also explain your persistence, and others here, in harrassing me personally, rather than defending the motives of Bellesile's critics.
Benny Smith - 11/20/2002
Among Bellesile's critics are a great number of internet jockeys who believe that more casual observers like myself should care what they say. So, Mr. Williams, what are your credentials? Degrees earned, papers presented, scholarly articles published, theses written, relevant courses taken or taught, etc. And on your writing, confine yourself to what has been presented academically or peer-reviewed rather than what's on the internet. That will determine whether you're worth my time.
The problem is that there are a great number of gun huggers out there who believe they are experts on anything to do with firearms. I have read some of their work on the internet and found it to so blindly biased as to be worthless. But if you can convince me that's not the case with you, Mr. Williams, I would be happy to hear your qualified opinion.
Don Williams - 11/19/2002
Story at http://www.emorywheel.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2002/11/19/3dd99ce649c3c?in_archive=1
Don Williams - 11/19/2002
To: Mr Smith
If Emory had bothered to investigate wider areas of Arming America, they would have found ,in my opinion, much material that is false and misleading. The fact that you don't recognize that suggests to me that you have not researched Arming America.
Shooting off your mouth with unsupported claims is easy. How about if you try to defend Arming America? For example, I posted a critique on H-OIEAHC of Arming America's description of the 1815 Battle of New Orleans. Why don't you try pointing out where I'm wrong and Bellesiles is right? Seehttp://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list;=h-oieahc&month;=0207&week;=c&msg;=PkrdkLRPluSObiMgdhAKPw&user;=&pw;=
Oh, but I forgot. I made the same offer to you on the Emory Wheel discussion back in May 2002 -- http://www.emorywheel.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2002/04/26/3cc86800cb2cf?in_archive=1 . As I recall, you ducked my offer then.
Put up or shut up, Mr Smith.
John G. Fought - 11/19/2002
I asked you some questions about your earlier posting; you've answered some of them without meaning to. You've made a Google search on three names, and you cite the Chronicle's opinion that Lindgren 'has not played a passive role.' It's hard to tell exactly what that means, since a passive role in a scholarly dispute is no role at all. Lindgren has reported how he became involved in this matter. Check it out: do another Gooogle search. What are the Chronicle's possible motives for deploying such innuendo against a law professor whose stance is opposed to their published position? (Have you read their book review of AA, and their other items about the matter?) As for me, I again find it imperative to question your motives and your knowledge of this topic. Your opinion is apparently based only on the opinion you already held beforehand. Thanks for sharing.
Benny Smith - 11/19/2002
If Randolph Roth and James Lindgren's criticism of Bellesiles had been confined to scholarly works, then questions regarding prejudice would not arise. However, as the Chronicle of High Education reported, "Mr. Lindgren's name is virtually ubiquitous in the news media's coverage of the (Bellesiles) story. And he has not played a passive role." In addition, a Google search of "Randolph Roth" paired with "Bellesiles" reveals nearly 250 hits. Without Bellesile's name, the number of search hits falls below 100. It's obvious that Roth and Lindgren's prominent role in the Arming America debacle goes well beyond academics. Thus, it is imperative to question their motives, as well as their tactics.
Ron Jackson - 11/18/2002
In some respects, the Emory Committee's report goes much further than critics such as Lindgren and Roth; in some respects, it doesn't go as far(as you note). Without looking at the actual evidence yourself, I don't see how you could form an informed opinion about which set of opinions is the better one--unless you are just giving vent to the prejudice that you claim to abhor.
The area in which the Emory Report clearly goes further than Lindgren and Roth is in finding Bellesiles "guilty of unprofessional and misleading work" and of having "willingly misrepresented the evidence."
I don't think that Lindgren or Roth ever accused Bellesiles of unprofessional conduct or of having willingly misrepresented evidence in Arming America, but then, as scholars they concerned themselves primarily with discrepancies, not misconduct. That they were not as hard on Bellesiles's ethics as the Emory Committee should be evidence of their lack of prejudice, rather than the opposite.
John G. Fought - 11/17/2002
Are you one of those who has carefully studied the book and a substantial number of the other relevant documents? Are you instead choosing, for some personal reason, to accept the findings of some individuals in preference to others without regard to the matters of fact involved? That too sounds like an indication of prejudice, doesn't it? Have you considered carefully the interests at stake for some of these parties beyond determining the matters of fact, such as vulnerability to lawsuits (for the committee members) or perceived needs to protect the reputation of an institution in a particular way (for the Emory administrators)? Do you perhaps even believe that academic professionals never make grave ethical or factual errors, so that the elaborate procedures in place for decades to be used in case of scholarly misconduct are completely superfluous?
You more than imply that B's critics are prejudiced (and driven by their prejudices) whereas the official participants, all of whom have something to gain or lose, are nevertheless free from prejudice, as you apparently feel yourself to be. So, tell us, if you would, what background have you acquired in the details of this matter? Do you yourself have a stake in the outcome you imagine it has reached? Finally, do you perhaps believe that these unprejudiced and honorable scholars who issued the officially binding decisions were somehow swayed in their judgments by us prejudiced critics of Bellesiles?
Benny Smith - 11/17/2002
Prejudice against Michael lBellesiles has been an unfortunate impetus in the "Arming America" debate. Few of Bellesile's critics posting on internet message boards have claimed to have read Bellesiles' book and even a smaller franction of them claim any scholarly expertise in the requisite disciplines. Instead, they merely repeat the charges of fraud, fabrication and lieing which have become the rallying cry of the gun lobby and its allies.
Yet even those who have spent countless hours attempting to prove fraud or intentional deception on the part of Bellesiles have fallen short. For instance, regarding the work of Northwestern law professor James Lindgren, the ad hoc investigative panel concluded, " . . . we do not believe the evidence is as damning as Professor Lindgren has claimed." Emory University Dean Robert Paul has attempted to put its own investigation in perspective, saying "this report in no way addresses the question of the validity of the overall theses in the book which still remain to be settled by scholarly debate." Yet, instead of discussing the book within such a perspective. Bellesile's critics continue to allow their prejudices to interfere.
Bryan Haskins - 11/14/2002
The fault for the tempest which has surrounded Mr. Bellesiles lies with himself and with those who promoted his thesis. When Arming America was published gun control advocates embraced it and carried it about as if it were a copy of Mao's little red book. Did no one seriously consider that the aggressive marketing of such a startling revision of popular American history would go unchallenged? Did those who proclaimed Bellesiles' word as law believe that those of us who did not share his view would meekly submit to a thesis which we knew was wrong? Mr. Bellesiles is certainly no stranger to the gun control debate. He had plenty of time to survey the dangers that this swift stream presented him before he chose to dive in and attempt to redirect its course. It was he who decided to raise the gale and then hide in the harbor. His few sorties in defense of his work were proven in themselves to be lies, and their only effect was to further damage his reputation for veracity. Not surprisingly, he had many supporters who rallied to his defense. However, the price he is now paying for his failure, while just, was increased by the distance he fell from that lofty pedestal he was placed upon by those who promoted his thesis.
What is most troubling now are the attitudes of many of Mr. Bellesiles' ardent supporters who remain steadfast with him in spite of the now revealed truth. Their actions serve to highlight the stranglehold that political ideology has on the human mind. I admit that we are all prone to judge things too quickly and in accordance with our own ideological beliefs. I was biased against Arming America from the start because I did not want to believe in Mr. Bellesiles' thesis. Similarly, I have friends who accepted his work without question because it reaffirmed their core beliefs surrounding the gun control debate. It is understandable then that this matter required an independent voice to fairly judge the controversy. Emory University chose to secure just such a voice, and it has finally spoken. The report is filed, and academic fraud was found against Mr. Bellesiles. Yet, Bellesiles' supporters now refuse to accept the judgement of an independent and impartial panel. How can his supporters maintain any cloak of credibility when they attack Charlton Heston, for example, by claiming that he is biased while at the same time clinging to a man now proven to be an academic charlatan? While this entire sordid affair has proven to be an interesting distraction, isn't it time to cast Mr. Bellesiles aside and get back to the real debate he tried and failed to influence?
John G. Fought - 11/12/2002
Thomas, the pesky indentations confused me: if you thought I was quibbling with you, I'm sorry for not being clearer. My comments were aimed at Mr. Sackett, and I should have said so.
Thomas L. Spencer - 11/12/2002
My comments were in response to firearms being the main problem, and the oversimplification the anti's use. The stabbing was in the wee hours of the morning and the police have one of the parties in custody, I gather. The case is still under investigation and there has been little comment so far. You didn't have a policeman handy, for sure. Bellesiles book is of course in flagrant disregard of any real scholarship. He got a slap on the wrist and a chance to become the anti's poster boy. Lucky them....If it had been some area like medicine or law, B would have had his license to practice yanked, AT LEAST. I have a feeling the history profession may suffer a bigger blow to its credibility with the public, in consequence. Will the day come when it falls so low that history departments, as we know them are phased out and merged into something else; American Studies, European studies, Asian Studies, etc., as the norm.
John G. Fought - 11/12/2002
You're wrong about that: large prepublication excerpts were used in the amicus brief against the Standard Model of the Second Amendment in US v. Emerson, for example, and later it was given a number of strongly positive (anti-gun) reviews with national circulation. Excerpts from it and comments about it will turn up over and over again for years in the discussion of gun control and gun rights. Many of these will portray poor Bellesiles as a martyr, or like your comment, will minimize its importance, now that the author has been judged at fault. It was really put together as propaganda disguised as history, which explains its well-documented historical inaccuracy. And by the way, the firearms problem in this country today seems to be that there's almost never one at hand when a good citizen really needs it. Don't you agree?
Thomas L. Spencer - 11/12/2002
I'm afraid it's more a problem of violence in contemparary society, not a simple problem of firearms. Many of the current firearms laws on the books are not observed. The D.C. sniper case is an illustration. Muhammed was prohibited by law from buying a firearm, but the dealer did not conduct his business in a lawful manner and follow the instant check proceedure as required by law. Furthermore, it's not JUST firearms. There was a fellow knifed to death not more than 60 feet from where I live
recently. Just go down to your nearby dollar store.... What's causing this escalating level of violence? You are not getting at the root of the problem with blaming it on guns, or even knives. Cain didn't kill Abel with a .38.
Clayton E. Cramer - 11/12/2002
It matters because Bellesiles's claims were used to argue that the Second Amendment wasn't intended to protect an individual right, as demonstrated by the absence of widespread gun ownership at the time.
Ed Sackett - 11/12/2002
It's a shame that so much importance has been attached to "Arming America." Whether it's an honest book or not, it has nothing to do with the firearms problem in this country today.
Richard Henry Morgan - 11/11/2002
Funny that you should mention Shays, as I have before me a book on the subject (by Leonard L. Richards, a professor at UMass). He sums up the aftermath: Shays lost his farm and fled the state; John Bly and Charles Rose went to the gallows; a judge lost his judgeship, and an Assemblyman his office; many others had to deal with indictments hanging over their heads (presumably never carried to prosecution and conviction), and private suits; and years later Shays had a federal highway named after him!!
BTW, my intuitions on 'bearing arms' is also informed by Virginia statutes cited either by Bogus or Bellesiles, which proclaim the duty to bear arms, while proscribing the carrying of arms by blacks.
Adams is interesting mainly because he is so ignored. His Massachusetts Declaration of Rights presages much of the language of the Second Amendment, while his Massachusetts Constitution provides for a radically democratic militia. When you read his diary, and his other published works, you find he claims inspiration from the major figures of classical republicanism, including Harrington, who emphasized the militia (in a tradition going back to Machiavelli) and the use of firearms by landowners in settling "private disputes". In fact, Adams, in his constitutional commentaries, makes a case for two areas of legitimate use of arms: militia use, and self-defense. Little wonder then that collectivists go to great lengths to ignore that possible strain of influence.
As for a cultural anthropology of the anti-gun movement, you have to read the Chicago-Kent symposium proceedings, both in its original law review form, and in amended book form. Bogus' offering on the politics of Second Amendment scholarship is a laugh riot -- politics, apparently being the sole preserve of individualist theorists. While "unmasking" the associations of the individualists, he somehow fails to mention his own ties to an anti-gun group, or the position of the Joyce Foundation that underwrote the one-sided "symposium".
In any case, I'm back to the polishing, and a search for an e-journal. Thanks for the encouragement and the inspiration.
John G. Fought - 11/11/2002
The matter of a constitutional right to rebellion is very interesting. I don't know the history of Shay's, the Whiskey, and the other early disturbances called rebellions, but I wonder how harsh the penalties were for the surviving participants. Did they consist mostly of the enforcement of the laws that had triggered the disturbances? Certainly the Capital R Rebellion didn't lead to the wholesale hanging of the leading political and military figures of the Confederacy afterwards, even when the reaction to Lincoln's murder is taken into account. I have a vague feeling that we have always been more tolerant of rebellion, ours or others', than many other nations. There may be more to this than childish envy of the 'freedom' of those shaggy bikers wearing the Stars and Bars on their jackets. (What price freedom, say I, if it mean renouncing Merlot?)
Anyway, I will have a look at recent classifications of semantic shifts, extensions, etc., to see if there is anything helpful in this case, while your friends are keeping their vows. It would, I repeat, be a service for you to finish and publish the essay.
I haven't finally decided yet if I'm going to write up something about Garry Wills myself, but if I do it will definitely not be at the level you're reaching. What I feel creeping over me instead is an interest in the sociology or cultural anthropology of the active anti-gun movement.
Richard Henry Morgan - 11/11/2002
I'll be sure to look up that 5th Circuit opinion. As for 'bearing arms', a few thoughts. I think you're right about the restriction to 'military service' -- that is too narrow. It would include service in a paramilitary group, a rebellion, etc. What does surface in all this is the intuition that it involves a joint activity. I can think of only two references where it is asserted that an individual can bear arms in isolation: either the Pennsylvania Constitution or the Minority Report of the Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention (I can't remember which, off the top of my head), and a quote from John Adams contained in Yassky's Emerson amicus brief. Intuitions are formed from the contexts in which a term or expression is uttered or written and apprehended by the individual, and don't lay down the law for the general meaning of a term. Yet, the 'accidental' associations of a term derived from the contexts of its use are also, commonly, the source for semantic change. Whether my intuition conforms to a general understanding, I don't know.
I also think you are right about the sometimes dubious distinction between literal and metaphorical. In this case, I'd might say that the metaphorical has been reified into the literal. The distinction may be better drawn between the compositionally literal (where the meaning is purely a function of the use of the component terms), and the reified literal, where the meaning is determined by use, and only partly a function of component terms. For instance, I suspect (it's my intuition) that one can, indeed, perform military service (one can bear arms) without bearing arms in the compositional sense -- say, a clerk/typist, or an orderly in military service. In any case, it's not a view I would defend at the point of a sword.
Your mention of 'sudden invasion' does bring another point to mind. It is a commonplace for collectivists to talk about "the context" of the drafting of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and then limit that context to a discussion of Shay's Rebellion (from which they draw adverse conclusions about arming the populace, and about militias). Individualists sometimes respond with the Newburg Conspiracy and Federalist 46 (I hope I got the right number), citing them as evidence that the Second Amendment contemplated an armed populace . Wills dispenses with that by saying that Federalist 46 addresses a situation that is "per impossible", and that there is no Constitutional right to rebel (as though the right to be armed is a right to rebel).
I draw your attention, though, to Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution. The section begins with this general prohibition: " No State shall enter into any treaty, alliance or confederation;..." The section then, as a matter of prudence (and this is probably the least explored part of the Constitution) takes that very prohibition away. At the end of the section, you will find these words: "No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another State, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay."
It is my belief that the Second Amendment and the Section 10 do address a problem posed by the historical context, but not one contemplated by Wills or others. Jefferson took all the militia weapons, and seized civilian weapons, and packed them off with troops to South Carolina, where they arrived just in time to surrender. He had also, in the middle of the Revolutionary War, sent Rogers and his best riflemen out to the western borders to preserve Virginia's future claims -- described by Peterson, in typically University of Virginia-style hagiographic terms, as an act of prescient genius. In his Notes On Virginia, Jefferson laments that there were but a few hundred rifles left in Virginia. Tipped to the possibility of a raid, Jefferson refused to call out the remaining militia (it would be unconstitutional, in his view, to call them out before the actual invasion took place), and so Arnold's and Tarleton's lightning raid was so unopposed and effective that Jefferson fled for his life (and the family silver), abandoning his post as Governor. The parallels of the location of Washington, DC, so close to the sea, could not have escaped Madison's attention.
This strikes me as every bit as valid a "context" for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, as any other other, particularly given the role of Madison, the consummate Virginian all too familiar with these events. I would call this the Virginia Crucible thesis.
As for publication, I need to hear back from my friend, who swears to God and everyone on down, that he will check out the Wills article matter on Tuesday. I also have an outstanding inter-library loan request on some material from John Adams (very interesting stuff -- always ignored by the collectivists). Then I'll send the paper out to Volokh and others, and then try to publish it on the web someplace, if I can find a home for it. Suggestions would be gratefully accepted.
John G. Fought - 11/10/2002
I've given your question some thought, which I'll get to in a moment. First, there are a lot of sets of descriptive terms for semantic relationships between terms that have been proposed over the decades. I have to dig up a copy of Lyons before I can answer your technical question (and my garage is easily as frightening as your attic). Meanwhile, I think that more emphasis should be given by everyone to the careful research into the meaning of the amendment by the clerks serving the 5th Circuit. After all, understanding this document is their special department within the already fairly arcane field of explication of late 18th Century Colonial usage. I was very impressed by the work they put into supporting their (Standard Model) interpretation. That said, I think your reading of 'etc' in the reported debates as a vague ellipsis is quite convincing.
I can't readily support my view of the Amendment phrasing (which is at another level the same as theirs anyway) with fresh references, not yet having even tried to find any. Nevertheless, here's how I see the issue of 'bear arms' as you frame it. It may be improper here to distinguish a literal and a metaphorical sense of the expression. This is often a questionable choice anyway: it sometimes springs from a peculiar academic aversion to ambiguity and polysemy that is hard to justify when looking at usage in natural speech, and that may also be deliberately avoided in careful usage for good reasons. Anyway, one can't do military service without bearing arms. One can't bear them without taking them up, etc. Dear old Mr. Wills has cited a Latin expression that corresponds exactly with 'to bear arms' (arma ferre), and others like it. It suits him to restrict its scope to professional military service. Now, what does one say of a mob of farmers (medieval, modern, or in between) who take up whatever implements may be at hand, and charge off into combat with another such mob, or a military unit? Have they not taken up arms? Are they not an armed mob, (a common colonial expression of disdain for militias, I believe) even if pitchforks and flails are more common than halberds and maces, or rifles and fowling pieces more common that muskets and bayonets? An arm in this sense is an object with a certain range of uses. Fowling pieces or a hunting rifles are surely arms in this sense, and might have been especially likely to be borne by the oldest 'alarm men' in the colonial militia organizations. I think it is particularly apposite in reading the Second Amendment not to force a modern distinction between formal, uniformed, fixed-term professional military service and voluntary, occasional, informal militia service into our understanding of what the Amendment meant. Several of my Vogt family ancestors, whose progenitor arrived from Basel around 1750, are on the paybooks of the PA militia off an on through the Revolutionary period, for a few weeks here, a month or two there, mostly posted to frontier duty, always accounted for at the company level. They apparently kept arms and bore them in the relevant senses. I have no idea whether the arms they bore on Militia duty were the ones they kept the rest of the time, and I doubt that one could establish now even roughly what proportions of public and private arms were involved. We may see this kind of thing more often again with today's National Guard, which may again be supplemented by less formal militias if enough terrorist emergencies crop up. Without necessarily endorsing the aims of any existing private group called a militia now, I think it would be richly ironic if they came to be taken more seriously because of the renewed danger of 'sudden invasion' on a very small scale. So, my long-winded answer to your question about usage is that the distinction it takes into account may be more important to us than it was to them.
I am curious about your plans for the Wills review or essay that you started and have now retrieved from the attic. I'd like to see you finish it and publish it someplace, on or off the web. Are you thinking of doing this? It would be as good a time for it now as ever. Meanwhile, I'll keep thinking about these specific questions, and any others you pass along.
John
John G. Fought - 11/9/2002
In case your question is serious, I would say a definite yes to both, although the two cases are not exactly equivalent. If you want to talk about the U.S. economy between 1900 and 1950, you must cover all the ups and downs: the boom after WWI, the Depression, WWII and the boom after it. The whole period is what you set out to characterize. Any prior judgment that the boom or the bust is atypical and should be ignored simply reveals that you have already made up your mind what the real picture should look like, and will do what you must to make it seem to come out that way. This is precisely what B did in omitting the 'disproportionate' number of guns reported by Hanson. Disproportionate to what? To Bs whole argument that there weren't many guns. And this is not the only instance, either: he cooked a lot of what he 'reported', creating a context of doctored quotes and snide remarks to make his distorted counts seem less suspect. Please read the posted compilations of these 'errors' assembled by Cramer and Lindgren
Robert Harbison - 11/9/2002
One thing I have a particular problem with is saying that he falsified evidence by not including the Hanson documents. My problem is why would he? Any documents during a build up to a war would be skewed, would they not? Would we really try to talk about the American Economy of the 1900s - 1950s and include build-up data from WWI, WWII and Korea?? Especially if the data from the rest of the years clearly shows something different?
Richard Henry Morgan - 11/7/2002
I think you have it right, Mr. Fought, on what motivated Wills to use the term 'cognate', and for what purpose. As I originally said, it was to "paper over" the discrepancies between his definitions and those implicit in the sources he cited. To use 'cognate' in a philological context, without using the meaning specific to philology, strikes me as great camouflage, but bordering on an example of amphiboly.
One area of possible disagreement. You say that "the etc. would then appear to cover the rest of the personal equipment of the individual..." That would be the normal interpretation, but I think (and this explains my misremembering) that the debate reporter might have meant it (on this occasion) more as an ellipsis, or as applying to the whole construction "double sets of ..." I say that, in part, because he was not discussing the individual militia member, but the militia as a whole. Also, 'regimentals' encompasses regimental insignia (including regimental colors -- not an item of individuals). Here's the quote from Henry: "Our militia shall have two sets of arms, double sets of regimentals, etc" That hardly settles the issue, and I'm not sure the issue is important, but I'm going to go back and review the reporters use of 'etc', because I seem to remember it was on occasion idiosyncratic and consistent with my view (with the usual caveats about my memory). If I find he used 'etc' in this unconventional sense, I'll note in my paper.
One last linguistics question (until the next time). I think Wills is correct on this matter (among a very few others): 'bear arms' may literally, as a matter of the composition of its terms, mean to 'carry arms', but the metaphorical meaning of 'military service' has become so ingrained that the metaphorical meaning has now swamped the literal meaning as the first interpretation. Is there a term or expression from linguistics that covers the case where the metaphorical meaning swamps the literal?
Thomas Gunn - 11/7/2002
Richard,
Here's a quote from an article close by:
'In 1999, Northwestern historian Garry Wills released the book A
Necessary Evil. Wills argued that Standard Model advocates project a
false view of Revolutionary militias ? that the militias performed badly
in battle and that most people did not have guns. In support, Wills
stated, ?In one of the most important (but neglected) studies of the colonial
frontier, Michael Bellesiles went through over a thousand probate
records??.
It is located at this link: http://hnn.us/articles/printfriendly/741.html
This anti gun, anti rights clique would have us believe this is scholarship and not political propaganda. There are now seven references to the discredited Arming America both in pre and post publication. Another refence to Michael's mendacity is found in a new book about Jesse James.
And so it goes...
thomas
John G. Fought - 11/7/2002
You two don't need much technical help, I must say. I know of no term specifically limited to differences of semantic scope between related noun and verb forms. Generally, a form whose meaning is subsumed by another more general one is called a hyponym of the more general form. The most insightful writer on the semantic structure of natural language was the late and much missed Uriel Weinreich, whose papers on this were collected as On Semantics by his student and my former colleague William Labov; John Lyons wrote a two-volume survey entitled Semantics that is not as deep but is still useful. More recent and theoretically oriented stuff is to be avoided in the interests of public health.
This business of 'regmimentals etc.' seems to have gotten out of hand: I more than assume that regimentals itself refers to uniforms, and the etc. would then appear to cover the rest of the personal equipment of the individual: horse and tack for a cavalryman, field pack and haversack for an infantryman, etc. I suspect that these, like arms, were broadly but loosely standardized, compared with the deliberately distinctive regimental uniforms themselves. Now, even the most generous interpretation of the term 'cognate' (whose modern sense is what matters, unlike the other terms) is empty here. That sense is (in M-W III) "3) related, akin, or similar ..." The rest of the entry simply doesn't fit. The 'cognate' relation is reduced to 'having something to do with military equipment'. So, as I see it, the use of 'cognate' there was empty, and intended to add an odor of scholarly sanctity to the argument where something of the sort was definitely needed to prop up a weak spot. In this it is oddly similar to the correct but irrelevant use of 'cognate' in the philological digression about the etymology of 'arms'.
Each time I look at the review article and the chapters of the book, I am struck again by how thin and incomplete and unscrupulous the argument is, and by the exaggerated pose of confident omniscience adopted by the author. People buy this stuff, too.
Richard Henry Morgan - 11/7/2002
The militia member is supposed to show up properly "armed" (the context usually suggesting "equipped, to include arms"), and in other documents, with "arms and equipage". I only bring up this disjunction between the expansive verb form and the narrow noun form, because I suspect it has propelled some to impermissibly amplify the meaning of 'arms' to match 'to arm'.
My suspicion is that you're right (if I understand you correctly). The Second Amendment is a guarantee of the individual to have arms -- a protection against the case where the feds fail to exercise their power (as they may, since it is a power, not a duty). I also suspect that the right to "bear arms" is a protection gainst the federal creation of a select militia -- a militia of only those sympathetic to expansive federal claims of power. On the other hand, the Second Amendment, being pre-14th, and pre-incorporation, may have gained acceptance from Antifederalists precisely because it is only a bar to federal disarming of the individual, not a bar to disarming by the state (though today, many state constitutions have similar provisions limiting their power to disarm). That's why I have analogized it elsewhere to antifederalist support for the religion clause of the First Amendment -- it would allow states to establish a state-level religion, while preventing the federal government from doing so.
As for Miller, you're very right. Again, I suggest Carl Bogus' article in the book form of the Chicago-Kent symposium (it may well also be in the article form of the CK law review). You will see how he leaves out anything McReynolds wrote in Miller that contradicts his thesis, and writes that the court "found" what some might think more properly falls under the title 'dicta'. In fact, that article has to be one of the snarkiest, least even-handed I've read. The article is very nearly as bad and as nasty as anything Wills has written, which perhaps explains why Wills has such a high opinion of him. There's also a nice air kiss from Bellesiles to Wills in a Bellesiles article some few years before Bellesiles' book came out. The circle of mutual massage is funny to watch. Bellesiles praises Wills in his legal history article. Wills praises Bogus' article found in the UC Davis law review. Bogus praises Wills in his CK article. Wills completes the circuit by praising Bellesiles in the NYTBR. And so it goes.
Thomas Gunn - 11/7/2002
Richard,
I'm not sure the difference in meaning or the divergence is important. The feds are empowered to provide for "organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia." The power to act assumes a power not to act, at which time the responsibility for the militia falls to the States, which leads to the same conundrum, the power to act assumes a power not to act. At that time the power to arm finally falls to the lowest common denominator, the individual. The writing at the time are replete with admonitions for the citizen soldier to show up when called properly "armed". The conclusion is inescapable and unequivocally refered to in both the Miller {"With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view."} and Emerson court cases. The power of the individual to act (or not) must be maintained as it is from him the power of government issues.
thomas
Richard Henry Morgan - 11/7/2002
There is always some dispute about the original words versus the recorded words of debate, particularly before videotape. We now know that Madison "tidied up" his Constitutional Convention notes with later memories, both his and others'. There is also some reason to believe that Madison only could have recorded between one-third and one-fifth of the proceedings. Worst of all, I think I remember that the guy Virginia hired to record the Virginia ratifying debates, was the same alcoholic who recorded US House debates, and who was so roundly criticized for his inaccuracy by House members, including Madison. I think that explains why all four newspapers have the same version of Madison's proposal which eventually became the Second Amendment -- I suspect he made sure he supplied a hard copy to them in order to insure they got it right.
Thomas Gunn - 11/7/2002
Richard, John,
One of the things that strikes me when reading the Constitution, the BOR and the Fed Papers is the economy of verbage. Even in the recordings of the debate there seems to be an effort to reduce or distill the essence into the lowest common denominator. Richard mentions the liberal use of ellipsis to denote the debate may have carried on but with no real enlightenment.
Recall also there are those who would have you 'cognate' "keep and bear" to circumvent the pesky idea the founders meant personal arms kept at/in the individual home or on his person.
As an aside: My son said, "Hook me up phat with some chicks!" I've applied the necessary spelling to 'phat' to distinguish it from 'fat', though they are cognate. Later in the conversation, I heaped praise on my son for his enlightened attitude regarding the physical attributes of dating partners. I said, "Sonny doesn't mind being introduced to fat chicks." I was quickly corrected that the conversation was not about fat chicks, but more the number and speed of the intros. My son, the chauvinist, is currently involved in a long term relatiionship with a thin 'feminist'.
How will the linguists who follow in couple hundred years ever understand what was going on when the words only convey part of the meaning and the remainder is situational, locational and participant dependent?
thomas
Richard Henry Morgan - 11/7/2002
Wills makes the connection that between "arms" and "regimentals, etc." Obviously, as John points out, in the sense of 'cognate' derived from linguistics, 'arms' and 'regimentals' are not cognates. So Wills posits a cognate relationship not between 'arms' and 'regimentals', but between 'arms' and 'regimentals, etc', and the only way to make sense of Wills' statement is to give 'cognate' one of its non-technical senses -- that is, the principle of charity means we have to give it one of its acceptable meanings should that prove more harmonious with his thesis. What is certainly obvious from the context of Wills' remark is that it was in response to something, it was not unmotivated. I think that "something" was his recognition that Henry's speech posed a problem for Wills' own proferred definitions.
You will note that Henry, after making the referred to remarks that distinguish between 'arms' and 'regimentals', goes on to say that after purchase of double sets of all these items, "we shall be doubly armed". This is a source of confusion for some. Henry's use of 'arms' is consistent with Article 6 of the Articles of Confederation, as well as the OED exemplar closest in time to the drafting of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. You will note that Henry's use of the past participle 'armed' is also consistent with Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, that gives the federal government the power of "organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia." Unfortunately, 'armed' and 'arms' diverge in meaning.
There is an imperfect mapping of the mass noun 'arms', with the verb 'to arm'. You see this throughout the contemporary literature. 'To arm' a militia, and even sometimes 'to arm' a man, is to provide it and him with all the durable equipment necessary to war (just as the OED identifies the metaphorical meaning of 'to arm' as providing what is necessary to any task). But 'arms' are restricted to, in most cases, individually-operated weapons, and in a minority of cases, crew-operated weapons (not all durable necessities). I suspect, but I hardly know, that there is a technical term for this disjunction of meaning between a verb form and its noun form. Can you help us out here, Mr. Fought?
John G. Fought - 11/7/2002
Thanks to both of you, I am now doubly armed, just as Henry foresaw. I apologize for missing it myself the first time through the NYRB paper, but I apparently can't bring my mind into focus on this as an instance of the cognate relationship.
I'm very glad to see that I won't have an extra piece to read, since Wills' rhetoric leaves behind a gummy deposit that is hard to scrape off.
By the way, you're both right about what cognate means: it refers to 'changed later forms of an earlier form' and form here includes crucially both the phonetic shape of the item and its meaning. Either or both the sound and sense of a form may change, and any form is subject not only to change but to loss or replacement (by borrowing, new coinage, etc), independently in each of the daughter languages. But the changes are patterned and are found in combination in a number of forms, thus allowing one to distinguish cognates from other forms that don't display the interlocking regular patterns that characterize all cognates. Now, my Merriam-Webster III (once recommended and still reliable for etymologies) derives _arms_ from L. arma, pl., 'tools, weapons', and _regiment_ from L. regere, 'to rule'. NOT cognates. Wills' historical linguistics reminds me of what we used to be warned against in grad school, the temptation to set things up so that you set up a line of linguistic descent from 'Moses' to 'Middletown' by dropping the -oses and adding -iddletown. Most important of all, in this context, is that it wouldn't matter if they were cognates anyway. What matters is what they meant to the participants at the time.
Richard Henry Morgan - 11/7/2002
I've finally pulled my notes from the attic, and again see the perils of memory. Wills makes, As Mr. Gunn has it, "arms" cognate with "regimentals, etc". Certainly, one can pack anything and everything into the "etc" that follows on "regimentals", thereby equating the extension of "arms" and "regimentals, etc" (assuming you accept Wills' incredible definition of 'arms'). But that would hardly seem a plausible reconstruction of Henry's intent, given the context of his remarks. I have found nobody who, having read Henry's remark, believes with Wills that Henry was restating the meaning of "arms" when he said "regimentals, etc".
Richard Henry Morgan - 11/7/2002
BTW, "regimentals" means the collection of regimental uniforms and insignia.
Richard Henry Morgan - 11/7/2002
I see my memory has deserted me again. Mr Gunn is correct -- the original quote, I believe, is "regimentals, etc.", not "regimentals" followed by an ellipsis (though the point I made remains valid). And as Mr. Gunn points out, "cognate" appears in the NYRB article.
Richard Henry Morgan - 11/7/2002
Mr. Fought, take me seriously when I say there might not be a Constitutional Commentary article by Wills (I thought I saw reference to one over two years back, but I'm less sure now). I'm asking a friend of mine with access to an academic law library to check it out. BTW, if you go to a law school library, and they don't want to admit you, just inform them that under federal law they have to -- they are a federal repository, and get free copies of US Codes, etc, in exchange for opening their stacks to the public. I pulled this at Columbia one time, and you should have seen the librarian's jaw drop. Savoir, c'est pouvoir. As you can imagine, this is a fact they would rather the public not know.
Richard Henry Morgan - 11/7/2002
You found the quote, Mr. Gunn. According to my memory, the context is an exchange between Madison and Henry. The antiFederalists were concerned that (and for other reasons) the Federalists would disarm the militia by failing to exercise their monopoly power to arm it, or, alternatively, that the militia would be denied access to those arms already provided but kept in Federal stores. Madison responded that arming was a concurrent power, and that the states could arm themselves. Henry then responded that if providing arms is a concurrent power, then so are the other federal powers concerning the militia. He then goes on to complain about the expense to taxpayers of thereby (if concurrent) having to purchase two sets of everything -- one set of federal arms they may be denied access to, and a backup set of state arms.
Henry, "the Forest Demosthenes", warms up to his subject. He starts a laundry list (or, in oral composition terms, a catalog)of all the items that taxpayers would have to have in two sets: arms, regimentals, etc.,...
Now Wills, having made appeal to "philology" (roughly, an old-fashioned term for linguistics, or a subset of linguistics), sees he has a problem. "Arms" is supposed to include, by his definition, all military equipment. But here we have regimentals listed as, apparently, a separate item. No problem. He simply says the one is cognate with the other. In linguistics though (and here John can settle the dispute), 'cognate' implies a genetic or historical link, and it applies to terms as well as entire languages. French and Spanish are cognates -- they are both descended from Latin (just as pere and padre are cognates descended from pater).
Sometimes, 'cognate' is used in a loose sense to mean sameness of meaning, or even more loosely, sameness of function. Obviously, the two terms are not cognates in the strict sense. But look what Wills is saying if he means 'sameness of meaning'. What he is saying is that Henry was not providing a catalog of duplicated items (as the context, and as the real meaning of the terms suggests), but was simply restating the meaning of 'arms' when he mentioned 'regimentals'. For Wills, the rough translation would be thus: "the people would have to purchase two sets of arms -- that is to say, two sets of regimentals."
Apart from the fact that 'arms' and 'regimentals' don't have the same meaning, there is another problem. How are we to interpret the ellipsis after "regimentals"? You see, the recorder was taking shortcuts, and the text is full of ellipses. Under Will's theory, the ellipsis has to mean that Henry was going to restate the meaning of 'arms' not just once, but a second, and perhaps a third, and perhaps ... however many times the ellipsis represents. Does it make sense, given the context, that Henry would stand there giving a series of synonyms for 'arms'? The word 'ludicrous' (one of Wills' favorites) comes to mind.
Thomas Gunn - 11/7/2002
John,
I'm in to my arm pits here in understanding what you and Morgan are discussing, but here goes anyway.
Wills attempts to relate the words 'arms' and 'regimentals' to one another here:
"The debate throughout is on ways to arm the militia. The "arms" referred to are cognate with "regimentals, etc." as military equipment. The attempts to get guns in every hand are the result of state laws for equipping the militia. Henry is saying that if the states could not do this heretofore, how is the federal government to do it?"
Link: [http://www.potomac-inc.org/garwills.html ]
What strikes me as I read the various quotes of the participants at the time is the desire for everyman to be armed. And Bellesiles tries to convince there was not a gun culture antebellum.
thomas
John G. Fought - 11/7/2002
Yes, I've read both of the decisions. How they are misrepresented! In spite of the Bellesiles Experience, I am still not prepared for the bad faith injected into the anti writings about those cases. It will be a grim pleasure to trace the arguments. In spite of advice from Mr. Morgan, I haven't yet found the missing piece by Garry Wills, in which the fateful term 'cognate' appears. I find no listing of a paper by him in Constitutional Commentary for any number from 1995-2002; my librarian tells me that at an author's request, CC will refrain from making a piece available electronically, and that may be the reason. I'll keep looking, but a title and reference would be helpful. I have his NYRB piece and 'A Necessary Evil, with two chapters in which much of that article is recycled. I need to round out the collection before really getting down to work.
Can any of you help on this?
Thomas Gunn - 11/7/2002
The 1939 case? Miller?
Interesting when one reads the decision. It is only two pages, they were rather brief way back when.
For those interested in READING the case here's a link.
[http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court;=US&vol;=307&page;=174 ]
As you read note what the court is saying with regard to the amendment. Hint: "With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view."
What does the second DO and WHY?
John, I'm not an attorney but I have learned that the USSC rarely decides or even discusses what is not before it. The problem in 1939 was the sawed-off shotgun. The court said they didn't know if it was protected and remanded for an evidentiary hearing. Imagine if Miller had lived long enough to appear. Real assault weapons like a fully auto m-16 would be the milita arm protected. You are right in how the courts have misinterpreted Miller, until the Emerson court.
The Miller court didn't look any further than it had to to remand the case. They didn't look at miller's militia membership, because it was irrelevant. He was part of the people, the individuals guaranteed the right.
As for the use of shotguns in the military, Rem 870's were very popular in Viet Nam. Link: "http://www.geocities.com/commande1/vnshotguns.html "
thomas
John G. Fought - 11/7/2002
I just read through most of the 5th Circuit's Emerson opinion. Aside from making delightful reading, a lot of their analysis of the language of the amendment and related materials, including correspondence, debates, etc., is very much like the analysis a lexicographer would do to determine the sense of a term. The biggest difference is that all of the analysis focuses on explicating one use in one context, with the rest of the evidence bearing on that use, rather than an effort to map out the different meanings of 'people', 'keep' and 'bear' implied by their other uses in other contexts. Notice that at no time did etymology come into play. I was also charmed to see that the other circuits had apparently misread the 1939 case. When I looked at that it seemed clear that only the lack of evidence of any military use of a sawed-off shotgun was at issue. Too bad nobody took the trouble to point out that they have been used as auxiliary weapons (in much the same secondary role as pistols) ever since WWI, and possibly before, whenever dense cover or other causes meant infantry action at very close quarters. I would not be surprised to hear of them in use in the Philippine Insurrection and various other colonial adventures in the 1890s and early 1900s. Does anyone out there know about such uses?
John Gillette - 11/7/2002
My first thought when reading the "charge" to the committee of investigation. I thought they should have included more of the areas where he clearly "fudged". I thought they picked and chose a few areas where the committee would come back with a sufficiently negative report to can him but not to totally destroy him over all the areas. When one reads the research and commentaries by others it's clear that there were a lot of other areas that could have done him in.
As it is it gives a sop to those who still want to believe in the fable he espoused. Gives them the opportunity to claim that only a little of the book was false rather then almost the entire thing.
Thomas Gunn - 11/7/2002
"Debate?"
I thought I covered that. You and Morgan are involed in more, a discussion, I was hoping to interest Ralph and get him to engage.
I'm hoping Ralph will look at the debate dispassionatly and come to the 'right' conclusion. One question the controllers refuse to answer is, "What is to be accomplished by gun control?" Every answer is either unsupported by the evidence or a violation of basic human rights.
BTW I am fascinated by what you are discussing. I was involved peripherally in a discussion of the reason behind "keep and bear" in the second. It seems wordy in the amendment and the consensus was the founders purpose was to refer to a dual protection for the amendment. I suspect you've seen this link: "http://guncite.com/gc2ndcont.html#bear " Garry Wills is mentioned there also.
thomas
John G. Fought - 11/6/2002
I must be missing something. I thought I was on the same side of all this with Mr. Morgan, only perhaps a bit more so. It's a matter of pot vs. kettle. Anyway, I still have more work to do on Gary Wills. Anyone interested should grab a shovel, tie a hanky over nose and mouth, and dig in. There's plenty of it to move.
Thomas Gunn - 11/6/2002
Ralph,
I'm on your side re free speech and the rights and responsibilities therein. The only debate between you and I is my wonderment at you milquetoast response to Bellesiles' lies in Arming America. Do you agree they attain that level, or will you still refuse to engage?
I can only speculate the why of your refusal to engage in the debate surrounding Bellesiles book. You have made it clear that you are unwilling to debate the need or the right contained in the Second. Anyway I've enjoyed our exchanges and look forward to many more.
I am watching with great interest the debate (can one call it that?) between Fought and Morgan, even though it is somewhat above my educational level. What's your opinion? (of the debate, not my ed level) ;-o)
thomas
Ralph E. Luker - 11/6/2002
Thomas,
I'm not proud of the foregoing exchange. Rick can remove the whole thing, if he chooses. The only post I've ever asked him to remove was a call for the assassination of the President of the United States.
I still don't understand what I said that set off this particular exchange. I'd defend both Sternstein's and Bernstein's free speech rights here and defending them doesn't justify demeaning personal insults in return. Some of the people you refer to have scrupulously avoided invidious personal attacks. Others haven't been so innocent as you suggest.
Thomas Gunn - 11/6/2002
Ralph,
If Rick is going to take exception to the word "t..". . ."t.." poo, will he let the foregoing repartee stand? Hmmm.
Have you noticed the debate seems to bring out the worst and the best in people? Bellesiles, Bernstein, Weiner = the worst, Cramer, Lindgren, Sternstein, Fought, R H Morgan, Emory's blue ribbon panel, = the best?
thomas
ps. Have you read Spence's venom filled convoluted excuses for a blog? The link is to the left, way left takes you there! I still think you'd be a lots better blogger.
t
Thomas Gunn - 11/6/2002
His name is Ralph, not Dick. He's a Dt. too, though not the kind that would be able to help you. I went to school with a guy named Richard Head, could that be you?
Anyway, if you intend to just be mean go and post with that Spence character that blogs here. Use the link to the left!
thomas
Ralph E. Luker - 11/6/2002
Admire it all you want to, but don't touch. I am glad you are learning to count, too!
Bellesiles's Last Friend - 11/6/2002
If you are, or consider yourself, a teacher... GOD HELP US and you.
Word Smith - 11/6/2002
What (4) a (1) dick (4).
Jerry Sternstein - 11/6/2002
Here is Prof. Volokh's analysis of the Emory Report, pointing out how Bruce Craig seriously understated and ignored some of its major points in his summary for the NCCPH. Craig later replied, lamely I believe, to Volokh, and his reply is available on Prof. Volokh's brilliantly informative and valuable blog, the Volokh Conspiracy. com.
[Eugene Volokh, 3:41 PM]
HOW ONE HISTORY NEWSLETTER IS DEALING WITH THE BELLESILES RESULTS: Here's how the NCC Washington Update, vol. 8, #43, Oct. 31, 2002, from the National Coordinating Committee for the Promotion of History (NCCPH) (written by Bruce Craig) summarized the committee report:
The committee found no "intentional fabrication or falsification of research data," found no evidence of "a deliberate attempt to mislead," but concluded that Bellesiles demonstrated "carelessness in the gathering and presentation of archival records," and that he did "engage in serious deviations from accepted practices in carrying out [and] reporting results from research." The committee speculated that "unfamiliarity with quantitative methods or plain incompetence" could explain some of the known deficiencies [in his] breakdown of data. Furthermore, they concluded that Bellesiles "casual method of recording data. . . [his] extremely sloppy documentation [and] carelessness" has resulted in an "unprofessional and misleading work."
The tenor of this summary seems quite clear: The committee found that Bellesiles had made errors, but not intentional ones.
Omitted, though, is any summary of the following conclusion from another portion of the report (emphasis added):
[I]n one respect, the failure to clearly identify his sources, does move into the realm of “falsification,” which would constitute a violation of the Emory “Policies.” . . . The most egregious misrepresentation has to do with his handling of the more than 900 cases reported by Alice Hanson Jones. When critics pointed out that Jones’ data disagreed with his, Bellesiles responded by explaining that he did NOT include Jones’s data in his computations because her inventories, taken during the build-up to the American revolution, showed a disproportionately high number of guns! Here is a clear admission of misrepresentation, since the label on column one in Table One clearly says "1765-1790." If Professor Bellesiles silently excluded data from the years 1774-1776, as he asserts, precisely because they failed to show low numbers of guns, he has willingly misrepresented the evidence. This, compounded with all the other inconsistencies in his description of his method and sources and the fact that neither he nor anyone else has been able to replicate any part of his data, suggest that there is a real discrepancy between the research Professor Bellesiles did and his presentation of that research in Table One. . . .
So it seems to me that the committee did find some evidence of "falsification."
Now, other parts of the report do decline to find "intentional fabrication or falsification" as to some other allegations. But even there, a closer look at the committee report yields a more complex picture than the summary seems to suggest. The committee explicitly said that:
As to Questions 1 and 2, we cannot judge the issue of intentionality. We do not believe it possible to state conclusively that Professor Bellesiles engaged in “intentional fabrication or falsification of research data” given the evidence at our disposal. But we are seriously troubled by Professor Bellesiles’ scholarly conduct in most of the contexts to which the first two questions refer.
Not a finding of intentional fabrication or falsification of research data as to Questions 1 and 2 (as opposed to Question 4, where they did find "falsification") -- but a bit more complex a point, I think, than a simple "the committee found no 'intentional fabrication or falsification of research data.'"
Ralph E. Luker - 11/6/2002
My student, Word Smith, has gotten up to words of four and five letters now.
Word Smith - 11/6/2002
Look, fella: Bellesiles has been shown to be a huge liar. Get used to it. Live with it. AND QUIT SHILLING FOR THE FRAUD. YOU ARE ONLY EMBARASSING YOURSELF. Yours is the kind of fly-in-the-face-of-reality lunacy seen in the OJ-didn't-do-it camp.
R. Stump - 11/6/2002
You are a liar, sir.
Rick Schwartz - 11/5/2002
When you finish with the purple kool-aid be sure to wash the glass out. We don't want anyone else drinking from it by accident.
Benny Smith - 11/5/2002
Emory University's unscholarly treatment of one of its own professors has to rank among the ugliest incidents ever to disgrace academia in this country. By kowtowing to the gun lobby at nearly every turn, Emory has forsaken the ideals of academic freedom, vigorous exchange of ideas, and the independence of scholarly research that has made higher education here a model for the world.
When Emory's home state senator Zell Miller lampooned Professor Michael Bellesile's book Arming America in his keynote address to this year's NRA convention, it was apparent that scholarship had given final way to politics. By telescoping its Arming America inquiry onto a few small passages, taken out of context, passages which forced Professor Bellesiles to rely upon memory, Emory determined the course of its own inquiry. And by publicly naming those on the investigative panel, Emory determined the outcome. Those investigators are not so naive to be ignorant of how Bellesiles has been relentlessly persecuted throughout all this. And the panel's adversarial nature of its inquest is obvious in its final report.
Even confronting the few most damning accusations, the committee was forced to be inventive with its language as when it said it determined that Bellesile's failure to identify sources "does move into the realm of falsification." Yet supporting documentation for its own investigation was not released. Does that mean the investigative report itself "does move into the realm of falsification?" Or is it just hypocrisy? And despite Emory's demand that Bellesiles submit to a lengthy inquisition-type investigative process, those members of the ad hoc panel, with Emory's apparent blessing, announced that they would refuse to answer questions regarding their inquiry. More hypocrisy!
It is no wonder that Professor Bellesiles found the atmosphere at Emory to be so hostile that he was forced to resign. And Emory must feel some guilt in the matter by allowing Bellesiles to dictate terms for his resignation. Interim Dean Robert Paul claims that his hand was driven by "intense scholarly interest." Another sham! This debate has been driven all along by gun huggers, right wing zealots and some who, for whatever reason, have made Bellesile's public crucifixion their own personal vendetta.
The Washington Times reports that gun rights extremists have begun targeting Columbia University in an attempt to get them to revoke Bellesile's literary prize. It remains to be seen whether Columbia will be as easily bullied by the "intense scholarly interest" that will be directed at them.
Richard Henry Morgan - 11/5/2002
I think you're right about the "in part" and the "flourish of erudition". Some would say "baffle them with BS", and since few people are now versed at all in the classics and their languages, it is a surefire way to awe the ignorant. You will get a kick out of the fact that Carl Bogus, in the book-collection version (at least) of the Chicago-Kent symposium articles, delivers an encomium to Wills' use of his classical learning to enlighten us about the meaning of terms. As for myself, what tiny Latin remains in my system from only two years of it, was beaten into me with a cane by my Latin Master, who doubled as the Sergeant-Major/Senior Common Room Master at my Church of England prep school (complete with compulsory cricket and rugby, I'm afraid).
As for the Constitutional Commentary article, I'm afraid I'm working from memory, that most fallible of powers. I don't have the article, as I had finished my rough manuscript before I came to believe it existed, and I kept promising myself to get it (assuming it exists). If it does exist, it is in the same issue (October 1999, Vol. 16, #2)) that contains Saul Cornell, Don Higginbotham, and Bellesiles. I apologize if I've sent you chasing your tail (I now suspect I'm conflating it with something else, as my mind deteriorates).
Also working from memory, I think Wills cites Bernard Schwartz as his source for the Madison speech, but Schwartz has a slightly different version. Moreover, Wills offers two versions, neither of which conforms to Schwartz (again, from memory). Any discrepancies can be resolved by consulting Neil Cogan's The Complete Bill of Rights, by Oxford University Press. It's the size of the NYC phone book, costs $136, but contains a wealth of material.
Can't wait till you get to 'cognate' -- you'll see some real legerdemain at work.
John G. Fought - 11/5/2002
"You're welcome" doesn't do justice to the situation: thanks in equal measure to you for nudging me into an interesting byway. For now, I just want to collect a couple of quick answers; I'll get back to you very soon on some of the other points in your posting.
It strikes me that Wills' use (like many others) of the etymological fallacy is in part just a flourish of erudition, something to impress people who never studied Latin or Greek, as he did. It's not just an appeal to etymology, but in part a cruder kind of flashing. It's also a convenient way to appeal to a very, very old notion: that things have true names that are not their everyday names, and that knowing those true names gives an adept power over the things and over ordinary people too. He's like a birdwatcher who tediously refers to each bird by its taxonomic name, thus doing both of these tricks at the same time. A lot of the scholarly contributions we've seen in this matter are just the modern academic version of the old religion. Its connection with word magic also gives a part of its force to the notion of 'sagecraft' that Kates and others have applied to the anti-gun literature. Anyway, I'll have more to say about this when I've read some more Wills. I've only started. His chapter in _A Necessary Evil_ on militias, I'm going to say, is very much like a lace doily, in that it's an artful arrangement of holes. My weakness in language learning is inflectional morphology, so although I'm guessing at the endings here, I don't see why I can't parade my erudition too: I find a good deal of the old suggestio falsii and suppressio verii in this chapter. I have his NYRB piece and the book now, on loan, thank heaven, but I can't find any link between him and Constitutional Commentary. Can you help me on this? That will round out my collection nicely. I can already say that I wish he were a more private intellectual.
There are some electronic journals that are not peer reviewed. They're more common in laboratory science fields, where speed is of the essence, but I don't see why the model wouldn't work just as well in history. I'll try to find out more about this and how it's managed (if that's even the right word).
In signing off, let me mention that the best work on the subject of serious practical argumentation that I know of is Stephen Toulmin's _The Uses of Argument_. He uses jurisprudence as his model for relating evidence and conclusions.
Luke Gofannon - 11/5/2002
Spoken like a true idiot.
Tim Lambert - 11/5/2002
Jim, you don't understand the statistical methodology used. You really should look at the link I provided: http://bmj.com/epidem/epid.html
Of course the cases weren't selected randomly. If you want to learn something about homicide you need to look at some homicides. You keep claiming that the study is bunk, but you haven't presented a single reason why it might be.
Kleck's study is not online. Here is a cite:
Gary Kleck and Michael Hogan "A national case-control study of homicide offending and gun ownership." Social Problems 46(2):275-293 (1999).
Richard Henry Morgan - 11/5/2002
Just over two years back, nearly done with my paper, I asked a scholar to review it. She agreed, and informed me of the coming Bellesiles storm. Not wishing to muddy the waters, I consigned my paper to the attic for the duration. I will now take it down and polish it up.
These boards can be stimulating in interesting ways. Again, over two years back, I read the Second Amendment article by UTexas Prof. L. Powe (a First Amendment specialist), who likened the Second, by analogy, to a First Amendment prohibition on prior restraint. In the course of his paper, he made the point that Wills' reference to ancient meanings was irrelevant (without realizing that Wills' etymology was itself nonsense).
This stimulated me to look into Wills' writings, and sent me to David Crystal's work, the etymological fallacy (which John Fought also brought up), and certain technical terms (such as 'hyponym', etc.). But John's reference to Merriam-Webster's definition of the same fallacy tripped another switch -- it offers as definition the notion that the word in question "must have" the same meaning as before. What could be the source of the necessity implicit in the expression "must have"? Is it logical, natural, or metaphysical? Certainly, when it comes to natural kinds, one can see the connection to the metaphysics of essentialism. But 'arms' don't quite qualify as a natural kind.
Now I'm working from memory, but I don't think that Wills offers any signal terms (like "because", "therefore", or "must have") that would signal the reader that he is making an argument, and that the proposition it relies on, and the connection to later meanings, might therefore be dubitable. In fact, without those signal terms, there is a question whether he is even making an argument at all, in a formal sense. I think he just gives the bizarre etymology AND says it is the same meaning as before, leaving the possibility that it is the same meaning today simply by contingent empirical fact, or by some other reason or process unspecified. But a fallacy can be, by differing accounts, a defect of argument on the one hand, or a defect of argument or reasoning on the other.
Now I ask myself: if Wills hasn't included signal terms, has he made the fallacious argument in question or even reasoned fallaciously? Rather, I suspect, he has invited the reader to reason fallaciously -- to accept Wills claims about 18th century meaning by, in part, accepting his ancient meaning, without even realizing they are doing so, or bringing to the reader's conscious mind what would be the connection and therefore the basis for accepting it. As Walter Nash has put it, the purpose of rhetoric "is not wholly to persuade, as may be commonly supposed, but to involve the recipient in a conspiracy from which there is no real withdrawal." To me, that is a mark of a master of rhetoric -- he commits no explicit fallacy himself, while leading the reader to do so.
Should there be a name for this, say (in this case), the Implicit Etymological Fallacy? In any case, I have been stimulated to new questions and perhaps insights. I'll now have to work up the strength and courage to climb back up into my attic.
BTW, does anybody know of a site, devoted to such, where one can post a manuscript to solicit criticism prior to publication? The success of Lindgren's article suggests another question -- can anyone recommend an e-journal devoted to history, that would make the paper more available to readers, and speed time to publication?
Jim March - 11/5/2002
Tim, I'll deal with these points one by one, quoting you...
> Jim, especially if you are conducting your own
> study, it would be a good idea if you learnt some more
> statistics. There is a reasonable summary at
> http://bmj.com/epidem/epid.html
> If you want to learn more, there is a further
> reading section.
Tim, I'm not doing a "study" in the same sense. I'm doing a series of investigative journalism articles, describing how gun control laws are being abused in agency after agency.
Read the Oakland version for an example of the type:
http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/oaklandzen.html
Statistics aren't largely a factor, although that will change once I score gun carry permit issuance data for the whole state. At that point, I'll have the help of people like Clayton available.
> The controls do not have to include the entire
> population for us to estimate the characteristics
> of that population. That is the basic idea behind
> sampling theory.
But he didn't sample the control group the same way he did the other!
LOOK at it, Tim: he started by identifying the dead bodies. THEN he came up with a "control group" picked randomly. But the first group was NOT picked randomly, it was highly selective.
You can throw around a veneer of scientific method all you want, this was flat crap.
> You may perhaps be unaware that Gary Kleck
> conducted his own case-control study in an
> attempt to prove Kellermann wrong, but also
> found a statistically significant link between
> gun ownership and homicide. For some reason,
> pro-gun folks frequently cite Kleck's other
> work, but never mention his case-control study.
Hmmm. You're right, I haven't heard of it. Is it online somewhere?
> Finally, you wonder about the study locations.
> The study location only matters if the thing
> you are studying varies a lot from county to
> county. I think you will find that gun violence
> isn't just a problem in the three counties studied.
Oh puleeez. There's a lot of things that could cause an abnormally high rate of criminal attack. Poor policework or a corrupt police force will do it in a heartbeat. Racial tensions, or a local economy in the toilet.
Kellerman and company may have gone "looking for trouble", same as I did. I targeted police agencies and sheriff's offices for investigation that had a wacky reputation, or were run by known anti-self-defense types, or had a corrupt reputation. In two cases, I ended up digging so deep I didn't publish the results, I'm prepping confidential reports for the FBI.
But I'm not *presenting* my stuff as a "sample", rather more like "worst case scenarios as to why we need reform", which is a different thing. If Kellerman used my techniques, he could easily commit fraud.
Ralph E. Luker - 11/5/2002
Thomas,
Do I understand you to mean that some of the folks posing as people on HNN is, for real, hogs?
R. B. Bernstein is entitled to his opinions. The process is, well, in process. It is not complete. There will be more to come. Most importantly, there will be more discussion among historians about how to avoid such embarrassments in the future.
Thoams Gunn - 11/5/2002
Based on what you've read by Mr. Bernstein re Bellesiles, what do you think of him? Is he fairly defending the process? And is it applicable in the Bellesiles case?
Remember too Ralph if ya wrassle with the hogs you're liable ta git spattered by the po . . po. . .
mud.
How goes the research? Making progress I hope.
thomas
ps I'm still rooting for you to take over Spence's blog duties.
t
Thomas Gunn - 11/5/2002
Luke,
I've had some very nice conversations with this Luker feller, and he aint secha bad sort. Ya gotsta remember that ifn we want are rites preserved we gots ta respeck thars.
Long as Ralph (thats that Luker feller) don't goan take mah gun from me I haint gonna make him keep a gun. Evryun gots a right ta be foolish ifn they wants ta be.
Course thets jess mah pinion.
thomas
Ralph E. Luker - 11/5/2002
I don't know about "this Luker feller," but whether you agree with him or not, nothing I read by R. B. Bernstein tells me that he's an idiot.
Luke Goffanon - 11/5/2002
This Luker feller and this Bernstein feller sound like a couple o' idiots. Just my opinion.
Walter Stevens - 11/5/2002
By the "reasoning" of Bellesiles's defenders, poor Richard Nixon was unjustly destroyed by his "critics." Give me a break. A liar has been caught fabricating one big lie with a tissue of smaller lies. Good riddance.
Tim Lambert - 11/4/2002
Jim, especially if you are conducting your own study, it would be a good idea if you learnt some more statistics. There is a reasonable summary at
http://bmj.com/epidem/epid.html
If you want to learn more, there is a further reading section.
The controls do not have to include the entire population for us to estimate the characteristics of that population. That is the basic idea behind sampling theory.
You may perhaps be unaware that Gary Kleck conducted his own case-control study in an attempt to prove Kellermann wrong, but also found a statistically significant link between gun ownership and homicide. For some reason, pro-gun folks frequently cite Kleck's other work, but never mention his case-control study.
Finally, you wonder about the study locations. The study location only matters if the thing you are studying varies a lot from county to county. I think you will find that gun violence isn't just a problem in the three counties studied.
Jim March - 11/4/2002
"Controls"? Jesus. Tim, it doesn't matter - defensive weapons use is relatively uncommon. By starting out picking homes where dead bodies were, he's automatically pre-selected for a specific event and then he looks for alternate stuff in the "controls"?
Unless the "control population" consisted of everyone else in the community (every other household I should say) then his results aren't worth used toilet paper from a leper colony.
Do you understand what a "control" in a scientific study REALLY is? It's where you take two supposedly identical populations, and then you do something to one, and you measure the differences - the group you didn't screw with is the "control".
But Kellerman and his co-conspirators did something else. They identified a population that had already had a specific RARE class of events happen to it (gun killings) out of a much larger population, and then found a randomly-picked "control group" of similar size to the NON randomly picked first group.
Get it now? The whole thing was carefully rigged to SOUND scientific. It was anything BUT scientific!
If they had been serious, they would have analyzed the ENTIRE county population, looking for defensive gun use, "brandishings", woundings, killings and all other gun deaths (except suicides).
But that would still leave open a second, important problem: how were these communities hand-selected? On what basis? That isn't mentioned, I don't think.
It's important because it's possible through..."indirect sources", to identify study participants to pre-select "interesting participants".
I am participating in a study that is doing exactly that! There is a survey going on of gun carry permit issuance practices throughout California. Since the goal is to prove that misconduct (corruption, bias, racism, cronyism, illegal/extralegal local policies, etc) is happening, "study participants" (local police and sheriff's offices) were picked based on...basically, "common knowledge" that they're, well, assholes on anything gun related . Is that entirely fair? In this particular case, we think so because NONE of those sorts of issues should be factors in modern policework, and the faster we can prove any of it the faster we can fix this crud. We're not claiming it's a scientific survey; we DO back the evidence of agency misconduct with a full and complete paper trail, such as:
http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/oaklandzen.html
BUT I focused on Oakland because I already knew they were screwy when it comes to gun issues. Mind you, THAT level of screwy was still a shock.
I couldn't really quantify for you WHY we picked on Oakland. But from this experience, I know that the locations chosen to "study" matters. A lot.
Tim Lambert - 11/4/2002
Jim, you have misunderstood the study design. As well as the cases (murder victims), there were controls (people who weren't murdered). People who save their lives using a gun will show up amongst the controls.
For example, suppose that having a gun prevented you from being killed half the time, and guns had no other effects. Then, other things being equal, there would be twice as many gun owners amongst the controls as the cases, and the risk factor for guns would 0.5, indicating that gun ownership halves your risk of homicide. In fact, the risk factor was 2.7, indicating that having a gun almost triples the homicide risk.
And remember that that number is an average - for any given individual the number could be quite different.
Jim March - 11/4/2002
I managed to figure it out:
abs@.nsf/Lookup/NT00001702">http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/NT00001702
It's an oddball URL, you have to copy and paste it into a new browser window, because they were idiots and used a "@" character in a URL.
Jim March - 11/4/2002
I don't need a pro to rip this piece of tripe a new orifice.
Tim, this 1997 Kellerman "study" starts by identifying homes where people flat-out died of some sort of homicide (I give Kellerman the benefit of doubt and assume he's lumping both self defense and criminal attack together). It then seeks to sort out what happened.
In doing so, it automatically excludes all cases where a criminal was driven off via brandishing, warning shots, or even wounded and survived. Got that? All those scenarios and a lot more were completely barred from study before the dang thing even began.
Jesus H. Christ. This is the best you can do?
I'm not surprised Kellerman and Bel-liar were buddies. They're cut from the same cloth.
Jim March - 11/4/2002
Is it this one?
=========
Home Safety Project, 1987-1992: [Shelby County, Tennessee, King County, Washington, Cuyahoga County, Ohio]
Kellerman, Arthur L., Frederick P. Rivara, Norman B. Rushforth, and Bela B. Hackman.
=========
If that's it, fine, I'm looking at it myself and I'll see if there's been any professional critiques.
One obvious point: they only picked out THREE COUNTIES? On what basis? (Right, that's probably in there, I'll withhold comment until I read it...)
Tim Lambert - 11/3/2002
A 24% firing rate does not tell us anything at all about the hit rate. For what it's worth, only two surveys have tried to measure the hit rate. According to Kleck's survey defensive gun users score a hit 50% of the time that they fire shots at an attacker.
Of course, his respondents could be mistaken, embellishing or making the whole story up, so take that figure with a very large grain of salt.
You can get the Kellermann study from
http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/ Ask for study 6898.
Tim Lambert - 11/3/2002
Killias has done studies on suicide, but those are different studies. It is not true that Britain and Japan have double the US suicide rate. Britain has a lower rate, Japan is higher but not double.
In general, studies that look at suicides and guns give mixed results - some find a link, some do not.
Diana - 11/3/2002
Hi
Another URL disappeared when I posted my message.
It fits into Point 3 in the discussion. You can see where.
It is the web site for Australian crime stats.
It is:
abs@.nsf/Lookup/NT00001702">http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/NT00001702
Diana - 11/3/2002
Hi
In my last post I inserted Lambert's web site URL for
for those of you who want to see where he stands.
For some reason, it did not come through when I
submitted the message.
It is
http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/archive/
Tim Lambert - 11/3/2002
It is quite simply false to claim that the figures "use all the downside balanced against just a fraction of the up side."
As well as murder, the downside includes woundings, robberies and assaults. A study that looks at murder doesn't cover all the costs and benefits, but hat hardly makes it invalid.
Tim
Diana - 11/3/2002
Hi
Your evasiveness and selective reporting are extremely irritating, although I find that typical of the anti-self-defense crowd. I can't afford to waste my time here arguing with people who either can't read my words accurately, or who consistently misrepresent what I said in order to avoid answering the questions. Let us compare what I said versus what your answers were.
================================
I wrote:
"1. I will concede that you might not realize that you are a major proponent of banning self-defense in America, but your actions belie your words."
You responded:
"1. Diana insists that I want to prevent self-defence in America, though she generously concedes that I might not know that I really want. Diana, since you apparently know my innermost thoughts better than I do, why don't you write my answers to any further questions you might have? You should be able to do a better job than me since I can only tell people what I think, while you, using your special powers, can tell everyone what I really think. "
Question: Did I state at any point that I knew "what you really want" or "what you really think"?
Answer: No. I said that your actions belie your words. Your actions will have the effect of preventing self-defense, irrespective of your claimed intent. That is a true statement. At no point did I claim to read your mind. I even admitted that you might not realize that you are being used as a proponent of the anti-self-defense zealots in the U.S. However, I am quite sure that you are a dedicated political zealot for anti-self-defense, having seen your web site . Your current argument is really juvenile.
Next, I asked you some basic questions:
"Do you believe that the right of survival is the most important right, without which your other rights cannot be exercised? Are you aware that in every single jurisdiction in America (federal, state, county, parish, city, village, unincorporated area) the police and government have no legal duty to protect the public and no legal liability when they fail to do so? Where will your efforts lead, if not to the disarmament of the American public and a ban on self-defense, as has occurred in Britain? "
You responded with the nonsense about mind reading, but without answering any of my important questions. I suspect you avoided those questions because you can't answer them.
=======================================
Next, I raised some relevant issues regarding the change in British crime reporting:
"2. I don't think your excuse will fly. Britain has a national police force, so its local branches should have adopted the new methods simultaneously. And if they did not, then there should be an obvious checkerboard pattern of step-function reports emanating from various parts of Britain. The great majority of Britain's population is in 30 major cities, which would have been the first jurisdictions to change over. That would leave only a few lightly populated jurisdictions to make a late change, and they would have little influence on the overall crime rates since everything is population weighted. The mechanism that you describe does not adequately explain the recent large increases in violent crime."
Your response:
"2. The report I cited "Crime in England and Wales 2001/2002" spends five pages (pages 21-25) discussing the changes in recording practices. I think it is more likely to be correct than your ill-informed speculations."
Your response was incomplete and evasive, since it did not explain why the step-function result pattern did not occur, nor did you explain why the changes are continuing to this day. My questions were not "ill-informed speculations", but honest inquiry into the absence of the expected pattern of results that should have followed a change in reporting methods. You also did not address the issue of how safe "Gun Free Britain" was when gun control groups were claiming that Britain was heaven on earth. If they had been using the new reporting method 30 years ago, maybe people would have realized that being "gun free" didn't make you safe. So which is it: were Britons unsafe before 1995 or unsafe after 1995? Either way, gun control doesn't work.
====================================
Next, I referred to my sources and asked you to send me your "better" information...if you have any.
"3. ...Since you feel that my sources are biased, why don't you send me some data on gun control that has significantly reduced crime--it should be easy to come up with dozens of examples, if you are right."
You responded:
"3. ...the reason why you haven't "seen" reductions in violent crime following is not that your sources are biased, it's because you are biased. For example, you refuse to count the reduction in homicide in Australia and the reduction in violent crime in England."
You again failed to respond to my question. You should have been able to present dozens of examples where gun control decreased murder and violent crime, yet you chose to insult me instead. I have actually looked at the Australian data and it is quite clear that you are conflating some unrelated statistics when you refer to "homicide" in Australia. Anyone can go to that source and see that "homicide" includes motor vehicle deaths and most of your claimed "decrease" comes from that category, not from anything related to firearms. Murder in Australia was 11% lower from 1995 to 2000 (although if you had used 1999 as the end year, the murder rate would have been the same, so one year difference can not be considered as a long term trend), but the murder rate in the U.S. decreased by 33% during the same time period while we had lots of CCW's issued. Manslaughter rates in Australia remained the same. Australia can hardly be held up as a shining example of gun control just based on your arguments.
If you take all the violent crimes in Australia, in other words, those crimes that might be deterred or interrupted by defense with a gun (rather than your narrow standard "crimes where guns are important"), you will see substantial increases in rates of attempted murder, assault, sexual assault, kidnapping, robbery, and unlawful entry with intent. Several of those categories experienced nearly 50% increases. Reduced defensive potential can hardly be viewed as beneficial in these cases.
Maybe you should contact your government to institute a retroactive change in reporting methods so that there can be an excuse for the increase in violent crimes in Australia!
======================================
Next, I stated:
"4. You have an interesting, almost evasive, way of phrasing your next response: "If you look at the Australian statistics you will that the crime where guns are most important, homicide, has declined since 1997."...Your phrase, "the crime where guns are most important, homicide" reveals your bias and your lack of understanding of self-defense. ...By your standard, if all crime but homicide with guns grew substantially, you would find that result commendable--so long as the evil guns were involved in fewer crime. That is the blindness and stupidity of the gun control side--you are not worried about the overall violent crime rate, just the part with guns. Look at all the violent crimes that grew because there is now less deterrence. Do you think I, or anyone else, should thank God that we were murdered or assaulted with a knife rathe than a gun; especially if it happens a lot more often? Just remember, the highest murder and violent crime rates in America are NOT where firearms access is easiest."
You replied:
"4. Whether you like it or not, it remains true that the crime category where guns are most important is homicide. Guns are used in a much smaller fraction of assaults than the fraction of homicides where they are used. You misrepresent my views, again, when you claim that I would find an increase in all crimes except with-gun homicide commendable."
It is not at all a question of whether or not I like it. I used that example ("...all crime but homicide with guns...") because it approximates the Australian experience over the 6 years from 1995-2000. This is where you really fail to understand reality or else you are using your statistical expertise to try to fool people. You are performing a "cost-only analysis", which examines only one cost in isolation. You act as though guns have only costs, yet there are real benefits, too. Ayres even admits as much when he states that California, of all places, would benefit from "shall issue" CCW. Yes, guns are often used in homicide, but they are also used more often in self-defense. Your "fraction of assaults" and "fraction of homicides" standards are absurd (think "Rwanda" and "Sierra Leone"). The big picture is what happens in a jurisdiction when there are lots of guns in law-abiding hands (violent crime is controlled) versus a jurisdiction where there aren't many guns except in criminal hands (violent crime is out of control). So again I ask you to explain why so many U.S. jurisdiction with universal access to as many guns, including "ASSAULT WEAPONS", as we wish, have very low murder and violent crime rates.
====================================
Next, I referred back to my question regarding CCW-issuing Seattle's below average murder rate compared to numerous cities that make it difficult to own or carry guns:
"5. The reason I do not compare Seattle to Vancouver B.C. is the fact that they have different legal, cultural, and ethnic factors. I'm sure you know this, so your answer can only be viewed as deliberately deceptive. I'm sure you are also familiar with the pro gun control study that also used your comparison and that deception to reach a predetermined conclusion. "
You responded by distorting my position again:
"5. You demanded that I compare Seattle with DC, but protest that comparing Seattle wirh Vancouver is invalid because of differing ethnic and cultural factors. Are you really claiming that Seattle and DC have no significant ethnic differences? Really?"
I "demanded"? What the heck are you smoking or shooting up? Go back to that post and you will see that I said, "...try
comparing the Seattle, Washington Metropolitan area (pop. 2.4 million), where any law-abiding citizen can get a CCW/Self-defense permit to carry a concealed handgun in public, to major cities with strict gun control enforcement, such as
Chicago, Detroit, St. Louis, Wash.D.C., and others." Look, Tim, I can't spend all my time leading you around by the hand and explaining plain English to you. Read that word "try". It means "experimental trial or attempt". That is not a demand. And I certainly did not limit you to one invidious comparison that I maliciously chose just to embarrass you (you are doing a pretty good job of embarrassing yourself without my help). I gave you a long list of appropriate locations and even gave you a working definition of the type of jurisdiction that would be appropriate ("major cities with strict gun control enforcement") for the comparison, so that you could find your own examples if you didn't like mine. Instead you chose a city in another country with a different legal system and different public attitude toward crime.
You then inaccurately stated that I objected as a result of "differing ethnic and cultural factors. Are you really claiming that Seattle and DC have no significant ethnic differences? Really?" In fact, that is not what I said. My objection was due to "different legal, cultural, and ethnic factors." Tellingly, you left out the most important factor, the difference in legal systems. You also use the absolutist argument that I did not, "no significant ethnic differences?" I never claimed that there were no significant ethnic differences between Seattle and other cities; only that a comparison with Vancouver has more problems than comparisons with other U.S. jurisdictions.
====================================
Finally, I referred to Ayres article:
"Nevertheless, it seems that some of the methods and conclusions are suspect, just from a common-sense point of view. For instance, the author decided to not count any positive results of CCW's more than 3 years after enactment, even though he counted data from 8 years prior to the law. ....He also talks about the monetary cost of the harm and even cites a figure of $500,000,000 for 24 states. Even if true, this is just $21,000,000 per state! Most states lose track of more than that each year, so that is an extremely low price to pay for the ability to protect ourselves and our loved ones.
You responded in a very accusatory manner:
"It is false to claim that Ayres did not count more than three years of post CCW data. ...With such a model, the net effect of the laws is crime cost of about one billion dollars. "
Well, I didn't just make that up. That methodology regarding three years was stated in the report, so if you don't like my objection, take it up with Ayres. After all, he might be lying. Maybe the Bellesiles spirit is catching on!
If there is a property crime cost of $1 billion per year, it is so trivial as to be meaningless. That is just $20million per state or $3.50 per person! Do you have any idea how little that is in American terms? I would happily pay my $3.50 per year in order to be able to defend myself and my loved ones! Isn't your family worth $3.50 per person?
As for the methodology and data of the Ayres study, once it is discussed extensively, we shall see whether it is another "Arming America" or whether it has anything to offer.
I will close by repeating my previous conclusion regarding Ayres study:
"In summary, CCW helps in some places, and at worst, it doesn't do any good or harm, but it never produces any major harm. So why not do it? Survival and human dignity are worth it."
Diana - 11/3/2002
Hi
Let me remind you that you still haven't provided rational, real-world answers to the questions I asked in message http://hnn.us/comments/4239.html or http://hnn.us/comments/4184.html Both of these are in the thread above.
Your current post is also very deceptive and evasive. Why are you now measuring crime in "percentages" rather than the usual crimes per 100,000 population? In any case, the numbers you cite as proof of the efficacy of Britain's gun ban are less favorable than the crime trends in the U.S., where CCW has become more and more widespread. In other words, Britain probably could have done better if they had instituted CCW instead of a ban.
Note that the biggest difference between BCS and ICVS is not sample size as you imply, but the fact that different questions are asked, using somewhat different techniques. The BCS figures cannot be adequately compared to ICVS or NCVS or any other survey for that reason. The ICVS at least has the advantage that it uses the same questions and methodology for several countries. There may also be other cultural factors at work. I'm sure you know how deceptive the NCVS is. Most of us do. I'm sure you also know the importance of the specific wording of the questions.
Your response here to Cramer is also deceptive, since you claim that "Clearly guns are the only things that matter when you study homicide rates." As I stated in my previous message "The reason I do not compare Seattle to Vancouver B.C. is the fact that they have different legal, cultural, and ethnic factors." Your answer to Cramer, using a simple substitution method for part of the ethnic factor, only partially accounts for the different ethnic mix, but does not compensate at all for the legal and cultural factors.
If you really believe that guns are the only thing that matters, why don't you answer the question I asked previously? Tell us why many of the most heavily armed parts of America are the most peaceful. And why the jurisdictions with highly restrictive laws that prevent legal self-defense with firearms are usually the most violent.
Incidentally, I find your attempts to avoid answering our questions to be quite hilarious. You have now produced a partial substitution into the Vancouver vs. Seattle stats to fit your purposes but only after avoiding my original question why CCW-infested Seattle has a much lower than average murder rate while Chicago, Wash.D.C., Detroit, L.A. etc. have much higher than average murder rates "despite" their anti-self-defense gun control laws and non-existent CCW.
Your manipulative statistical games are rather amusing even if designed to deceive people about the big picture, but many of us here in America can remember when it was safe to leave our doors and windows open, even at night, even in large cities. Today, in any metro area (less so in CCW jurisdictions), if you leave anything open, even during the day when you are working around the house, criminals will enter and steal, rob, rape or murder. That doesn't happen much in the smaller detached cities where people are often armed. I have lived in the same large metro area for 40 years and I have personally witnessed the declining quality of life that accompanied more restrictive gun control laws. Naturally, there are other factors at work, but if gun control was worth anything, it should have at least prevented the descent into chaos, but it did not. In the armed jurisdictions of the country, the last 40 years has actually been fairly stable, with only minor increases in violent crime. Some of my relatives live in those small detached cities and their murder and violent crime rates are lower than Britain's. One relative lives near a city of 22,000 where there is approximately one murder per decade or two. That translates to a murder rate of 0.25 to 0.5, which is lower than Britain or Japan. How do they feel about guns? A lot of them shoot targets in their backyards, space and backstop permitting. The last time we were there, we shot .30-06 and .223 and .357 into the pile of wood next to the garage. No one complained and no police showed up. My in-laws there never close the doors or windows (close, not lock) except to keep out the weather. And when I say never, I'm including occasions when they go to work or go into the nearest big metro area an hour away to see a major league baseball game, which means they are gone almost all day. They also leave all their new cars and trucks and a theft-magnet Harley motorcycle unlocked and with keys on the seat. Those vehicles are on their driveway or in their open garage, easily visible from the road. Never had one stolen. I was curious about their lack of precautions about crime especially in light of their proximity to a major metro area so I asked my brother in law why they aren't worried. He said that the big city criminals don't even think about commuting to work in his area because it is well known that everyone has guns.
This is why your statistical games and manipulative numbers will never convince us. We live here and we see the results. Your complaints about guns are rather like the old joke about a man caught committing adultery and telling his wife that things are not what they seem. In panic, he appeals to his wife's loyalty and says, "Honey, who are you going to believe? Me or your lying eyes?"
Thomas Gunn - 11/3/2002
That is precisely what got the 43X's number in such disrepute.
Guns can and are used for much more than just self-defense. If you're gunna stack the good agin the bad ya gotta count it all.
Your figures use all the downside ballanced against just a fraction of the up side.
It is like counting auto fatalities against lives saved by autos and not quantifing the lives saved and enhanced by all the positive use of the auto.
Try again Tim.
thomas
Jim March - 11/3/2002
Is the latest Kellerman studies still viewing suicides as one of the "downsides of guns"?
That, to me, was one of the biggest flaws in his earlier work. Japan and Britain have near double the US suicide rate, with low gun ownership rates. In Canada, at least one study has tracked "substitution" of suicide methods when juvenile gun access laws were put in; sure, "gun suicides" went down but total suicides in the age range in question stayed flat. (Often very flat; jumping off of tall buildings/cliffs turned out to be a popular alternative .)
Jim March - 11/3/2002
Quoting Tim Lambert:
"Ayers and Donahue found increases in crime in most states after the introduction of carry laws. This does not fit your explanation that only states where street robbery is common would see an effect."
You missed my point: so far, none of the "really bad crime zone areas" (with minor exceptions such as Miami) have converted to shall issue.
"You seem to mistaken about which places have the most crime as well. New Orleans has a higher homicide rate than either DC or Chicago."
Hmmmm. I'll go check that. Doesn't jibe with what I've heard, but OK. Note that LA has the reputation of the most corrupt police forces in the nation, bar none...that can't be good for murder rates.
I'll be interested to see what Ayers/Donahue makes of Michigan when/if they update their study to include it. I am assuming that the data for that state is too new or unfinished to have been included at this time? Not a condemnation of Ayers/Donahue per se, it's just that Detroit will make for a nice case study.
Jim March - 11/3/2002
Hmmmmmm. Odd. I'll have to look into this further.
I know that in my own case, I've "brandished" (for proper reasons) twice against humans, twice against dogs...with identical results for all. (Dogs may not know what a weapon is exactly, but they sure as hell know what determination is.)
I understand this is way too small a sample size. But in years of talking to other gunnies, "brandish stories" are so common whereas SHOOTING stories so incredibly rare, that we have a real easy time seeing the 98% number as correct!
24% including warning shots/misses? Police hit ratios are often well under 25% of all shots fired (depends on the department and "level of gun culture" of the geographical area - urban cops often shoot for the first time at the academy). Correct me if I'm missing something here, but this implies a "hit ratio" on the part of civilians above police levels? Mind you, that's possible, in that an assailant/mugger/rapist has to be CLOSE, whereas cops may be shooting a fleeing, dodging perp at range (or inside the sorta-armor protection of a car).
Hmmmm. I think I am missing something. Gimme a link to the Kellerman 2.7x study, I want to make sure we're on the same page here.
Tim Lambert - 11/3/2002
Jim March writes "The real question, hell, the CENTRAL core of the debate, is whether or not guns have protective value."
Not quite. The real question, is whether they have NET protective value. If you ignore the costs and only count the benefits then of course you will find them beneficial.
Kellermann's case-control study (the 2.7x one) addresses that question. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that gus were 100% effective at preventing murder. Then someone who kept a gun at home would never be murdered there. (Though they might be murdered if they went out without the gun.) Under this supposition a study like Kellermann's would have a found a risk ratio of 0x i.e having a gun reduces your chance of being murdered by 100%.
What the study found, however, was a risk ratio of 2.7. That is, whatever protective effects guns had, were more than outweighed by the fact that guns make homicide easier.
You are also mistaken about what Kleck's polling data says about the draw/shoot ratio for civilians. His survey found that 24% of the time defensive gun users fire their gun. More details are at
http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/lottduncancomments.html
Tim Lambert - 11/2/2002
Ayers and Donahue found increases in crime in most states after the introduction of carry laws. This does not fit your explanation that only states where street robbery is common would see an effect.
You seem to mistaken about which places have the most crime as well. New Orleans has a higher homicide rate than either DC or Chicago.
Tim Lambert - 11/2/2002
Alec Lloyd says "So all the BBC reports about skyrocketing crime are wrong, eh?".
Hey, what happened to the ICVS? You introduced it to the discussion and when you discovered that it actually showed that crime decreased in England you dropped it from the discussion. As for the BBC reports, even if violent crime is decreasing in general there are always some subcategories and/or areas where it is increasing. Guess which is the better news story.
Tim Lambert - 11/2/2002
Natives do not account for 71% of Vancouver's homicides. Their homicide rate is 71 per 100k population. As I already mentioned, guns aren't the onnly things that affect homicide rates, but that is not at all the same as saying that they don't affect the homicide rate. The data does not say that Vancouver blacks are 9.5% of Seattle's but rather that blacks are 9.5% of Seattle's population.
Kevin Canady - 11/2/2002
Mr. Lambert,
I'm curious how to reconcile the your statements that crime in England has decreased since 1995 with the following quote from the Sunday Times on Oct. 13th, 2002:
"BRITAIN'S murder rate has risen to its highest level since records began 100 years ago, undermining claims by ministers that they have got violent crime under control."
Could you explain?
Thank you.
Jim March - 11/1/2002
Tim said:
-------------------
Mr Cramer: Clearly guns are the only things that matter when you study homicide rates. However, it is not true that a different racial composition explaind the difference in homicide rates between the two cities. Seattle's homicide rate was 11.3. Vancouver's was 6.9.
If I calculate what Vancouver's homicide rate would be with Seattle's racial mix, I get the following:
white asian black hispanic native
% of Seattle's population 79.2 7.4 9.5 2.6 1.3
Homicide rate in Vancouver 6.4 4.1 9.5 7.9 71.3
The weighted average of the rates is 7.4.
-------------------
Now, I'm no statistician, so let me see if I understand you correctly:
If Vancouver had the same racial mix as Seattle, Vancouver's homicide rate would be 7.4 instead of 6.9?
OK...I'll buy that. But what you've missed is two critical points:
1) Your own data seems to show that native americans in Vancouver account for SEVENTY ONE percent of Vancouver's homicide rate!?
Whoops. If that's the case, you've just proven beyond any possible doubt that cultural/environmental factors matter more than anything else.
2) Am I also to understand that Vancouver has only 9.5% of Seattle's black population? If so, given that blacks are statistically speaking the most violent US population, you've just thrown your whole comparison concept in the trash. Because there is NO evidence that blacks in Canada are anywhere near as violent as blacks in the US!
Look, the damn LA streetgangs set up cocaine distibution networks in lots of other cities. Places as far away as Des Moines, Iowa that had NEVER had a "gang problem" started seeing "Bloods and Crips" (violent Los Angeles, California gangs) show up in their back yards. Same thing happened in Seattle, only bigger because Seattle is a major port city, and smuggling drugs in via cargo containers on ships is a major thing (they just can't check 'em all). Portland, Oregon got hit too. But there was no significant incentive for them to cross over into Canada. Canadian drugs generally come in through Asian/Triad connections, and those guys have been in business a LOT longer and don't do anywhere near the level of violence.
I'm guessing you don't realize just how widespread crime and drugs problems across the US could possibly be, if most of it came out of LA? Los Angeles *county* has a population of over 12 million. Many US states don't even have 1 million. Washington, Oregon and Idaho combined don't have 12 million. Believe me, all it takes is a few carloads of LA gangbangers with mongo drug connections back to LA and points further south to raise holy hell in towns as small as 100,000 nationwide.
Ask any cop in America.
Jeez, they kill each other at a rate of about 300+ a year in LA more often than not, there's just scads of 'em. A friggin' horde.
Which never had any significant effect on Canada. The LA connection alone explains the disparity between Seattle and Vancouver.
Jim March - 11/1/2002
I'm going over the paper now, having seen it mentioned in this thread.
The first thing that strikes me is that in a lot of cases, the states that recently shifted to "shall-issue" had fairly low crime rates to start with. Oklahoma for example.
One of Lott's central findings was that improved survival odds per CCW permit issued happen to a far greater degree when the recipient was an inner-city minority person (able to pass a background check).
This makes sense, in that it's the inner cities where violent street-crime out in public happens the most. CCW permits have little effect on in-home crime because to date, the states that have converted to shall-issue already allowed in-home gun possession for purposes of self defense.
Which is why Florida's CCW statistics were valuable - when the inner-city areas such as Miami-Dade were allowed to lock'n'load, a significant effect was seen.
Now, since Michigan changed to shall-issue a year and a half ago, we're going to see what happens in Detroit. Which is why I'm paying particular attention to the ongoing events in MI; see also:
http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/ccweffects.html - media reports on the effects of local changes in permit issuance rates - note the universal "gee, where's all the blood in the streets that was supposed to happen?" tone by the same papers that PREDICTED a "wild west scenario".
Since CCW doesn't have an effect on in-home murders, and little if any effect on calculated murders for profit and/or to shut up a witness or whatever, CCW will only have major effects in states where random street robbery and murder are common. With the possible exception of Florida, that hasn't happened. California, Mass, New Jersey, New York, Illinois, WashDC and similar pestholes are still "unarmed victims mandated by law" zones. (In fact, 'cept for California those areas require handgun *ownership* permits which are hard to come by, impossible in DC and Chicago and insanely difficult in NJ, MA and esp. NYC. None of the "handgun ownership permits required" states where the ownership permits were scarce have converted to shall-issue.)
Chicago and DC keep trading off for the title of "per capita murder rate leader" . Their gun control laws are on a scale with England's, really. Detroit will make for an OK small-scale model but convert Chicago or DC to shall-issue while finally allowing in-home defense, and whoooooo boy, we'll have this sorted out in real short order.
Another thing the grabbers DO NOT like talking about is what else happens when handgun permits are severely restricted. Corruption and racism sets in, as the restrictive systems were designed to facilitate. See also:
http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/colafrancescopapers.pdf - ever see a drunk admit to buying a gun permit with massive campaign contributions to arresting officers, who recorded it in an official police report?
http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/oaklandzen.html - now THIS is funny. In a city of 450,000, there's just one guy who's allowed to pack, and he's the mayor's best friend, roommate, Zen guru and campaign manager - and a serial sexual harasser who's cost the city $50,000 so far. Oh no. I don't *think* so.
http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/howardpearl.html - Florida pre-1987
Much more in my "Expose Project" archives, including the madness in New York City and the extensive cover-up of "good cause for issuance" data in California going all the way to the state Attorney General's office:
http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/expose.html
If shall-issue CCW did nothing but end the corruption endemic under "discretionary" systems, it'd be worth reforming.
Jim March - 11/1/2002
Quoting Tim Lambert:
"...if guns had a net protective effect on homicide, the risk ratio would have been less than one, instead of 2.7."
The real question, hell, the CENTRAL core of the debate, is whether or not guns have protective value.
Kellerman's original "41 times more likely to kill a family member" study was based on the idea that the only way to tally up effective gun defense cases was to count the dead bodies of assailants shot.
The reality is, the vast majority of gun defense situations happen with no police report, no shots fired, no doctors needed. The bad guy figures out that his victim selection skills need a LOT of remedial work when he sees a gun come out to play, and he runs off.
In California, I can't get a legal gun permit due to not being able to afford the required bribes (footnote 1), and I'm too well known in pro-self-defense circles to risk packin' illegally, so I push the knife laws to the firewall and carry the biggest street-legal steel I can find. Current daily carry is a 5.45" blade folder. In 18 years of never leaving the house without cutlery, I've drawn on violent criminals armed with clubs (large wrench, hammers) twice now. Both times, their interest level in further festivities noticably declined...or at least, that's what I gather from their running away.
Guns work even better at this.
We even have some quantfiable data in that most US police are required to report each instance of drawing a gun, esp. if it's pointed at somebody. The numbers always run to at least 9 draws for every shots fired situation, usually more.
I would venture the numbers are even more stacked against firing in civilian guns-drawn situations. Crooks know that cops will chase them, but that is seldom the case when civilians draw in self defense. So with cops, crooks are more likely to "shoot it out" versus run, whereas running from armed citizens almost always results in successful flight.
At a minimum, the draw/shoot ratio for civilians won't be any lower than for cops. Kleck's polling data suggests it's much higher.
In any case, self defense IS REAL, it exists, and twits like Kellerman who dismiss it as a non-issue are perpetuating as much fraud as Bel-liar.
Tim Lambert - 11/1/2002
1. Diana insists that I want to prevent self-defence in America, though she generously concedes that I might not know that I really want. Diana, since you apparently know my innermost thoughts better than I do, why don't you write my answers to any further questions you might have? You should be able to do a better job than me since I can only tell people what I think, while you, using your special powers, can tell everyone what I really think.
2. The report I cited "Crime in England and Wales 2001/2002" spends five pages (pages 21-25) discussing the changes in recording practices. I think it is more likely to be correct than your ill-informed speculations.
3. I apologize. If you have looked at the primary sources of crime statistics and papers on both sides, then the reason why you haven't "seen" reductions in violent crime following
is not that your sources are biased, it's because you are biased. For example, you refuse to count the reduction in homicide in Australia and the reduction in violent crime in England.
4. Whether you like it or not, it remains true that the crime category where guns are most important is homicide. Guns are used in a much smaller fraction of assaults than the fraction of homicides where they are used. You misrepresent my views, again, when you claim that I would find an increase in all crimes except with-gun homicide commendable.
5. You demanded that I compare Seattle with DC, but protest that comparing Seattle wirh Vancouver is invalid because of differing ethnic and cultural factors. Are you really claiming that Seattle and DC have no significant ethnic differences? Really?
It is false to claim that Ayres did not count more than three years of post CCW data. You also misunderstand Ayres objection to Lott's model where he assumed that CCW had the same effect in every state. Given the evidence that CCW had different effects in different states, it is necessary to use a model where it is allowed to do that. With such a model, the net effect of the laws is crime cost of about one billion dollars.
Alec Lloyd - 11/1/2002
So all the BBC reports about skyrocketing crime are wrong, eh?
Maybe you should point that out to them.
Tim Lambert - 11/1/2002
Mr Lloyd: Your belief that the International Crime Victimization survey showed massive increases in violent crime is mistaken.
If you compare the 1996 and 2000 numbers for England you find the following changes (numbers are percentages):
Total crime decreased from 30.9 to 26.4
Robbery decreased from 1.4 to 1.2
Sexual incidents increased from 2.0 to 2.7
Assaults and threats increased from 5.9 to 6.1
None of the last three changes were even close to being statistically significant.
The BCS uses a vastly greater sample size than the ICVS, so is able to get more accurate figures.
Mr Cramer: Clearly guns are the only things that matter when you study homicide rates. However, it is not true that a different racial composition explaind the difference in homicide rates between the two cities. Seattle's homicide rate was 11.3. Vancouver's was 6.9.
If I calculate what Vancouver's homicide rate would be with Seattle's racial mix, I get the following:
white asian black hispanic native
% of Seattle's population 79.2 7.4 9.5 2.6 1.3
Homicide rate in Vancouver 6.4 4.1 9.5 7.9 71.3
The weighted average of the rates is 7.4.
Randall N. Herrst, J.D. - 11/1/2002
Hi
This is a copy of my message on the other thread: "Shooting the Messenger" by Prof. Sternstein. http://hnn.us/articles/1074.html
First, I would like to thank Prof. Sternstein for the excellent article on Wiener's attempted defense of Bellesiles.
Second, I admit that I do not have any degree in History, but it is one of my favorite topics.
Third, I proudly state that I am a self-defense activist.
Let me tell you what really happened at the UCI meeting where Bellesiles was supposed to discuss his book.
I was one of the "four unusually large men" who supposedly came to intimidate Bellesiles or disrupt his presentation, as Wiener clearly implied. Wiener portrayed a dramatic, intimidating entryway presence (emotionally analogous to Gov. Wallace's blocking the entry of a segregated school) by the "four unusually large men", apparently to frighten people away from the event. Wiener claimed, "People coming to the talk were startled, and some were a little frightened, but Bellesiles said calmly, 'Ah, so they did come.'" Wow! Bellesiles must be really brave to face down those monstrous bullies, right? And he had the courage to show up, even knowing that huge, violent thugs were hounding his every move!
As one who knew 5 of the 8 firearms owners prior to the meeting, and the one who printed the one page flyer (which was not titled "Bellesiles is a LIAR!"), I can provdie you with some personal information on the people who attended. Wiener's description of "four unusually large men" is obviously meant to evoke an image of four, young, tough football linemen, each 6' 5" tall, weighing 290-360 pounds, and replete with bulging muscles. Naturally, they must be mindless redneck thugs with a cumulative I.Q. approximating room temperature. Their purpose could only have been to intimidate or disrupt, since none of them could be a college graduate, or even literate. They didn't "look like faculty members or even history grad students."
"Unusually Large Man #1" is 6'2" tall, 215 pounds, slightly overweight and out of shape. He is approximately 50 years old, a respected millionaire businessman, and is often mistaken for a professor due to his demeanor and appearance. He was one who I did not know prior to the event, but I did get his contact info afterwards. He was not one of the people at the two entryways, so his "frighten away" value was minimal. He just took one of the flyers and sat at the back of the room, and I don't recall him saying a word during the entire meeting. He certainly did nothing loud, violent, or threatening.
"Unusually large man #2" is 6'2" tall and 300 pounds, but he looks more like a roly-poly Santa Claus than a tough football lineman. I doubt that anyone would be physically intimidated. He is approximately 50 years old, an author of many books and articles, and the owner of a publishing company. He did not appear at either of the entrances, so his intimidation value was also non-existent. He was the one who asked 2 or 3 questions, based on his real-world experiences with non-probated firearms transfers. His questions were directed at the issues, with no attempt to threaten Bellesiles.
"Unusually large man #3" was me, 51 years old, 5'8" tall and 225 pounds, and definitely overweight rather than ultra-muscular. I was supervising the two people who were handing out flyers at the two entrances, but I am certain that no one would view my appearance or behavior as threatening. In addition to my normally peaceful nature, I suffered a back injury 2 years ago, which makes the very concept of physical fighting impractical. I have a Juris Doctor degree and I have acted as a political consultant to several political candidates. I was the one who called a few friends and organized the flyer handout. I would not allow any of my friends to even attempt to intimidate anyone trying to enter the classroom; but that precaution wasn't even necessary, since my friends are not the ignorant rednecks portrayed by Wiener.
"Unusually large man #4" at the entrance or in the room dis not exist as far as I could see. There were two other flyer distributors at the door, but one of them was 5'6" tall and 180 pounds, which is practically the opposite of Wiener's description. He is an independent businessman in the production machinery business and he is 48 years old and a non-skinhead.
Another flyer distributor is 5'11" tall and 180 pounds, 60+ years old, and resembles your favorite uncle. He is now retired, but he worked in the military and commercial nuclear industries for 40 years and attained secret clearances so high that they won't even tell the public the designations of those clearance categories. Not exactly an irresponsible, violent skinhead.
And if the purpose of our appearance was to intimidate or disrupt or riot, why do you suppose "Unusually large man #2" brought his 75 year old mother to attend the lecture? For the intellectual exchange or because she would be a powerful ally in a brawl? Of course, Wiener didn't mention her presence, even though it was obvious that she was accompanying "Unusually large man #2". Incidentally, she is a gentle and cultured soul who loves classical music and whose deceased husband was a concert violinist.
Wiener chose to denigrate all of us as being of a lesser caste than professors or grad students, yet it should be obvious that these people are solid citizens with real accomplishments.
There were a couple other firearms owners who attended the meeting, but they asked no questions during the meeting, and they did nothing to harass or heckle. They simply wanted to see if Bellesiles were better informed in person than he appeared to be in the media. Bellesiles' pathetic lecture, wherein he spent most of the time talking about his "persecution", convinced them that Bellesiles was as incompetent and misinformed as they had already seen.
You might also wonder about Wiener's description of somebody wearing a "flak jacket". I am something of an expert in the field of military history and technology, and I can assure you that I saw no such clothing. If anyone was wearing such clothing, they must have kept a very low profile during the meeting, which essentially negates the intimidation potential, doesn't it? I recall that "Unusually large man #2" was wearing a dark colored jacket, which could be maliciously interpreted as having a slight military theme. It seems that Wiener felt that such a normal jacket on a large, overweight man could be portrayed as threatening, especially if he described it in military terms.
You might also like to know about the "Unusually large man" with the "shaved head". I am the one Wiener identified as having a "shaved head", which of course can only be intended to evoke frightening images of "young, tough, violent, neo-Nazi, skinhead gang members". For the record, I do not shave my head, but I do suffer from alopecia, which causes a substantial loss of hair. My head actually has a few patches of hair, but the overall effect is rather unsightly, so I ALWAYS wear a full-brim golf/hiking hat in public. Wiener failed to mention the hat, since it did not fit his political agenda.
Wiener stated that the flyer was titled "The Lies of Michael Bellesiles", which might lead you to believe that it was an ad hominem attack. There is a flyer that I printed from my computer and I still have the file. The actual title is, "IS BELLESILES TRYING TO DECEIVE YOU? DECIDE FOR YOURSELF!" I think that this is quite different in approach, since it asks you to go to some linked web sites (including Cramer's) and use that information to evaluate the information that the attendees receive from Bellesiles. Is that not in the spirit of honest intellectual inquiry? My purpose in printing and distributing the flyer was to let the attendees know that there was another side to the issue. Yes, I stated that Bellesiles was engaging in academic dishonesty, but I was not wrong, just ahead of the curve.
__________________________________________
Conclusion
Regarding those incidents with which I am personally familiar, Prof. Wiener has proven to be no more accurate and has shown no more integrity than Bellesiles.
John G. Fought - 11/1/2002
I'm off tomorrow morning to gather up this material. I'll have to put off the Cicero for the moment, I think. Someday I'll tell you how I passed my Latin reading exam in a department that was fiercely dedicated to comparative Indo-European (I was regarded with deep suspicion for not taking a second year of Sanskrit, and staying out of Old Irish altogether. Not serious enough.)
Happy Halloween: we had human trick-or-treaters at the front door and the usual possums and skunks at the back. Managed to keep them separated.
Richard Henry Morgan - 11/1/2002
Mr. Fought,
as you said, concerning Wills and his use of the term "cognate":
"Even more pressing is finding out why he needs to think about them at all".
You will find Wills' mention of the term immediately after his quoting Patrick Henry's speech to the ratifying convention. Wills quotes this passage for a reason. Other scholars have quoted it, often in adumbrated form, to support an individualist interpretation of the Second Amendment. Wills makes great hay of the fact that they often chop up the quote to highlight their preferred interpretation. I think he's right to this extent -- where more than one reasonable interpretation is possible, a chopped quote to support a favored interpretation is outre. Having made that point, he then quotes Henry and inserts bracketed remarks therein to force his own interpretation!! I nearly fell out of my chair!
But here's the key. As with Article 6 of the Articles of Confederation, the Henry quote contains material at odds with Wills' own proferred meanings for key terms. He realizes this and, en passant, as a codetta to the paragraph, he papers over the problem by saying the terms are cognate. The terms are not cognate in a linguistic sense. Once again, Wills has fallen victim to the First Law of Hermeneutics: any text introduced to the hermeneutic circle in order to fix the meaning of a term, runs the chance of destabilizing the meanings of terms equally crucial to the preferred interpretation.
This method of asserting a crucial proposition, en passant, and at the end of a paragraph (and without reference to authority -- that would only highlight its dubiousness) is only about as old as rhetoric itself. In jurisprudential contexts, it is called "burying the bones".
The best example of that is his assertion that the preamble determines the scope of the right. The authorities I've read declare, with one voice, that there is only one hard and fast rule for preambles: they don't limit the scope, what they do is not expand the scope. The next most common assertion about preambles is that they state the purposes hoped to be achieved by the operative instrument, and are not themselves to be used to interpret the instrument. Much less common is the view that, sometimes, the preamble is used to interpret scope. In fact, you'll notice that in his NYRB article Wills asserts that the preamble determines scope AND purpose. If it were to determine the purpose to be achieved, then the Second Amendment could be viewed as declaring a private right whose purpose was to secure a well-regulated militia -- and that is something Wills opposes. The "purpose", of necessity, disappears without comment when his essay makes the leap from the NYRB to his book, A Necessary Evil. In any case, he again makes his assertion about scope at the end of a paragraph, en passant, and, of course, provides no authority for it. In fact, I'd have to say that his essay contains one of the highest ratios of assertion to authority of anything I've read.
I could go on, but I wouldn't want to spoil the fun for you -- it's a laugh riot. Overall, I'd say that his essay, in form, somehat reminds me of Cicero's For Milo, where the refutation precedes the narration, and where there is ample use of dicacitas -- but that will have to await publication.
Richard Henry Morgan - 11/1/2002
Prof. Wills' contributions are already out there. In chronological order (I think), there is his article in the New York Review of Books (available on-line, I think, at the Potowmack website). Then there's his book, A Necessary Evil, which came out I believe about three years back (he basically, with small changes, recycles his NYRB article there). And then there's his Constitutional Commentary article. Have fun.
Thomas Gunn - 10/31/2002
Don,
At the risk of going over the falls:
I note on many of the boards the anti-rights posters (I know Ralph) promote the idea that if the tools of violence were removed the violence within man would also be removed.
The only reply to that is this, Cain killed Abel with the nearest tool at hand. Is there any reason to believe Cain would have thought twice were the rock not there?
The evil is not in the tool but the mind that wields it.
thomas
John G. Fought - 10/31/2002
Mr. Bernstein (and you too) will be gratified to learn that not long after I became interested in the Bellesiles affair, I actually did send a letter to the then chairman of Emory's History department, and then a longer and more detailed letter to the then acting Dean, and finally a kind of amicus brief to the same dean, all urging that the mandated review procedures be put in motion and kept moving. I am morally certain that these documents, if they were ever read by anyone, had no effect whatever. From now on, however, I will claim all credit for the outcome.
In the tangle of postings I have lost track of just where to find the relevant stuff by Wills. Is it out yet? I can hardly wait to see what he thinks cognates are. Even more pressing is finding out why he needs to think about them at all. Maybe he's headed in the direction of the late Rider T. Sherwin, famous forever thanks to his 5 volumes (I think -- at least 4) seeking to show by listing 'cognates' that the Algonkian languages are related to Old Norse. Each volume, appearing between 1940 and 1956, had a different publisher.
Until your message I had overlooked the possible impact of all this on the incontinence industry. I hope there's still time for some shrewd investments. In local supermarkets out here they already have more shelf space than the baby stuff.
Richard Henry Morgan - 10/31/2002
Mr. Fought,
I owed Prof. Bernstein an apology for my restatement of his views, which were incorrect as to the words, though I believe true in terms of the ultimate effect of his principle as he applied it to debate. I also notice that Prof. Bernstein states a professional responsibility in terms of a conditional duty:
"If you're going to go beyond vigorous criticism of a scholar's work to charging that he committed fraud and deception, then you have the moral and ethical duty to launch the appropriate professional processes or stop flinging charges."
In my experience, professional duties are usually expressed as positive duties: the positive duty of an officer of the court to report misconduct; the positive duty of a teacher to report suspicions of abuse; etc.
Yet, Prof. Bernstein has not gone that route, but has propounded a duty in a form which is actually a deduction from a positive duty. One can be forgiven the impression that his goal is not to urge professional historians to their duty, but to discourage them from discussing intent outside his "appropriate professional processes". It is not a hard trick from his statement of duty to characterizing nearly all discussion as beyond vigorous, and therefore beyond the pale. I'm not at all shy about meeting his criterion. If he truly wants me to, I will send a brief to the AHA if that is my ticket to free speech. I doubt that will help Bellesiles, but if Bernstein insists on his principle, I will gladly comply -- he need only say the word.
As you said, Wills commits the etymological fallacy (there's also a nice exposition of the concept in David Crystal's The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language). What is even more interesting to me is that Wills commits the fallacy with a nonsensical etymology. If you check the OED, the exemplar of "arms" given closest in time to the Bill of Rights writing and passage is indeed the narrowest -- hand-held weapons. That certainly would not do for Wills' purposes. Since you are a linguist, you might also want to check out how Wills uses the term "cognate" -- but please, go the bathroom first, or you will pee your pants laughing.
Diana - 10/31/2002
Small revision for typo error:
My previous message stated, "That indicates he doesn't think that lives saved and crimes deterred are not valuable even though the law continues to work."
There were too many negatives in there, so it should read, "That indicates he doesn't think that lives saved and crimes deterred are valuable even though the law continues to work. "
Diana - 10/31/2002
Responses to your responses:
1. I will concede that you might not realize that you are a major proponent of banning self-defense in America, but your actions belie your words. As an Australian, you are not expected to understand or respect American traditions or Constitutional law, so I won't ask you about such issues. Let me rephrase my point: Do you believe that the right of survival is the most important right, without which your other rights cannot be exercised? Are you aware that in every single jurisdiction in America (federal, state, county, parish, city, village, unincorporated area) the police and government have no legal duty to protect the public and no legal liability when they fail to do so? Where will your efforts lead, if not to the disarmament of the American public and a ban on self-defense, as has occurred in Britain?
2. I don't think your excuse will fly. Britain has a national police force, so its local branches should have adopted the new methods simultaneously. And if they did not, then there should be an obvious checkerboard pattern of step-function reports emanating from various parts of Britain. The great majority of Britain's population is in 30 major cities, which would have been the first jurisdictions to change over. That would leave only a few lightly populated jurisdictions to make a late change, and they would have little influence on the overall crime rates since everything is population weighted. The mechanism that you describe does not adequately explain the recent large increases in violent crime.
3. It is quite arrogant of you to proclaim that I get my information from biased sources. You know nothing about me or my study habits. To correct your error, let me tell you where I get my information: original sources such as the FBI "Uniform Crime Reports" and the British Home Office crime stats and the AusStats web site (which appears to be the Australian Government's official crime stats); plus I read all the law reviews and position papers by both sides of this issue. I accept your apology. Since you feel that my sources are biased, why don't you send me some data on gun control that has significantly reduced crime--it should be easy to come up with dozens of examples, if you are right. And I will warn you in advnance that I read everything, so don't send me any garbage info in the hope that I won't look at it.
4. You have an interesting, almost evasive, way of phrasing your next response: "If you look at the Australian statistics you will that the crime where guns are most important, homicide, has declined since 1997." For one thing, you respond in a condescending manner as though you assume I have never looked at those stats or, if I have looked at them, you assume I'm not smart enough to see the obvious point that you raise. You state that there has been a decline, but you also know that the decline has been fairly minimal--less than the U.S. decline in murder since 1991 or 1997. In fact, the differences in the Australian murder rates have gone up and down a bit, so that the current lower number could be just due to random behavior. Your phrase, "the crime where guns are most important, homicide" reveals your bias and your lack of understanding of self-defense. By your standard, if all crime but homicide with guns grew substantially, you would find that result commendable--so long as the evil guns were involved in fewer crime. That is the blindness and stupidity of the gun control side--you are not worried about the overall violent crime rate, just the part with guns. Look at all the violent crimes that grew because there is now less deterrence. Do you think I, or anyone else, should thank God that we were murdered or assaulted with a knife rathe than a gun; especially if it happens a lot more often? Just remember, the highest murder and violent crime rates in America are NOT where firearms access is easiest.
5. The reason I do not compare Seattle to Vancouver B.C. is the fact that they have different legal, cultural, and ethnic factors. I'm sure you know this, so your answer can only be viewed as deliberately deceptive. I'm sure you are also familiar with the pro gun control study that also used your comparison and that deception to reach a predetermined conclusion.
Regarding the article you cite, "Shooting down the more guns, less crime hypothesis", by Ayres and Donahue, I am familiar with it, but I am not a statistician, so I don't have enough expertise to argue how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, against expert statistical manipulators. Nevertheless, it seems that some of the methods and conclusions are suspect, just from a common-sense point of view. For instance, the author decided to not count any positive results of CCW's more than 3 years after enactment, even though he counted data from 8 years prior to the law. That indicates he doesn't think that lives saved and crimes deterred are not valuable even though the law continues to work. The author also talked about an increase in larceny after CCW laws are enacted. Even if true, larceny isn't a violent crime, so no one gets killed or injured! That simply isn't a real important cost of CCW. Ayres also complains that large states with CCW have a larger influence on the Lott study than smaller states. Of course they do! They should have a larger influence because decreases in their murder and violent crime rates saves more lives and prevents more crimes! He also talks about the monetary cost of the harm and even cites a figure of $500,000,000 for 24 states. Even if true, this is just $21,000,000 per state! Most states lose track of more than that each year, so that is an extremely low price to pay for the ability to protect ourselves and our loved ones.
Even the title of the Ayres article is hyperbole: "Shooting down the more guns, less crime hypothesis". He doesn't "shoot it down", he only shows how to argue minor points. Let's wait until we hear from Lott and others regarding this new study. To me, it just looks like statistical nit-picking using some inappropriate assumptions. Especially when Ayres (p.51) states that Lott's results "collapse" when the data is "tweaked in plausible ways"!
The most interesting aspect of Ayres article is his admission that at least some states benefit from CCW, including the desirabiligy of implementing "shall issue" CCW in California! Now that would be a good idea! It is also interesting to note that Ayres never makes a strong case for CCW as an actual cause of crime, even when there is a weak correlation. In summary, CCW helps in some places, and at worst, it doesn't do any good or harm, but it never produces any major harm. So why not do it? Survival and human dignity are worth it.
Clayton E. Cramer - 10/31/2002
And the one that wrote the NY Times article above is pretty obviously NOT Richard B. Bernstein, Bellesiles defender.
Rick Schwartz - 10/31/2002
Mr. March is a highly respected researcher of California gun laws and their impact on political decisionmaking, and his efforts have been cited in a number of nationally respected, mainstream publications. Abrasive, yes; passionate, most definately; troll, certainly not.
Clayton E. Cramer - 10/31/2002
"5. If you want to compare Seattle with another city, why not compare it with Vancouver?"
The study to which you refer found that the difference was almost entirely in minority populations. White Seattle had a very slightly murder rate than white Vancouver. Both cities have significant minority populations, but the difference is that Vancouver has a large Asian population (which has very low murder rates) and Seattle has a large black population (which has very high murder rates).
Unless you want to claim that Seattle blacks have greater access to guns than Seattle whites, you might want to consider the possibility that gun availability isn't the difference.
Clayton E. Cramer - 10/31/2002
The point about risky lifestyles is that the populations studied are not typical of gun owners or Americans. Some of the even higher risk factors in one of Kellerman's studies including renting or owning a dog. It's hard to imagine that renting causes you get murdered.
More likely, it is that renters are generally poorer, and live in poor neighborhoods. A few years back, the NCVS discovered that people living in households with annual incomes below $15,000 were 3x more likely to be victims of crime than those in households with incomes above $15,000 per annum. (For those of you who live outside the U.S. -- that's an incredibly low income level.)
If you are a black male under 25, you are at a very high risk of being murdered. But it isn't your race that caused you to be murdered; that's a placeholder for a complex set of social problems.
Ditto with guns. For middle class people (white or black), the chance of being murdered in the U.S. is really quite small, comparable to most Western European countries. Where I live, Boise, Idaho, has a murder rate that compares very favorably, even with England & Wales--0.9/100,000 population per year for 1999-2000. Yet this place is absolutely awash in guns.
Alec Lloyd - 10/31/2002
Mr. Lambert, did the International Crime Victimization Survey also change its methods?
It shows massive increases in violent crime in England. Is it, too incorrect?
Don Williams - 10/31/2002
a little more time for his ..er.. Epiphany. See http://hnn.us/comments/3171.html and follow-on posts.
In the meantime, what's wrong with letting Bellesiles and
Nation magazine twist in the wind and ripen for a few days--
like a brace of pheasants ??
John G. Fought - 10/31/2002
I suppose describing the reactions of academic historians as 'less unsympathetic' to Lindgren might be just at the outer limits of accuracy, or at worst a near miss. My perception is that they ignored him too, as long as they could, and until the mass of evidence that Lindgren gathered and published outside the history journals became to large and to well known to ignore any longer. Lindgren is a patient and persistent man as well as an intelligent scholar. But notice how differently he has been treated from Mr. Cramer, who is also all of those things, but has no doctorate.
Your second point interests me more. Which opponents do you mean, Mr. Alpers, and which messages, that made death threats from other sources plausible? I'm not claiming that he did or didn't receive such threats, and I'm not being sarcastic here. I'm just not aware of any public posting or other articles or messages that actually threatened anything or seemed to me like an indicator of such an intent. There was plenty of contempt and frustration, of course. Is that what you refer to? As a matter of fairness, since I've posted about this issue, if you know of any specific examples, I'd like to see them. Of course, Bellesiles said he received many, including death threats, but he hasn't published any of them, to my knowledge, and it seems obvious to me that if he received any he did not find them very credible, since he neither moved his residence has a result of them (that happened before the book came out, as I understand it) nor reported them to any local law enforcement organization, as I found out myself by checking with them. Can you provide any concrete examples?
My own belief about this is that within the academy the fear of pro-gun boogymen (and of almost anyone whose appearance suggests he is paid for work by the hour) is enough to distort people's perceptions all by itself. Wiener's Large Men are a fine example: from his own account, they did nothing frightening or even unusual at the talk at Irvine, but he still perceived them as frightening and deliberately intimidating both to him and to the rest of the audience.
John G. Fought - 10/31/2002
First, Mr. Morgan, I regret very much that your health is not as sound as your scholarship. I also regret, though much less, that you apologized to the insufferable Mr. Bernstein. And I too have found it liberating to leave behind the whole herd of institutional and disciplinary sacred cows.
Your message reminded me that I'm a linguist. Mr. Wills is guilty of a gross example of what is called in linguistics the Etymological Fallacy. A brief account of it can be found in Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage, edited by Ward Gilman, on pp. 411-12 in my edition. It is "the insistence that a word in present day English derived from a foreign (and especially Greek or Latin) word must have the same meaning as the foreign word or must have its meaning limited in some way." (To object that this is can't properly be called a fallacy is itself an example of it.) Even brief reflection on the indisputable facts of language change (whereby Latin became the modern Romance languages, for example) should be enough to clear this away, but it is one of the most persistent and prolific weeds in the groves of academe (closely related to the equally false notion that there is a true, pure form of English out there somewhere). And what applies to present-day English (and any other language) applied to Colonial American English in its day. What 'arm' or 'arms' meant to the drafters of the Constitution is what should guide its interpretation, not what the Romans meant when they used the ancestral word-forms in their day and in their language. To the extent that this can be determined, the answers will come from the usage of the founders and their contemporaries, not from Virgil or Cicero. Gilman, in one of his best sallies, invited diehards to consider some examples of how selectively this fallacious principle is invoked by 'purists': "You will find few of them who object to _December_ being used for the twelfth month, when its Latin root means 'ten,' or to _manure_ being used as a noun meaning 'dung' when its original meaning was a verb meaning 'to work (land) by hand.' So when you read, for example, that _caption_ must refer to matter above a picture because it comes from Latin _caput_ 'head', keep _manure_ in mind."
John Gillette - 10/31/2002
May be browser incompatibilities. I have noticed that I had problems seeing some comments, although the headers appeared, using a computer that has Netscape 4.7 as the browser. When using MS Explorer (changed browsers only) they came through. Netscape 6? didn't seem to have problems. Explorer has problems with some pdf files on some bloggers/links that both old and new Netscape delivers.
Thomas Gunn - 10/31/2002
It may be too soon to condemn Mr. March as a troll. Myself on the other hand . . . ;-o)
Don,
Way back in August you mentioned something that has me curious, and I'm wondering if you are at liberty to respond now?
"My guess, and it is just a guess, is that Emory received information on 22 August which was not addressed by their panel and the information pointed out something that the panel had not realized. Hence, the need for further study. My guess is that the new info to Robert Paul came from a surprising and most unlikely source."
What was the information, and what was the source?
thomas
Tim Lambert - 10/31/2002
1. I don't want to prevent self-defence in America.
2. Violent crime in Britain has decreased significantly since 1995. The report I cited noted that different police forces in England changed to the new reporting system at different times.
3. You haven't seen many examples of crime decreases following gun control laws because your sources are biased. One example is England, where violent crime has declined significantly since 1995.
4. If you look at the Australian statistics you will that the crime where guns are most important, homicide, has declined since 1997.
5. If you want to compare Seattle with another city, why not compare it with Vancouver? As for CCW, the latest research indicates that it tends to increase crime more often than it decreases crime.
Ayers and Donahue:
"Those who were swayed by the statistical evidence previously offered by Lott and Mustard to believe the more guns, less crime hypothesis should now be more strongly inclined to accept the even stronger statistical evidence suggesting the crime-inducing effect of shall issue laws."
Ian Ayres and John J. Donohue III.
Shooting down the more guns, less crime hypothesis.
Stanford Law Review, to appear, 2002.
http://islandia.law.yale.edu/ayers/
Richard Henry Morgan - 10/31/2002
Even that restatement, upon reflection, is unfair to Prof. Bernstein. Rather, he would have it that criticism that reaches motive is unfair unless also submitted to appropriate professional processes. Which I also reject.
Richard Henry Morgan - 10/31/2002
Prof. Bernstein,
on further relection, I have done you an injustice that deserves apology, in this sense: you have not asserted that the great unwashed are incapable of vigorous but tough-minded debate, and that they should shut up. Rather, you would have them submit their views to appropriate professional processes, or shut up.
Your argument has been by analogy, with reference to prosecutors, etc. -- the whole machinery of the law. I reject the analogy as inapposite. Your use of the term "lynching" and "lynch mob" is both pejorative, and dependent on your analogy. Lynching is a non-judicial punishment carried out in violation of the law, democratically arrived at as a source of monopoly of legitimacy. But I, and many others have had no role in electing those who operate the "appropriate professional processes", and do not see it as a guarantor of legitimacy or due process. I'm reminded, in particular, that many professional societies of a scholarly bent still bear the signs of their origins amongst the East Coast elite of the last century. Many have their leadership select their successors either by selecting the names for the ballot, or selecting from those submitted by the membership. The analogy to the Soviet system comes to mind. I simply reject the legitimacy claims you make for the "professional processes", and the claims of illegitimacy you make against those that don't share your faith in those processes, and communicate outside them concerning the same matters.
In fact, to all appearances, the Emory process was a negotiated settlement -- to the outside observer, the scope and conclusions appear minimized to spare the committee, Emory, and Bellesiles as much travail and embarrassment as possible. Even Bellesiles now feels that the due process you asked for has been unfair to him.
I'm also curious, as I stated before, as to just what the committee would consider conclusive evidence of intent to deceive. Apparently a fictional San Francisco archive, complete with last-minute references to irrelevant Contra Costa archival material doesn't suffice. Perhaps a signed, notarized confession by Bellesiles, in triplicate, would suffice? One can't be sure.
Richard Henry Morgan - 10/31/2002
My note about thanks for the moral lecture was directed to the author with the improbable name of "iusticia". While I certainly enjoy being lectured on the need for reform of K-12 education on a site dedicated to ruminating on the matter of Bellesiles, I think that neglects the problems of baby seals, whales, etc. How speciescentric!
Richard Henry Morgan - 10/31/2002
Just for the record, there's a Richard Bernstein in the employ of the NY Times who is separate and distinct from the Richard B. Bernstein who has been floating about the Bellesiles affair.
Don Williams - 10/31/2002
In this morning's New York Times, Mr Bernstein has an interesting review of John Lewis Gaddis's "The Landscape of History" and how it rebuts (partially?) the postmodernists.
See http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/30/books/30BERN.html .
Don Williams - 10/31/2002
In above post, "where he was shy yet " should read "where he was sly yet"
Richard Henry Morgan - 10/31/2002
I'm disappointed in all the junior detectives out there. You will note that Wills offers no source or authority for his etymologies. If you check his etymologies against the OED and Tuft's on-line classical dictionary, Perseus, you will see the discrepancy. Also, check his punctuation of madison's proposed amendment versus, say, Bernard Schwartz's documentary history. Have fun.
Jim March - 10/31/2002
Bellesiles will never be taken seriously in court again.
He can research all he wants, he's not going to prove that gun ownership was rare in early America.
There's an entire secondary line of discussion Bellesiles' hasn't hit on, covering what really happened (or tried to happen) when the 14th Amendment was created and passed. Yale professor Akhil Reed Amar independently discovered what Stephen Halbrook had been saying since 1984, that the type of post-civil-war "black code" John Bingham and company were trying to put an end to was the systematic disarmament of the new freemen.
While Amar is saying this, he appears unable to come to terms with the implications: in 1868, revolvers were common as fleas. A 44cal percussion wheelgun with patched balls was at least as effective as a modern .38spl defensive revolver loaded with hollowpoints. By 1864 the Union was fielding 15-shot repeating rifles, and the Gatling gun was patented 1862. And the only thing preventing widespread use of metallic cartridges in handguns was a Smith&Wesson; patent that everybody knew was going to expire in 1872 (this was eagerly awaited, and the subject of numerous patent court fights).
We ain't talkin' flintlocks any more...we're seeing Constitutional protection for weapons quite close to modern effectiveness.
Next, if the goal was to arm freemen in 1868, whoops, they didn't have the vote yet! So we're no longer talking about a "political right" akin to jury service or voting as can be linked to the original 2nd Amendment right as US vs. Miller held, we're talking about a Constitutional personal right to self defense, the worse nightmare of Sarah Brady and company.
And freemen of 1868 could logically only have excercised a right to personal self defense with *concealed* arms. The last time the NYPD had what they thought was an armed black dude in sight, they unloaded 41 rounds in his direction. It's ridiculous to assume that Atlanta GA cops circa 1868 would have been more open to the idea of armed melanin-enhanced gents (or ladies). And the Mormons had already invented the full-power snubbie revolver when they were barred from arms in the 1850s, chopping percussion wheelguns down to 2" to 3" barrels and ditching the rammer hardware. Purpose-made pocket revolvers were also common items. So the idea of concealed carry was hardly novel to the 1868 legislature.
What I'm getting at here is that Bellesiles can dig through 1700's probate records until he's old and gray trying to mutilate the 2nd Amendment. The poor bastard will then eventually have to confront how the 2nd Amendment *changed* in 1868 into a personal, individual right to self defense, and arguably via concealed firearms.
Heh. Poor twit.
Don Williams - 10/31/2002
Mr March seems to be what the internet calls a troll.
Contrary to opinion of our resident computer technican , Bellesiles is hardly "destroyed" --he has royalties from Arming America plus whatever settlement Emory bestowed to avoid a lawsut. Moreover, he now has plenty of time to explore statehouse archives--and his opponents have little to no time to spend on research.
Historical research is very time-consuming and expensive. Facts are far more important than reputation -- and I can see at least one approach whereby Bellesiles can redeem his reputation/thesis --in a way that his critics will have a hard time refuting without man-mouths of reseach.
The goal of critics was never to "destroy " Bellesiles. Rather, Bellesiles' thesis was the core of recent gun -control attempts (e.g, US vs Emerson) and people naturally challenged Bellesiles in those areas where he was shy yet where his attempts were not 100%supported.
Diana S. - 10/31/2002
1. Why do you want to prevent self-defense in America, when it is really none
of your business?
2. You say that Britain's massive increase in violent crime is due solely to a
change in reporting. Why is it still increasing from year to year, rather than
exhibiting a step-function only at the year of the reporting change?
3. As you surely know, there can only be three different effects on the crime
rate when a new law is enacted--crime decreases, remains on the same trend
line, or increases. I have seen a lot of evidence that Gun Control Increases
Violent Crime, in many different jurisdictions, both inside and outside the U.S.
The best-case effect of gun control is that the trends remain steady. I have
rarely seen any decreases in violent crime when a gun control law is enacted,
which seems to undermine the very premise upon which gun control is based.
Could you explain, and provide examples?
4. If the increased crime in Britain is not due to the confiscation of guns (they
might deter criminals), but due to a change in statistical methodology, how
do you explain the similar rise in crime in Australia after they confiscated
650,000 fireams in 1997? It would seem (if gun control were a viable strategy
or policy) that the seizure of so many firearms ought to cause a majorl reduction
in crime, considering how small the population of Australia is, and how relatively
few firearms they previously owned (compared to America).
For official Australian crime stats, use this site:
abs@.nsf/Lookup/NT00001702">http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/NT00001702
5. I'm sure you have looked at the FBI "Uniform Crime Reports", so I wonder if
you have ever noticed that many of the states and cities with relatively easy
access to firearms and CCW/Self-defense permits, actually have violent crime
rates or murder rates substantially lower than the national rates or lower than
comparably sized states and cities. Low crime does not seem to have any
correlation to strict gun control. For example, South Dakota, where everyone
either has a gun or can easily buy or borrow one, has a murder rate and violent
crime rate lower than Britain or Australia. And before you complain that South
Dakota isn't a relevant example because it has less than a million people, try
comparing the Seattle, Washington Metropolitan area (pop. 2.4 million), where
any law-abiding citizen can get a CCW/Self-defense permit to carry a concealed
handgun in public, to major cities with strict gun control enforcement, such as
Chicago, Detroit, St. Louis, Wash.D.C., and others. Seattle's murder rate is
below the national average (unusual for a large city), whereas many of the
strict gun control cities have higher rates than average.
George S. Crotts, Jr. - 10/31/2002
Well, I disagree that "guns in the home" make things worse.
I'm an umpteenth generation American gun owner, in the home, most likely behind some back porch door, and I know of one "use" of a firearm in response to a "bad guy" incident.
I now have the nasty old handgun that was used by my father to scare the crap out of a possibly drugged out "almost" home invader! One clank of the "action" and the bad guy elected to get his backside out of there. My father could easily have killed his ass.
Re: the situation in jolly old England, read recently where a homeowner shot and killed a "home invader" and he was sent off to prison for a bunch of years. We don't need that here in America.
And, why didn't you answer my question re: how come you're poking your Aussie nose into purely American issues ... when things there aren't all that rosy in your backyard??? Just wondering ... Mr Lambert.
Your perspective is interesting but, given the givens, irrelevant.
Richard Henry Morgan - 10/31/2002
And I, Mr. Alpers, do sincerely apologize for those hyperbolic remarks I aimed your way. I think my impulse control is not what it used to be. I shall think not twice, but thrice before posting in the future.
Richard Henry Morgan - 10/31/2002
Mr. Brennan,
though Prof. Bernstein did use the word 'you', to be fair, in his recent post, I think he refers back to his previous posts on h-net, and is thus now making a general point better and more unambiguously made by substituting the term 'one' (though, I admit, it does tend to sound a little schoolmarmish).
Having made my points, and referred to what I think supports them, I cheerfully apologize to Prof. Bernstein, and await his explanation of how he squares his view of Bellesiles with Bellesiles' insinuations concerning the e-mails, the varying and implausible tales vis-a-vis the East Point archives, hacking, and the quite literally incredible stories concerning San Francisco archival sources. I don't know where Bellesiles, who first work was well received, went off the tracks. If a tragedy can be self-inflicted, then this is a tragedy.
Jerry Brennan - 10/31/2002
Mr Bernstein,
Your recent post stated: "Prof. Morgan, you have misrepresented my views, and I demand an apology."
You neglected, however, to specify the grounds for that assertion, i.e. you did not identify which of Mr. Morgan's statements supposedly misrepresented your "views", nor did you demonstrate in what way any of his statements misrepresented your "views".
Your post also suggested, without cite, that Mr. Morgan has engaged in "flinging charges of fraud". One would hope that an historian would be capable of being somewhat more specific.
Furthermore, your post suggests that there is one, and only one, set of procedures, i.e. "the appropriate professional processes", by which questions of fraud in the guise of "history" may be resolved. What is the basis for such a suggestion?
In the absence of specificity in your assertions and suggestions, your (multiple) appeal(s) to a "moral and ethical duty" seem(s) little more than inane polemical twaddle.
Richard Henry Morgan - 10/31/2002
Prof. Bernstein,
first of all, I'm not a professor -- and if this affair is any basis to judge by, I should perhaps take pride in that. I did once teach a course in Con Law, and used a couple of your books as sources, with great profit (as I take history seriously as a source of legal interpretation). The judicious opinions of your books strike me as at odds with the personality revealed in this mess.
I followed closely the exchanges on h-net. I do not feel that you made the case there that Lindgren's criticism was unfair, or that it charged fraud. I think you mischaracterized Barnett's general question as a specific attack. In your posting above, you have it that Bellesiles has admitted to making mistakes crunching numbers -- giving the impression that that is both the extent of Bellesiles' "mistakes", and the extent of legitimate criticism (reinforced by the fact that you then launch into an attack on other criticism). When Bellesiles was challenged on his depiction of the Battle of Cowpens, your contribution to "vigorous debate" was to make an appeal to authority, not debate the merits of the question. Your standard of vigorous debate, which you encourage with one hand, seems to be such that you preclude it with the other hand -- vigorous criticism seems to find itself transmuted, on your take, into personal attack.
To you, the committee rejected the most serious charges. I, on the other hand, see a report so larded with euphemism, and self-constrained by scope and an evidentiary standard of "conclusive" evidence, that most anybody would be cleared. Even so, the subtle sarcasm does sneak through (I particularly liked the report's use of the term "curiously", at one point).
We shall, I'm afraid, have to agree to disagree. Life has granted me, against my wishes, one great advantage in my later years. I suffer from a progressive neurological disorder that has left me not only without my work and the means it provides, but has left me immune to others' opinions, and has granted me a freedom of expression that I have never indulged before. I shall now make use of it again.
In a couple of weeks I shall, with any luck, submit for publication a study of Garry Wills' work on the Second Amendment. I refer any reader interested to Wills' etymological treatment of "arms", which he traces to a root for "to fit out, or equip". Actually, the root is "to fit to, or join closely", as any authority will confirm. It is the same root (ar) as in arthroscopic surgery -- surgery of the joint. This explains how "arms", in classic sources, is contrasted with "tela", or net -- a weapon not fitted to the man, but actually thrown. In other words, Wills' analysis is nonsense. From his root, he develops "arms" as "equipage", which he asserts is the totality of equipment of a military force -- to include weapons, uniforms, transportation, etc. Wills' novel analysis dovetails with his view of the Second Amendment as a pledge to equip the militia (it wouldn't make sense for them to pledge just to provide weapons). Unfortunately, I don't think that a sufficient reason to accept it.
His definition of "equipage" is, indeed, also nonsense. There is great irony in this inasmuch as at least one of his favorite sources (I'll let you guess which) actually quotes colonial statutes mentioning "arms AND equipage" (emphasis added). Moreover, Wills' definition of "arms" is undermined by his quoting, within a page or two of his definition of "arms", Article 6 of the Articles of Confederation. I restrict myself to the relevant language:
"...a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition, and camp equipage."
There's no refutation quite like self-refutation, is there?
There are other little beauties in his work. After insisting that the Constitution means what those who supported it thought it meant, when confronted by one such person who gave it an individualist interpretation, Wills dismissed him as not a constitutional authority -- a change of standard, unaknowledged, within the space of a few pages. In fact, as far as I can tell, only two contemporaries gave an explicit interpretation, both of them individualist, though each was in a different camp (one, a Federalist; the other, the other, antiFederalist). So much for the standard.
Moreover, Wills appeals to the "plain language" of the Amendment, asserting that the preamble determines the scope, tout court, of the right. His appeal to "plain language" loses force once you realize that in previous writings on the subject, he said it determined the scope AND purpose. Needless to say, the change goes unaknowledged.
And last, but hardly least, the close reader of Wills will notice that his versions of Madison's original proposed amendment concerning arms, differs in punctuation from the canonical and unanimous version in four contemporary newspapers -- the only version accepted by scholars. The changes seem to help Wills' thesis.
I have other criticisms of Wills, but I don't wish to give the whole game away. I have, no doubt, committed a great faux pas here, by your lights. Perhaps you feel that I have here charged fraud. I would disagree. In fact, I feel absolutely no obligation, even should I ever charge fraud, to make formal charges to the unelected judges who ride circuit on the "appropriate professional processes". My opinions will stand, or fall, on their merits, as viewed by others, and do not need the validation of "professional processes" -- all the more so, I'm afraid, after watching the work of the Emory committee.
Fellow posters go forth and check the sources. The Augean stables beckon your attention -- clean them out. And keep a sharp eye out for the article.
Ben Alpers - 10/31/2002
Sorry to have taken so long with my response...
I once again think you've misunderstood my point. Here, in a nutshell, is what I said above (or at least the part of what I said that I take it you're responding to...).
1) Many critics of Bellesiles tended to attack the entire historical profession with a broad brush. This tended to make members of our profession very unsympathetic to many of Bellesiles attackers (tho' notably less unsympathetic to folks like Lindgren who stuck to the substantive issues at hand).
2) Bellesiles' repeatedly claimed that he was receiving death threats, which bought him more sympathy. At this point, I'm willing to admit that these might have been a fabrication. But I don't think my point -- which is really about the response of the historical profession -- really relies on whether or not they happened, simply that they were credible (and I still think they were). The point I was making was that the claims that he received death threats bought him sympathy. The tone of many of his opponents made those claims plausible, even if, at the end of the day, they were a fabrication.
John Gillette - 10/31/2002
Next you'll be implying that the seekers of truth took several years to expose the less than accurate assumptions in the book. It's not like there was a previous article in a respected truth seekers journal that was properly critiqued. Clearly there was an immediate tremendous groundswell from within the realm of academic historians to correct this situation. They clearly saw their duty and dit it when it arrived on the seen.
Why don't you relax this weekend, try a little relaxation, say SASS?
Tim Lambert - 10/31/2002
Mr Merrett: Kellermann has done more than one study. The early mortality study, as Kellermann explained at the time, only measured some protective uses. That's why he did another, more sophisticated, study , which is the one I referred, too.
Mr Crotts: I'm afraid that I cannot make sense of your criticisms of Kellermann. Yes, murders victims tend have risky lifestyles, but so what? Guns seem to make things worse for them than to provide protection from their lifestyle.
As for violent crime increasing in England: It has, in fact, declined significantly since 1995. People like Joyce Lee Malcolm who have claimed that it increased seem to have missed the fact that the raw police counts have increased because of a change in the definition of violent crime, with more minor assaults being included. I have graphs, more discussion and links to the official data sources at:
http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/malcolm.html
Jim March - 10/30/2002
Right. I mis-spoke out of anger.
It's just...look, y'all in the history biz, this sort of fraud is new to YOU. And that's good. But it's not new to the gun debate...oh Christ, not by a long shot. Every time we turn around we find somebody else saying "Oh how terrible, 13 children die every day by gun violence!" when if you do the math, that's flat-out impossible. Turns out some grabbers counted up to age *25* as "children" so instead of a 5-yr-old getting ahold of Daddy's Smith&Wesson;, most of those tragedies involve gang-bangers old enough to do adult time. Still tragic mind you, but nothing gun control will ever fix!
Or the time VPC did a "fold/spindle/mutilate" job on Texas gun carry permit holders, or the Kellerman "42 to 1" horsecrap, or...oh GOD I could go on all day citing fraud in the cause of gun control. Some of it financial fraud, not just academic, the "Million Mom March" stole between 5 and 8 million bucks (maybe more) off the city and county of San Francisco.
This crap is NOT new. It's just finally spilled over into the world of history.
Except...it's already been there for a LONG time, in terms of "sins of ommission", mostly about the historical links between racism and gun control nobody wants to talk about.
Sigh.
R. B. Bernstein - 10/30/2002
My poiint on H-NET was this: If you're going to go beyond vigorous criticism of a scholar's work to charging that he committed fraud and deception, then you have the moral and ethical duty to launch the appropriate professional processes or stop flinging charges. I did NOT seek to censor anyone; I did NOT seek to suppress anything. I simply demanded that those who insisted on flinging charges of fraud live up to the moral and ethical duty that they assumed by flinging charges of fraud.
Jim March - 10/30/2002
Mr. Brennan makes a good point: if "Arming America" had been accurate, there would indeed be no need to complain. If the premise had been flawed but not utterly fraudulent, the pro-self-defense side would have been limited to critiques that nobody would have read, and we'd have been screwed.
The deliberate nature of the "flaws" was in many ways fortunate for us, in that it is indeed what caused his credibility to be utterly destroyed.
But I can guarantee you this: long after the academic community has put this otherwise silly affair behind them, the real hardcore anti-self-defense groups will still be waving Bellesiles' "findings" around, and the only ones complaining will be pro-self-defense activists.
See, all this is new to the world of history scholarship, but NOT to the "gun debate". Years ago a medical doctor name of Kellerman came to the startling "conclusion" that a gun in the home is "41 times more likely to kill a member of the household than to kill a hostile invader". We're still combating this "statistic", even though Kellerman himself finally disowned it. Why did he do that? Because his methodology was simply horrendous.
Anyways. Point is, it's a "been there, done that" situation for us. We know where this'll go next, and we're upset about it. Doesn't excuse me mis-speaking in the above, but...sigh...it's just so tiring.
George S. Crotts, Jr. - 10/30/2002
Just read through the Kellerman so-called study (note the title …"Gun Ownership As A Risk Factor For Homicide In The Home") and think I can recall many of the criticisms of it. One, victims all dead in their own homes; Two, a lot of risky behavior and pretty sleazy lifestyles and gun ownership that is pretty consistent with estimates nationwide (45-50% of US households); Three, absence of the thoroughly debunked "43 times …" claim of this or an earlier study. And, so on …
I elected to again do a Google search on "Edgar Suter MD" and found your "critique" third placed as opposed to #1 and #2 under "Edgar Suter". Oh, well.
Also noticed you hang your hat in Australia? Why the need to poke your nose into gun/crime-matters here when your gun-ban policies have, last I heard/read, resulted in marked increases in violent crime? Same in England since their decision to disarm law-abiding citizens???
I've met Ed Suter (some years ago) and he struck me as a thoroughly responsible physician much worried about politically motivated stupidity in the medical field (like Kellerman and others) when there were and remain serious problems … like the estimated 100,000 deaths annually due to so-called medical misadventure or some such.
It's no joke that an American is around 60 times more likely to die of a medical screw-up (accident) than a gun-accident.
Finally, it's not surprising that Kellerman and Bellesiles are chums.
Jim March - 10/30/2002
I agree, the primary motive should indeed be a search for the truth, which is why it personally angers me to see the truth repressed.
But you all deserve to know why I'm so angry. And believe me, it's tied *directly* to deliberate fraud in historical reporting in the present day, and hence on-topic for this board.
First, I'm using my real name. Clayton knows me personally, and I'm well known in California gun rights circles. By training, I'm a computer support tech.
In 1996, a freind of mine was financially defrauded in Oregon before moving down to California where I met him in San Leandro, Alameda County. By 1997 I was investigating his claims and found a paper trail in Oregon that proved them substancially correct; if you're curious, I still have a condensed version of that online at: http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/johnlaws
After posting this evidence of gross fraud and police misconduct, I began to recieve death threats. Alarmed, I tried to obtain a legal gun carry permit (also known as "CCW" for "Carry Concealed Weapons") from my local Sheriff and Police Chief. In both cases, I was denied the ability to even apply on paper. Issuance in California is "discretionary" on the part of the agencies themselves.
I fled to a neigboring county, and tried again. This time, I was told that my new police department (in Richmond, Contra Costa County, California) didn't issue at all and that the sheriff wouldn't issue permits to anyone of that particular town, and several others...all of which had higher minority populations (esp. black) than the areas the sheriff declared to be "in his jurisdiction".
I soon discovered Clayton Cramer's 1995 thesis paper, "The Racist Roots Of Gun Control":
http://www.law.ukans.edu/jrnl/cramer.htm
It became obvious that what Cramer had discovered in historical times, I'd run smack into in the present tense...and it was possibly going to get me killed.
Don't believe me? Here's a spreadsheet showing permit issuance rates in California counties, cross-referenced by black population levels:
http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/ccwdata.html
Note that your odds of having a gun permit in hand in a county with a black population less than the state average (6.7%) is FIVE TIMES HIGHER than if you live in a county with the state average percentage of blacks or greater.
This doesn't even factor in what race you are. The state doesn't track permitholders by race, but they do of course list names...which are public record. In 1995, the Fresno Bee newspaper found that of 2,500 permits in that county, 3% had Latino surnames in a county that is 45% Hispanic per Y2000 census data:
http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/fresnobee.html
California put it's CCW system in place in 1923, patterned after earlier Southern statutes. One of the court cases Cramer found involved a white gent in Florida caught packin' sans permit. In 1941, the Florida Supreme Court freed him; Justice Buford noted:
------------
"I know something of the history of this legislation. The original Act of 1893 was passed when there was a great influx of negro laborers in this State drawn here for the purpose of working in turpentine and lumber camps. The same condition existed when the Act was amended in 1901 and the Act was passed for the purpose of disarming the negro laborers and to thereby reduce the unlawful homicides that were prevalent in turpentine and saw-mill camps and to give the white citizens in sparsely settled areas a better feeling of security. The statute was never intended to be applied to the white population and in practice has never been so applied." — Watson v. Stone, 4 So.2d 700, 703 (Fla. 1941) from Clayton Cramer’s "Racist Roots Of Gun Control"
------------
California's 1923 gun control law implementing CCW also contained a number of "interesting" anti-immigrant clauses. The punishment for a legal alien resident ("green card holder") packing illegally was always to be classed the same as a convicted felon citizen, even if the alien resident had a clean background. This horrific system was supported by the California Supreme Court in 1924 (In Re Ramirez), but finally struck by a Calif appellate court in People vs. Rappard 1972:
http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/rappard.txt
My problem is that Liberal mainstream historians who fail to report on historical injustices are greatly increasing my risk of being killed, and threatening my liberty. Am I being clear enough? This isn't an ivory-tower debate. California's gun permit law has NO place in modern society, and would collapse if people (or the legislature) knew it's sordid past.
Fortunately, I *have* a "transformative outlet":
http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/sactoletter.html
http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/oaklandzen.html
http://nrawinningteam.com/calnra/perata/
http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/practicalrace.html
http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/prarsuit.html
...and a lot more. See also:
http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw
"Hostile"? Sir, you don't know what "hostile" is. If any scholarly institution hires Bellesiles, I'll be digging into their financial records looking for evidence that they've mis-spent 501(c)(3) charitable donations in other overtly political ways, trying to dry up their money supply. Think I'm bluffing? I destroyed one entire national-level gun control organization that way, see also:
http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/commiemommies.html
Jim March
Clayton E. Cramer - 10/30/2002
My goal was to make sure that falsehoods weren't accepted as truth. If Bellesiles had admitted early on that there were some serious problems with his book, and suggested that the publisher might want to withrdraw it while he "revised it" (which would have meant an entirely different book, or none at all), he would probably still be teaching at Emory.
Jerry Brennan - 10/30/2002
Mr March,
The principal architect of Michael Bellesiles' credibility problem was himself. It was he who published the fallacies which were applauded by some, but which were shown to be fallacious by several diligent scholars and journalists. Your initial post then suggested that all of those scholars and journalists were intent on destroying Bellesiles, and were so because of the concerns that you have about anti-self-defense organizations. Do you know the meaning of the expression "fat chance"?
Your initial post also suggested that your principal reason for "... why Bellesiles had to be destroyed..." was not that his writings promote many substantive fallacies, but that they have been used, and might continue to be used, in ways to which you object. The manner in which you state your view may be interpreted as indicating that even if his writings were not fallacious, your view would still be that he "had to be destroyed". Such a view would invite scorn upon any who would uphold it.
Ralph E. Luker - 10/30/2002
Mr. March, You have dumped your anger and hostility all over this site. As a historian, may I remind you that the worthy goal is to determine what is true, not to destroy persons or careers? As a clergyman, I would urge you to seek the counsel of a spiritual adviser at the earliest possible moment. You need a healthy, transformative outlet for your bitterness.
Jim March - 10/30/2002
Any authority he had as a court-citable reference is most certainly destroyed right this minute.
His credibility is trashed thoroughly enough that even the fraud-mongers at VPC/HCI/MMM/et al probably won't touch him.
His next job is likely to involve the phrase "would you like fries with that?".
(OK, maybe he'll do slightly better than that, but his academic career is probably over.)
There is a long-term chess game of a political conflict going on, spanning decades, between people who believe in the morality and practicality of self defense, and those who want to ban it. Bellesiles quite deliberately jumped into that fight with both feet.
J. Merrett - 10/30/2002
I believe Kellerman himself wrote in the NEJM that
"Mortality studies such as ours do not include cases in which burglars or intruders are wounded or frightened away by the use of or displayof a firearm. Cases in which would-be intruders may have purposely avoided a house known to be armed are also not identified. We did not report the total number or extent of non lethal firearm injuries involving guns kept in the home. A complete determination of firearm risks versus benefits would require that these figures be known."
In other words, Kellerman's work (and the famous "43 times" quote) derive from a decision to entirely ignore all nonlethal effects of firearms use or ownership. I would guess that if you eliminated nonlethal effects from consideration, you'd come up with the conclusion that policemen are foolish to carry guns - since the percentage of policemen killed on duty who have guns is roughly 100%, and the percentage of policemen who have killed people with their guns is vanishingly small. Thus, on those facts, you could conclude - not as Kellerman did, but as fact-deprived anti-rights activists concluded from his work - that if an officer has a gun on his hip, he is umpteen times more likely to be shot to death, than to shoot someone else to death with his gun.
Kellerman has, if I recall correctly, expressly disavowed the proposition that any cause-and-effect conclusion regarding gun ownership and victimization can be drawn from his work. I personally think the studies are pretty pointless - on the order of spending years and years determining the statistical relationship between wearing ballcaps indoors and displaying Dale Earnhardt stickers on one's vehicle. Even so, I do not believe that Kellerman has ever claimed that his work constitutes coherent evidence against the possession of guns.
The difference between Kellerman and Bellesiles, I think, is that Kellerman did honest work, which was thereafter dragooned into ideological service by activists who tried to make of it something it was not; Bellesiles knowingly delivered a corrupt product, tailor made for ideological exploitation.
Jerry Brennan - 10/30/2002
The phrase "... Bellesiles had to be destroyed..." is inappropriate, as well as misleading and/or false. He has not been destroyed, and the suggestion that calling attention to fallacies that he has published constitutes destroying him is false. Also, the suggested inference that intent to "destroy" him, whether or not for the reasons that you presented, motivated all of the scholars who researched, and published, evidence of the fallacies in his writings, is inappropriate, and at least almost certainly false.
Jim March - 10/30/2002
Well we just found out one thing about "Remarc E. Notyalc". He's British, probably, certainly not American.
In the US, we'd express that date "12/31/02".
Jim March - 10/30/2002
First thing, "Arming America" and it's journal predecessors have been cited in court briefs, including if I recall right in Ohio where’s there’s a battle over the legality of gun carry being fought before that state’s Supreme Court. Eventually, a US Supreme Court fight over the individual rights view vs. collective right will happen, and unless thoroughly debunked, Bellesiles’ garbage would make an appearance there.
Second...hoo boy, bear with a sec folks, this is complicated.
There is an entire network of anti-self-defense organizations that *thrive* on fraud. The “Violence Policy Center” tried to slam the Texas gun carry permit system using hard numbers of “permits revoked for felonies” versus a per-capita analysis with the population as a control – had they done so, it would have shown how abnormally law-abiding the “packin’ folk” have proven to be. VPC also failed to mention that most of the “felonies” happened decades ago. People were applying for permits at age 50+ assuming that early indiscretions at around age 18 – 20ish had “dropped off their record”. Ahhh, no, they didn’t, it just took a while for the data to show up in state computers in about 1,000ish cases. So while the permits were eventually “revoked for felonies”, this had nothing to do with current (or even recent) felony misconduct. The VPC report was basically fear-mongering and twisting statistics until they screamed “Uncle!”.
Another group, the “Million Mom March”, was eventually caught committing outright financial fraud against the city and county of San Francisco. Myself and another activist name of Nadja Adolf proved this with public records inquiries; less than a month after our initial publication, they did a “midnight move” and laid off 80% of their staff at the same time.
We also made a good case that they misused 501(c)(3) charitable foundation funds for political purposes. See also my archive of records on this episode:
http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/commiemommies.html
(They are also known as the “Numerically Challenged March”, they had maybe 70,000 tops at their first rally, instead of their claimed 700,000.)
OK, so what has this got to do with Bellesiles?
Pro-self-defense folks were faced with the nightmare prospect of Bellesiles having a permanent “research home” at VPC, HCI/MMM or the like, funded with millions of bucks by the big Liberal cash-cow foundations such as Joyce, Wellness, Goldman (old Levi Strauss family money) and the like, happily cranking out...”male bovine excrement” for the next 40 years.
Gawd.
The only way to stop that was to utterly destroy his credibility to the point where even Sarah Brady or Rosie O’Donell would take notice.
Yikes.
It should also be obvious at this point that cons in the gun control game may have surprised the academic community, but it’s simply a matter of the fraud finally making it into those circles in obvious fashion.
Jim March
Equal Rights for CCW Home Page
http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw
Tim Lambert - 10/30/2002
Suter's claim that Kellermann's published findings were without peer review is false, and easily seen to be false -- you just have to pick up a copy of the New England Journal of Medicine.
For an example of things not being peer reviewed we just have to look at the links you provided. Only one is to an article in a peer reviwed journal, and that article is one of the reasons that the editor of that journal (The Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia) was forced to resign.
Anyway, if you examine Suter's critique of Kellermann's case-control study on homicide, it is quite clear that Suter does not have a clue what is involved in a case-control study. For example, he falsely claims that the study does not consider the protective uses of guns when, in fact, if guns had a net protective effect on homicide, the risk ratio would have been less than one, instead of 2.7.
If you want to find more about the quality of Edgar Suter's work, I suggest doing a Google search on "Edgar Suter" and reading the first link that is returned.
George S. Crotts, Jr. - 10/29/2002
I've spent most of the day looking though the various messages on this board and reading James Lindgren's critique of the Bellesiles debacle.
For what it's worth (undoubtedly not much among the gathered academia), this member of the "unwashed" has a couple of things to contribute.
I've been a gun owner for fully 62 of my 70 years. I've been a Korean War combat veteran (USMCR) for a few days short of 52 years and an NRA "lifer" for over 30 years.
Regarding the allegation that most American gun-owners are "obsessed with their guns", let me say this. I didn't become obsessed with my guns until others became obsessed with the fact that I owned, possessed and used my guns and became further obsessed with the notion that they were going to disarm me.
Before obsession overwhelmed me, my guns were little more than tools … as they were for my father, grandfathers and on back in time to an ancestor who arrived in the US in 1709 after having been, with one or two brothers, banished from Germany for poaching.
I truly believe that the "passion" I have, James Lindgren's observation, relative to "regulation" is warranted.
Dr. Arthur Kellerman's " … most famous study" was dragged in to this debate and defended by Tim Lambert. Contrary to Lambert's defense, the Kellerman so-called "studies" have been thoroughly debunked by various people, not the least of whom is Dr. Edgar Suter, MD, one time, and perhaps still, chair of Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research. Suter's commentary on the matter can be found on the net as follows:
http://www.rkba.org/research/kellerman/home-invasion.suter
http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Suter/caldera.preliminary
http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Suter/intro.txt
http://www.rkba.org/letters/suter.11mar95
Failure of Peer Review …
http://rkba.org/research/suter/med-lit.html?suter#first_hit
http://www.dsgl.org/links.htm
http://www.totse.com/en/politics/right_to_keep_and_bear_arms/guntruth.html
Inasmuch as the failure of "peer review" has been bandied about herein, I think it's worthy of comment that Dr. Suter observed that much of Kellerman's published findings were, similarly, without peer review.
John G. Fought - 10/29/2002
Actually I think 'inculcate' is a little strong for my own view of this process. I think of it more as carelessness leading to an absence of prompt correction, combined with random strokes of injustice that in the end open a path to cynicism, careerism, and cronyism taken by a certain portion of the professoriat, but through a passive rather than an active process. Vanity is the bedrock. I know of no vanity that equals intellectual vanity.
That question about Bellesiles's dissertation is a good one, but very hard to answer. When Wiener's strange twilight outcry was published, I became curious about a possible connection between Wiener and Bellesiles at Irvine. Was he a thesis advisor? [Wiener has since written, correctly, that he wasn't, and that he had only a little contact with B at Irvine.] Since I live not far from UC Irvine, I went to the library and had a look. It's from 1986, and is entitled Life, Liberty and Land: Ethan Allen and the frontier experience in revolutionary New England. The dissertation committee chair was Christine Heyrman, now at U. Delaware; the other members were Michael P. Johnson, now at Johns Hopkins, and Jack Diggins, now at CUNY. By the way, I see nothing improper in their silence through this whole affair: it clearly has nothing to do with his dissertation. Scholars don't come with a lifetime warranty. The dissertation is bound in two volumes, and runs to more than 1000 pages. I know exactly nothing about the subject and very little about the period, and therefore I make no judgment about this work at all. I suppose it could be interesting to compare the dissertation with his first book, Ethan Allen: Revolutionary Outlaw, but this would be a tedious and in the end, a needless task. Every scholar has a history that is only partly reflected in the CV; each one who goes bad must do it in a unique context and for personal reasons. I've read some of B's papers and reviews, one of which, amusingly, is entitled 'Does Evidence Matter?'. At some point, apparently after he arrived at Emory, he shifted his focus from more or less conventional Colonial history to guns and violence. I would start to look for the symptoms of a methodological and rhetorical transition in his work at about that time. As Henri Peyre used to say several times in each lecture on French literature, whenever an interesting point came up, "There's a nice thesis to be written on that!" Are you by any chance a History and Sociology of Science student, perhaps with a taste for the slightly louche?
Alec Lloyd - 10/29/2002
The closest Krystal is 314 miles away. A bit of a commute for the lunch break.
Alec Lloyd - 10/29/2002
The closest Krystal is 314 miles away. A bit of a commute for the lunch break.
student - 10/29/2002
A number of posts here identify Bellesiles' failures and misrepresentations as a problem with the entire system of academia, which is said to inculcate laziness, carelessness, and the shaping of research to fit preordained conclusions. And I'm not arguing, but I think this premise calls for some more work.
So the question is: Did Bellesiles turn bad at some point, or was he allowed to advance as an academic despite doing poor work throughout his career? And the best way to address that question, it seems to me, is to examine the dissertation that earned him a PhD.
If it's good work, well-researched with supportable research and careful conclusions, then doesn't that say something very different than a bad dissertation that won him credentials and a job?
Also, since Bellesiles will inevitably be resurfacing somewhere, fact-checking his entire body of work would serve as a defense against this very "he was forced to resign by the gun nuts over minor errors" charge, which he'll no doubt be using as a shield in his future endeavors.
My apologies if this question has already been addressed somewhere, and I've missed it.
J. Merrett - 10/29/2002
Are you saying that Alger Hiss was guilty, the Rosenbergs were spies, and Mumia Abu-Jamal is an ordinary cop-killer? Well, I can't deal with all the shortcomings displayed in your post, but as to the most egregious, see http://www.krystal.com .
Alec Lloyd - 10/29/2002
As much as it pains me to say it, I fear we have not seen the last of Mr. Bellesiles.
As Mr. Weiner’s account in The Nation demonstrates, he has a new home open for him: the extreme left wing of academia. I know I won’t get any Krystal Burgers (don’t really know what they are, sorry) for this, but here goes with my bold prediction:
Bellesiles will be hired by an anti-gun think tank, perhaps Violence Policy Center or the latest incarnation of the Brady Crusade. He will issue occaisional “findings” and reports which will be sent out in press releases, all of which will note “Michael Bellesiles is the award-winning author of the best-selling Arming America, which demolished the myth of widespread gun ownership in early America.”
Most reporters won’t bother to check his credentials or if they do, it will be something ambiguous like “resigned over research discrepancies” or something like that, maybe even “under the pressure of pro-gun scholars who found errors in his data.”
He will be celebrated by the same crowd that believes Alger Hiss was innocent, the Rosenbergs were guiltless and Mumia Abu-Jamal is a political prisoner.
Truth is meaningless with these people. Bellesiles’ career isn’t over, he will simply change his venue.
J. Merrett - 10/29/2002
Careful, Mr. Morgan. As of last Friday, accusing a person of being to Bellesiles as peas in a pod are to one another is libel per se.
Bryan Haskins - 10/29/2002
I am a prosecutor in Virginia. I have silently followed this saga ever since the book was published. I would first like to say THANK YOU! to Mr. Cramer and Prof. Lindgren, as it appears to me that you have been the voices crying in this academic wilderness. You have been vindicated. I have seen some posts suggesting that we should burn Arming America. I for one will not burn my copy. I will keep it and hold it out to my children as an example of pure academic fraud.
I am aware that Mr. Bellesiles continues to profess his innocence. I am also aware that many people continue to accept his lies. This is to be expected. I have learned from my profession that there will always be those who will refuse to believe that someone they identify with is guilty. For example, I recently prosecuted an older man for molesting a 10 year old girl. He confessed to his crime and plead guilty. At his sentencing hearing, his adult son testified that he still refused to believe that his father had done this, and he called the victim a liar. I therefore expect that there will be many who will continue to accept the explanations offered by Mr. Bellesiles. They will accept his denial when caught lying to the Emory Wheel and others about his e-mails to Prof. Lindgren. They will deny his fraudulent reports concerning the San Fran records, and they will accept his frantic attempts to explain that lie. They will overlook his parting shot to the Contra Costa records staff, as well as their response proving him to be a liar. They will blindly accept his explanation about the "flood" and the destroyed notes. Finally, they will refuse to read the report issued by Emory.
We have a saying in my office: "If you are going to be stupid, then you have got to be tough." The time has come for those in favor of gun control who seized upon Arming America to accept the reality that Mr. Bellesiles' self-destruction threatens their own credibility. That credibility cannot be restored merely by claiming that every critic of Mr. Bellesiles is motivated by some "gun nut" bias while refusing to respond to the mountain of proof offered against him. Similarly, it cannot be restored by silently abandoning Mr. Bellesiles, as the Brady Campaign has done. I ask all of Mr. Bellesiles' supporters to either stand forth and explain your continued support or admit that you were wrong as other previous supporters have done.
Richard Henry Morgan - 10/29/2002
No, Mr. Boucher, Bernstein's thesis is of the much more "nuanced" variety -- he says the great unwashed lynched Bellesiles, and then the committee ruled. It has been Bernstein's view that since only a committee can grant due process, and the great unwashed aren't capable of tough but fair-minded criticism (I guess we're supposed to wait for it to come from Bernstein -- some wait), that we should all just shut up. Bernstein has asserted that Michael has admitted making number-crunching errors, tout court, as though that were the totality of the problems. It seems to me that Bernstein has done absolutely nothing to further debate, has indeed attempted to quash debate, has dishonestly defended Bellesiles, and has smeared Bellesiles's critics. It comes as no surprise to me therefore, that Bernstein has such a high opinion of Bellesiles -- they are two peas in a pod.
Mike Sarkisian - 10/29/2002
Witchunt? There really are withes, but the fact is that there are not only credible and verified reasons for questioning Dr. Bellesiles' work, but he has been thoroughly discredited. The investigation did not delve into all of the scholarly criticism of Bellesiles' work but limited itself to only a portion of the scholarly criticism that exists.
The good Doctor claims he spent 12 years preparing his work. Just how long does it take to fabricate, obfuscate and use spurious methodolgies in preparing what has proved to be an false premise.
As for innocent til proven guilty, I noticed that Dr. Bellesiles didn't sue anyone for slander! The reason is that the truth is always a defense to slander and libel!
Peter Boucher - 10/29/2002
Mr. Bernstein,
You seem to be saying that historians ought to be free to engage in "superficial and thesis-driven research," using methods that are "at best primitive and altogether unsystematic," and also "move into the realm of 'falsification,'" in order to produce "unprofessional and misleading work," without fear that people whose rights are being attacked by the historian's thesis might speak up and point out that a fraud is being perpetrated.
Reading your posts, I get the feeling that the real shame here is that those whose rights he tried to attack dared to check his sources and try to reproduce his results.
Your accusation of a "lynching" is pathetic. Bellesiles had a fair "trial" by his peers. See the results at http://www.emory.edu/central/NEWS/Releases/Final_Report.pdf (the quoted portions of my first paragraph come from there).
John S, Anderson - 10/29/2002
I am certainly not a historian, or mathematician, or even a researcher: nonetheless I feel the need to respond to part of your first "challenge" post:
"Like any profession, ours takes a long time to admit fault."
Well, yes - but then you also say
"Frankly, this process has been slowed by the political extremism of many of Bellesiles opponents."
Slowed? SLOWED?!?!?
Without the admittedly "political extremism" (on BOTH sides) and public exposure, I suspect - admittedly with no evidence - that this affair would still be a largely gentlemanly exchange between Profesors Bellesisles and Lindgren. The only slowing I have seen has been
on the part of Emory, which did not publish its findings or the independent review when completed, and still has not (as far as I have heard) published the appeal grounds, and has not (again, as far as I have heard) defended either its own board or the independent one against Bellesisles' vituperative claim of a "hostile attitude" in his resignation,
and by B himself in what certainly seems to be desperate backfilling which necessitated more research and does not seem to have ever borne out B's claims.
For that matter, I feel the "conclusion" to this, at least at present, is perilously close to what I would call a dilute whitewash. B has been faulted for faulty math and non-reproducibility - while the independent report certainly contains enough zingers to show the members have little for this particular work (and as far as I know his other works are solid) other than contempt. They do not declare fraud outright - but then, they were directed to focus (in the interest of both time and restricting themselves to "professional academic" refutations) on what was physically a small, if in effect a huge, part of the book and research. Opened to other areas, their finding might have been more explicit. Misquotes happen: even editing and/or printing errors. Making up quotes and footnoting them to non-existent sources is quite entirely a different thing.
J. Merrett - 10/29/2002
Sure, the post is sarcastic. Let's dump the sarcasm. Can you cite a substantive error in "Arming America" which runs counter to the author's thesis? It's up to you whether you get the burgers.
Thomas L. Spencer - 10/29/2002
Maybe someone should pitch this as a script to Hollywood. I wonder how many takers there would be, seriously! It's too bad drive-ins went out of fashion. Think of what someone like Ed Wood could have made of this.
Orson Olson - 10/29/2002
Sarcasm is the last refuge of a scoundrel.
(--Johnson updated for PoMo 'times.')
John Gillette - 10/29/2002
Depending on your point of view, fortunately or unfortunately, the official caning and expulsion of Bellesiles and the official stamp of disapproval on the book occurred on a weekend where there were a variety of other major news events (Senator Wellstone, Moscow Theatre Incident, California Series err World Series, etc) overshadowing and virtually eliminating the opportunity of the average citizen, who had been bombarded with pro Arming America propaganda in the past, to see or hear about the discreditation of the book. Search your local general media outlets and see how widely reported this was. Arming America is still on it's way to be the authoritative myth vice the real history it claimed to debunk.
J. Merrett - 10/28/2002
Now I see the error of my ways! How wrong I was to expect to more care from a tenured professor in a "carefully researched" published, footnoted book than from a participant in an online discussion!
What a flash of insight I have received. Bellesiles suffers today not becase he is dishonest or incompetent, but because he was held to a standard higher than that which applies to casual conversation. Thank you, Mr. Luker, for alerting me to this miscarriage of justice. I only hope there is time to make things right.
John Gillette - 10/28/2002
Pardon me for diving into the depths of Hollywood but the original comment reminds of the discussion of the dented badge in the movie "Support Your Local Sheriff".
"I'll bet that saved his life."
"Well it would have except fer all them other bullets flying in."
Same for the arguments that he was villified for challenging the orthodoxy. Challenging the orthodoxy may be admirable in some cases, but you better be right and have your ducks in a row. In this case the orthodoxy was right because that's the way it really was. Bellesiles ducks weren't even in a row, he didn't even have any ducks left, they must have escaped in the great office flood.
Richard Henry Morgan - 10/28/2002
It's undoubtedly true that mistakes won't be tolerated once the left takes over at Hoover. Neither will independent thought. Check this link: http://cedar.stanford.edu/diso/articles/hoover.html
The object of vituperation is Terry Moe, previously from that far-right cesspool, the Brookings Institution. His crime? His research tends to support school vouchers. Simply unforgiveable.
Remarc E. Notyalc - 10/28/2002
I'm gullible. I'll take a pass on your challenge.
Clayton E. Cramer - 10/28/2002
"Hasn't Remarc E. Notyalc demonstrated in the exchange below that even you are sometimes "VERY gullible" about data (especially when it seems to support your point of view) and that even you are capable of exaggerating it and distorting it all out of proportion in the direction of your thesis and that even you are capable of dismissing those who take a skeptical look at it as dupes of the "leftist" bias in the history profession?"
Actually, what he demonstrated is why footnotes are important. I was working from my memory, it was wrong, and when challenged on it, I made a complete and full correction. I did not attack my challenger; I did not attempt to evade discussion of it; I did not pretend that the claim I had made was true. Compare this with how Bellesiles responded when questions were first raised about his misquotations.
If you want to do a fair comparison with the Bellesiles scandal, go find something published by me that is footnoted, and demonstrate that I have done something equivalent to Bellesiles.
Go ahead; I'll wait for you to get back to me.
Remarc E. Notyalc - 10/28/2002
Thanks for the correction. When the lefties at Stanford rescue Hoover from its intellectual malaise, mistakes will no longer be tolerated.
Richard Henry Morgan - 10/28/2002
Just for the record, Mr. Notyalc is just as mistaken in his implication that Sowell works for Stanford University -- much as the left has tried to bring the Hoover Institution under its "protective" wing. We all make mistakes working from memory, and overstate in the heat of battle -- a published work shouldn't suffer from the same defects, should it?
Ralph E. Luker - 10/28/2002
Clayton,
Hasn't Remarc E. Notyalc demonstrated in the exchange below that even you are sometimes "VERY gullible" about data (especially when it seems to support your point of view) and that even you are capable of exaggerating it and distorting it all out of proportion in the direction of your thesis and that even you are capable of dismissing those who take a skeptical look at it as dupes of the "leftist" bias in the history profession? Look in the mirror. Get a grip.
Clayton E. Cramer - 10/28/2002
The problem is that by the time he finished correcting his "errors," his book would have made no sense.
As an example: he makes the claim that colonial gun laws reflected a fear of armed freemen, and thus colonial legislatures required nearly all guns to be centrally stored.
The difficulty is that this wasn't the case--and ALL of the colonial statutes he cited for that claim either contradicted the claim, were neutral, or were irrelevant (i.e., had nothing to do with the subject at all--almost like he copied them out of some other work). Remove that paragraph, and a number of following paragraphs made no sense.
He made the claim that there were almost no gunsmiths in colonial and early Republic America. But there were LOTS of gunsmiths. I've counted about 2400 so far before 1840, and I am not even close to being done. (See http://www.danlo.com/cramer). Suddenly, the claims that he makes based on the absence of gunsmiths don't make sense.
He made a claim based on the 1792 Militia Act saying that Congress would arm members of the militia. But it said just the opposite--that militiamen were to provide themselves with guns. Suddenly, what he says for the next two pages, based on this claim, and another false claim about gun availability in that period, makes no sense.
If Bellesiles had done this intelligently, he could have written a "maybe, possibly, could be" sort of book making claims that were perhaps 30% of what he did claim--and it would have been impossible to prove him wrong. But Bellesiles is not a good liar. The problem is that the history profession is VERY gullible.
David Ohsie - 10/28/2002
I've found numerous misstatements running in favor of Bellesiles's thesis. Unfortunately, I recorded them as tick marks on a small yellow pad which I left in my pocket and was destroyed in the washing machine. I had copied the tick marks to my computer, but it was hacked into and the evidence destroyed.
In fact, I deny even making this post.
Can I still claim the prize?
Lerwis Burke - 10/28/2002
When I look at the report and the response it seems to
me that the gravest error of all was his handling of the attacks. If
he had admitted errors and not attacked Lindgren he could have
survived it. Lewis.
Lewis Burke, Professor of Law
Department of Clinical Legal Studies
School of Law, U.S.C.
Columbia, S.C. 29208
Remarc E. Notyalc - 10/28/2002
You did as one should. Had Michael been more receptive to and candid about claims of error in his work much earlier in the process, he might still have been a professor of history beyond 31/12/02.
Richard Henry Morgan - 10/28/2002
Clayton, you're behind the power curve. In Alpers Version 2.0 it no longer is "political extremism", but "extremism of tone" that is at fault. I do, however, detect the beginnings of Revisionist Thesis 2.0: were it not for the critics, Bellesiles would have been dispensed with earlier (Revisionist Thesis 1.0 being that Bellesiles was hounded from the profession by a powerful lobby -- see the posting of RB Bernstein for details). You see, in the end Clayton, it's always the critics' fault. Now do you understand.
PS is it my faulty memory, or was Bernstein on h-net putting forth the thesis that any criticism of Bellesiles was violative of due process -- and now he says he was always for vigorous debate? Just wondering?
Clayton E. Cramer - 10/28/2002
"What a truly creepy analogy. Bellesiles was right about one thing. Many of his critics are extremists."
What makes it creepy? Comparing an execution (a very, very serious matter) to forcing Bellesiles out of his job doesn't seem terribly creepy to me. You'll notice that this is not a day for celebration, but sorrow.
Clayton E. Cramer - 10/28/2002
Yup. Of course, you'll notice that I didn't footnote my original erroneous claim, it not being in a scholarly journal or a published work. Had I done so, it would have told you that I had verified the facts carefully, and that you could expect the statement of fact to be carefully checked.
You will also notice that when you queried me about it, instead of insulting you, or ignoring you, I went and tried to find my source. When I found that I was in error, I immediately corrected the error.
Do you see why Michael Bellesiles is a professor of history, and I am not?
Clayton E. Cramer - 10/28/2002
Damn! I did actually find one misstatement in Bellesiles's book that ran contrary to his thesis, but it wasn't significant, and I didn't bother to record it.
Remarc E. Notyalc - 10/28/2002
In response to my question,
"b) Can you verify for us that Thomas Sowell does, in fact, make this claim?"
"No. Having found the statement, I discover that I have scrambled it. The exact claim is that in 1936, "only three black Ph.D.s were employed by all the white universities in the United States, whereas 300 black chemists alone were employed in private industry." [Thomas Sowell, _Markets and Minorities_, p. 47.] I screwed up because I was working from memory. I didn't pull a Bellesiles, and try to blow you off."
Ah, so, Professor Cramer, Sowell didn't claim that there were 900 black ph.d.s in chemistry employed by private industry in the United States in 1938! It was 300 and he didn't claim that all or any of them had ph.d.s. Golly, gee, a fellow can make a mistake about data fairly easily and his mistake might even run in the direction of his thesis.
Clayton E. Cramer - 10/28/2002
"Mr. Bernstein is right in calling the treatment of Bellesiles, and what characterizes each and every response (sub-thread back-slapping and all) is right-wing partisanship and nothing more--not wit or intelligence or insight, and certainly not scholarly wisdom. Turned into an academic Bill Clinton, Bellesiles has been hounded into resignation by hypocritical know-nothings waving--or hiding behind--the Second Amendment--cro-magnons in business suits and in academic gowns determined to maintain and promote a political agenda of violence and hatred and fear."
What an odd characterization of the external committee that Emory University had examine Belleisles's work! Is it really that hard to admit that your boy got caught telling outrageous lies?
"The resentment of Bellesiles is understandable, however, considering fact that right-wing 'scholars' like David Irving have been a fabulously public disgrace to higher-learning for decades--and they seldom need to be dragged into the public eye by university administrators acting like Inquisitors (at the behest of impotent but loud-mouthed pundits like the editors of National Review). It's about time and only 'fair' that these longtime supporters of right-wing cranks get their left-wing whipping-boy."
Ah, guilt by association!
1. Do you know anyone that things highly of David Irving? Even one person? I don't.
2. You seem to be suggesting that because the left got David Irving, that therefore the right had to get Michael Bellesiles. Have you bothered to actually read the critiques of Bellesiles's book? The evidence of altered quotes, altered dates, and gross misrepresentations of his sources?
Clayton E. Cramer - 10/28/2002
I guess Professor Bernstein didn't get all the way to the end of the report:
"The Committee's investigation has been seriously hampered by the absence or unavailability of Professor Bellesiles' critical and apparently lost research records and by the failures of memory and careful record keeping which Professor Bellesiles himself describes. Given his conflicting statements and accounts, it has been difficult to establish where and how Professor Bellesiles conducted his research into the probate records he cites: for example, what was read in microfilm and where and in what volume, what archives, in some cases, were actually visited and what they contained In addition to this, we note his subsequent failure to be fully forthcoming, and the implausibility of some of his defenses -- a prime example is that of the 'hacking' of his website; another is his disavowal of the e-mails of Aug. 30 and Sept. 19, 2000 to Professor Lindgren which present a version of the location and reading of records substantially in conflict with Professor Bellesiles’ current account. Taking all this into account, we are led to conclude that, under Question 5, Professor Bellesiles did engage in 'serious deviations from accepted practices in carrying out [and] reporting results from research.' As to these matters, comprehending points (a) – (c) under Question 5, his scholarly integrity is seriously in question."
Professor Bernstein, let me make this very clear: this isn't just that Bellesiles "screwed up," and made some mistakes. It isn't that he started with facts, and engaged in some sort of sophistic argument to come to the conclusion that he wanted. He fabricated sources. He altered quotes--completely reversing their meaning. He misrepresented sources on a massive scale. These are not mistakes. These are actions that, if not intentional fraud, are utterly incomprehensible.
We aren't talking about a few errors, or a word or two dropped.
We aren't talking about a failure to read sources that might have contradicted his claims. You keep defending what Bellesiles did, trying to minimize the nature of what he did, for reasons that completely elude me.
Clayton E. Cramer - 10/28/2002
Someone calling himself Remarc E. Notyalc (which is Clayton E. Cramer, spelled backward) asks these questions:
"Sowell's claim is both counterintuitive in fact and revisionist in intent. "
"a) Are you skeptical of data only when its claim runs counter to your own political agenda? "
I've checked enough of Sowell's claims over the years--especially when they disagreed with other sources--that I tend to trust him. I've found that when there were disagreements between fairly authoritative sources and Sowell, and I checked primary sources--Sowell was right. The same cannot be said for Bellesiles, whose "errors" are extraordinary.
"b) Can you verify for us that Thomas Sowell does, in fact, make this claim?"
No. Having found the statement, I discover that I have scrambled it. The exact claim is that in 1936, "only three black Ph.D.s were employed by all the white universities in the United States, whereas 300 black chemists alone were employed in private industry." [Thomas Sowell, _Markets and Minorities_, p. 47.] I screwed up because I was working from memory. I didn't pull a Bellesiles, and try to blow you off.
"c) What is the basis of Professor Sowell's information? Can others, like you or me, check his sources? "
Give it a try. The book is footnoted pretty carefully, though I don't see one for that particular statement.
"d) If it turns out that Sowell has miscounted African Americans in 1938 with ph.d.s in chemistry as badly as Bellesiles miscounted guns in early America, will you denounce him as a "liar" and a "fraud"? "
If it becomes a recurring pattern of misrepresentation, yes.
"e) If it turns out that Sowell has miscounted African Americans in 1938 with ph.d.s in chemistry as badly as Bellesiles miscounted guns in early America, will you demand that Stanford University convene a committee of inquiry regarding Sowell's reliability? "
If Sowell did something equivalent to Arming America--yes.
"f) If Sowell's research is found by academic authorities to have been flawed, will you observe that his loss of his career is a sad obligation, like watching a murderer be executed? "
Yes. Sorry, but I'm interested in the pursuit of truth, and I have been known to be fairly critical of people who are on the same side politically as me. See my review of Joyce Malcolm's new book about gun control in England.
"f) Will you recommend, as you have in the Bellesiles case, that a class action lawsuit be brought against Sowell's publisher? ""
If any academic publishes a book with a fraud of the scale of Arming America, yes.
Clayton E. Cramer - 10/28/2002
"Frankly, this process has been slowed by the political extremism of many of Bellesiles opponents. With enemies like these, he hardly needed friends. I think many historians made the mistake of supporting Bellesiles on the theory that the enemy of our enemy was our friend."
That's quite an insult to the profession, isn't it? That they operate in such a reactionary manner that the politics of Bellesiles's opponents caused historians to back him?
Also, what is this "political extremism" that you talk about? Name name. Give examples. My suspicion is that "political extremism" means that I agree with the 75% of Americans who believe that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own guns.
John G. Fought - 10/28/2002
Too bad: I like an easy victory. Your contest is too challenging for me. Still, I like that quote.
Henry - 10/28/2002
Sorry, John. The challenge was _not_ to find _an_ error in _AA_ which supports its thesis. It is easy enough, after all, to find errors in almost any book. The challenge was to find an error in _AA_ which runs counter to its thesis. Hold the burgers.
John G. Fought - 10/28/2002
I think this qualifies: Bellesiles wrote (2000:81) that there were "no gun manufactories in North America in the Colonial period - none." This theme of insufficient and inadequate production is sounded at several places in the book, and I think it qualifies as a significant link in his argument about the scarcity of guns in America in that period.
Victor S. Clark (_History of Manufactures in the United States_ NY: McGraw Hill, 1929 vol. 1, pp. 192-93), a standard work that is one of Bellesiles's own cited sources, referring to the Pennsylvania _Archives_ (Ser. I, vol. IV, pp. 767-68), states that "At the time of the Revolution a complete gunshop was expected to contain three or four barrel-forges, a water mill for grinding and polishing barrels, a lock-shop with seven forges and benches for forty filers, ten benches for gunstock makers, a brass foundry for mountings with several finishing benches, a couple of forges for bayonets and ramrods, together with a mill for grinding and polishing them, another forge for fittings, and an assembling shop."
Just in case, let me spell out the implications: 'a' not 'the' gunshop was expected to have this size and arrangement, implying that there was more than one meeting at least this standard. If you look up 'factory' or 'manufactory' in a standard dictionary, you'll find that this sort of establishment fits the definition perfectly. There is also an implied category of 'incomplete gunshops', some of which might well have met the lexical standard also, but without producing complete weapons. But please, as for the burgers, eat them yourself.
Richard Henry Morgan - 10/28/2002
Like you, J. Merrett, I find it curious that all the "mistakes" seem to redound to the favor of Bellesiles's thesis. Reminds me of the time the Dept. of the Navy auditor discovered that Stanford, with the highest overhead charges in the country against naval research contracts, had charged the Stanford yacht, the Stanford President's wedding reception, and a mahogany armoire for the Stanford President against those same contracts. Donald Kennedy, the Stanford President, went on Nightline to explain them as "mistakes", and he looked like such an idiot that Stanford cut their losses and fired him (I'm sorry, he "resigned" -- sound familiar?)
Richard Henry Morgan - 10/28/2002
After reading the report, I'm left asking myself just what would it take to bring the ad hoc committee to a conclusion of convincing evidence to deceive? We certainly know what doesn't suffice:
1. A non-existent San Francisco archive. Later supplemented by non-relevant probate records from Contra Costa. Plus an archivist's report that Bellesiles had never been there before his recent visit.
2. The ever-varying explanations vis-a-vis the East Point archives. First they were the source, according to Bellesiles, of the great majority of probate records. When Lindgren made that claim public, Bellesiles insinuated Lindgren had manufactured e-mails to that effect. When it was revealed that Bellesiles had made the same claim on a Chicago radio station, and a recording was available to the public, we got a new version. The latest tale is that Bellesiles was working from LDS records, forwarded to him by a secret friend (they're non-circulating, don't you know?), that he took INTO the East Point archives -- a matter of curiosity to the ad hoc committee since the LDS records are available in public libraries.
I would ask Mr. Bernstein and Mr. Gesang to explain these circumstances. I won't hold my breath, though. They both seem not to want to discuss the evidence in this case -- reminds me of the old legal saying: no case, abuse the opposition.
Don Williams - 10/28/2002
Mr Gesang, how about if you show us some examples of "wit or intelligence or insight" --"some scholarly wisdom"?? For example, here are two posts where I critique Bellesiles'
description of militia performance at Cowpens and at the 1815 Battle of New Orleans. Why don't you point out my errors --my "right wing partisanship"??
http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list;=h-oieahc&month;=0204&week;=b&msg;=ZaiNCJUF5zlXeniXAg0xzA&user;=&pw;
http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list;=h-oieahc&month;=0207&week;=c&msg;=PkrdkLRPluSObiMgdhAKPw&user;=&pw;
J. Merrett - 10/28/2002
This comment was erroneously posted in response to another comment in this thread.
To Mr. Gesang:
So, dive in and give us your read on Bellesiles' honesty, integrity, and competence as a researcher and writer. Feel free to add a paragraph explaining why his "errors" (or dishonesty) shouldn't count because his inventions offended only conservatives and libertarians.
I'll read it closely. I promise.
J. Merrett - 10/28/2002
So, dive in and give us your read on Bellesiles' honesty, integrity, and competence as a researcher and writer. Feel free to add a paragraph explaining why his "errors" (or dishonesty) shouldn't count because his inventions offended only conservatives and libertarians.
I'll read it closely. I promise.
Thomas L. Spencer - 10/28/2002
You said it. I expect people like this will be the motivating factor for Knopf keeping AA in print, if not publish the sequel.
I am reminded of that great Firesign Theater sketch, "Evrything you learned is wrong!". Asking me to suspend disbelief over what has happened with this report is like asking the sun not to come up in the morning.
I wonder if the folks who did this independent report will suddenly find themselves labeled as right-wing collaborators in the "Bellesiles tragedy" or something similar? Give me a break.....
J. Merrett - 10/27/2002
...containing any number of burgers up to 50, for the first person to document a substantive "misstatement" in "Arming America" which runs counter to Bellesiles' theses that early Americans were short of guns, and the "gun culture" arose ca. 1840-1850. The offer includes cab fare up to 10 miles for delivery of the burgers. The lucky winner is entitled to up to 5 large fries and 5 medium beverages at my expense. If the prize is not claimed by noon on Wednesday, October 30, 2002, defenders of Bellesiles must shuffle off in shame, and indemnify their leftist comrades at universities across America for my intermittent requisition of 10 Krystals, a large fry, and a medium Diet Coke upon demand for the next 10 years. Entitlement of Bellesiles defenders to collect on my wager will be determined by Clayton Cramer, and the debt paid within 30 days of submission.
John Gesang - 10/27/2002
Mr. Bernstein is right in calling the treatment of Bellesiles, and what characterizes each and every response (sub-thread back-slapping and all) is right-wing partisanship and nothing more--not wit or intelligence or insight, and certainly not scholarly wisdom. Turned into an academic Bill Clinton, Bellesiles has been hounded into resignation by hypocritical know-nothings waving--or hiding behind--the Second Amendment--cro-magnons in business suits and in academic gowns determined to maintain and promote a political agenda of violence and hatred and fear.
The resentment of Bellesiles is understandable, however, considering fact that right-wing "scholars" like David Irving have been a fabulously public disgrace to higher-learning for decades--and they seldom need to be dragged into the public eye by university administrators acting like Inquisitors (at the behest of impotent but loud-mouthed pundits like the editors of National Review). It's about time and only "fair" that these longtime supporters of right-wing cranks get their left-wing whipping-boy.
Don Williams - 10/27/2002
For example, I critiqued Bellesiles' description of the Battle of New Orleans on H-OIEAHC here:
http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list;=h-oieahc&month;=0207&week;=c&msg;=PkrdkLRPluSObiMgdhAKPw&user;=&pw;=
Mr Bernstein's response was here:
http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list;=h-oieahc&month;=0207&week;=e&msg;=VQcH2rXNqydszy4VSS53wg&user;=&pw;=
If I recall correctly, Mr Bernstein's argument on H-LAW in the past year was that people should mute their criticism of Bellesiles and let the "process" work. Mr Ralph Luker here can confirm that I've noted that I thought that approach was a possible disservice to Bellesiles. Mr Bernstein evidently doesn't recognize what I'm talking about.
Richard Henry Morgan - 10/27/2002
Mistakes "in crunching his numbers"?!! That's just too damn funny for words. It's not often one is there at the birth of a myth, but I see one clearly now, in swaddling clothes -- "Professor brought low by math errors and powerful orthodoxy". Come to think of it, that seems the new party line, as it sounds so very much like Wiener's article in the Nation. All together now...repeat after me...
PS that "Internet-accelerated" remark sounds awfully close to an admission that the process would have been a lot slower but for the great-unwashed (political extremists?) on the internet. Mr. Alpers, let me introduce you to Prof. Bernstein.
Richard Henry Morgan - 10/27/2002
Mr. Alpers, your judgment is your judgment, and you are as entitled to it as I am to mine. I'm not familiar though, as an empirical matter, with any other case that has proceeded as quickly as this one, from award-winning to resignation. Should you have any empirical evidence to back up your judgment, please do share it with rest of us (assuming, being the old-fshioned type that I am, that empirical evidence is indeed relevant).
You also assume. as the lawyers say, facts not in evidence. I don't know if you have any evidence of threats against Bellesiles, or hacking, but if you do, again please share them with us. I hope you have some evidence beyond Bellesiles's own assertions, as I would not be surprised were it to turn out as chimerical as THE GREAT EMORY FLOOD, the East Point probate records that don't exist, as well as the similarly fated San Francisco records.
If, indeed, Bellesiles was able to hide behind such charges levelled at others, it is with the assistance of the OAH, which lent its newsletter to a non-response. Counterfactual claims are, as a matter of metaphysics, impossible to confirm. We must fall back on experience, and evidence. Have you any evidence for your judgment? Don't be shy now.
J. Merrett - 10/27/2002
In other words, it is per se tragic when a "scholar" is found by the regularly constituted - and in camera - process of his university to have been justly accused of falsification and egregious misrepresentation. At least, it is tragic when the first people to suspect the malefactor were people with unsanitary political views.
In a just world, Bellesiles would have had more time to bask in the unearned - indeed, stolen - adulation of the academy and those members of the public who were naturally inclined to receive his conclusions like honey from the rock. He might then have been able to dodge censure until such time as the great blot of his deliberate misconduct was rendered by great retrospect a mere smudge in a long career of good works. Sadly, his deceit was exposed all too fast, before he had a chance to distance himself from the book on which his reputation was founded, and dine out forever on disembodied reputation alone.
Mr. Berstein makes it clear that he understands himself to be a sensitive soul surrounded by pitchfork-wielding philistines who are incapable of understanding that poor Michael is a brilliant and good scholar, but a pathetically incompetent one, (cognitive dissonance, anyone?)and who instead insist that the fact that his pervasive "errors" ran 100% in favor of his thesis is powerful evidence of deliberate misconduct.
What is shameful is the fact that, to a certainty Bellesiles with malice or with incompetence attacked the foundation of historical study and of honest discourse, and that there are people who still teach who seem to suggest that there, but for the grace of God, go they. If you are a teacher or historian, and you honestly believe that you might do what Bellesiles did - even if you believe he is just unutterably incompetent rather than ill-intentioned - for God's sake, get a welding certificate and make yourself useful.
R. B. Bernstein - 10/27/2002
Michael Bellesiles concedes that he made mistakes in crunching his numbers. There is a difference between a vigorous but fair-minded dispute over evidence and an ad hominem cyberspace lynching by those who presume, ab ovo, that the person they are targeting has to have acted for reasons of deliberate malice and deliberate dishonesty. I would rather have seen a vigorous but fair-minded dispute over evidence. What we got was precisely an Internet-accelerated cyberspace lynch mob.
The tragedy is that this cyberlynching has also lynched basic standards of due process, fair play, and the presumption of innocence. If you and the others here who are so free and easy with your accusations of deliberate wrongdoing can't see that, then there is nothing more to discuss.
Thomas Gunn - 10/27/2002
What Michael did, he did to himself. He is responsible albeit with the complicity of others who should have exhibited higher standards.
There is very little "gloating", and certainly much less than one would have expected given the portrayal offered up by those criticizing the messengers for news they don't find politically appealing.
What exactly is the "tragedy", that Michael destroyed himself, or that his fraudulent "scholarship" was exposed?
I'm curious, what would have rather seen happen in this case?
thomas
Don Williams - 10/27/2002
As a Bellesiles apologist on H-NET's H-OIEAHC and H-LAW lists --plus the Chronicle of Higher Education's Bellesiles Colloquy--
Mr Bernstein should have realized by now that the Investigative Committee's indictment would have been even more damming if they had examined Bellesiles' depiction of militia performance, his survey of early travel accounts, or if they had checked his footnotes in detail. I don't recall Mr Bernstein putting up much of a defense on H-OIEAHC when I critiqued Bellesiles' depiction of Cowpens, Concord, and the 1815 Battle of New Orleans.
That said, I have read one of Mr Bernstein's books --as well as his H-OIEAHC posts -- and I do have a good opinion of him as a historian even though I do not agree with some of his opinions.
(e.g., His belief that Charles Beard's thesis was undermined by Forrest McDonald and Robert E. Brown will shortly, I think ,be challenged by a new book by Robert McGuire )
Mr Bellesiles' defense of Bellesiles on H-OIEAHC can be seen here : http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=lm&list;=h-oieahc (start with February and preceed forward. There is a search function which would work better but it is not currently working)
His defense of Bellesiles at the Chronicle of Higher Education
can be seen here: http://chronicle.com/colloquy/2002/guns/re2.htm
One of our more pleasant exchanges was here:
http://chronicle.com/colloquy/2002/guns/116.htm
http://chronicle.com/colloquy/2002/guns/137.htm
http://chronicle.com/colloquy/2002/guns/142.htm
Ben Alpers - 10/27/2002
Please re-read my original post, Mr. Morgan. I said that the process had been _slowed_ by the kinds of attacks directed at Bellesiles and the entire historical profession. I certainly never said that the profession would have rushed to correct its mistakes otherwise. Professions are set up to protect their members. They are slow to admit failure. That is true of lawyers, CEOs, stock analysts, Congresspeople, and scientists as it is of historians. Nevertheless, I think this process took even longer because Bellesiles was able to hide from his critics by, for example, emphasizing the death threats he was receiving. Not suprisingly, people in the profession sympathized with his position.
Feel free to disagree with me, but please don't call this point of view "a proposition so ridiculous it deserves a special place of exhibit among mankind's stupidities." "Mankind's stupidities" are surely greater (and more deadly) than anything I've ever written, and deserve a bit more respect. And this kind of rhetorical overkill is part of the extremism in tone that I think hurt the case put forward by Bellesiles opponents in the court of scholarly opinion.
J. Merrett - 10/27/2002
From HNN's synopsis of the committee report:
Concerning table one, which listed his probate records, the committee concluded that his failure to identify his sources "does move into the realm of 'falsification,' " in violation of Emory's policies and procedures. "The construction of this Table implies a consistent, comprehensive and intelligent method of gathering data. The reality seems quite the opposite. In fact, Professor Bellesiles told the Committee that because of criticism from other scholars, he himself had begun to doubt the quality of his probate research well before he published it in the Journal of American History."
The committee concluded that he was guilty of "egregious misrepresentation" in his handling of relevant data reported by historian Alice Hanson Jones. Bellesiles told the committee that he had not included her data in his table because it included a "disproportionately high number of guns." "Here is a clear admission of misrepresentation," the committee concluded, "since the label on column one in Table One clearly says '1765-1790.'
Please explain how being caught in the act of "falsification" and "misrepresentation" constitutes a "tragedy." Are you using the word "tragedy" in a way similar to Bellesiles' use of the phrase "1765-1790?"
The committee inexplicably but mercifully was not directed to examine Bellesiles' nauseating duplicitous abuse of travelogues, in which he would cite a "no gun" comment from a given work, implying that that was the author's conclusion on the subject, while omitting repeated contrary references in the very same work, hiding the deliberately false implication behind the fact that few if any general audience readers would ever examine the sources. Bellesiles was found guilty of falsification and misrepresentation, despite the fact his most egregious wrongs were not under consideration.
I would really like to hear how a person of respectable sensibility can construe deliberate falsification and misrepresentation in an academic context, its discovery, and the malefactor's punishment as in any sense tragic. Out here in the sticks, amongst the intellectually unwashed, we call that sort of thing justice. I await your explanation.
Ben Alpers - 10/27/2002
First off, I characterized my own statement that careerism drove Bellesiles as speculative. I simply feel that it is no more speculative than the assumption that nearly everyone posting to this (and other similar) boards has that he was driven by politics. In fact, motives in this case are rather mysterious and might be multiple.
Ultimately what this case is (or at least should be) about is the quality (or lack thereof) of Bellesiles work. I think after a lot of smoke and noise, that is what has resolved this case. The deadly blows were dealt by those like the Emory committee who took a dispassionate approach to this matter. The extremism I referred to in my earlier post was as much a matter of tone as anything else. Some of those who were driven to disagree with Bellesiles for political reasons spent their time carefully documenting his mistakes; they were listened to. Others spent their time formulating wild conspiracy theories and posting them to boards such as this, hacking websites, threatening historians. Of course such tactics were not well received. Many of you have more or less openly declared the historical profession to be the enemy...why be so surprised when we take you seriously? However, as I have already said, it was clearly a mistake to rally to Bellesiles on the basis of the enmity of some of his opponents for our entire profession.
Finally, I agree (at least in part) with Mr. Fought's comments about disciplinary politics. Professions tend to operate so as to continually reproduce whatever they're doing at the moment and to protect it from outside attack. The results are not always healthy. In most, if not all, academic disciplines, those doing work that is considered trendy -- regardless of their politics -- do much better on the job market than those whose work is considered old fashioned. I know plenty of historians whose politics are very left wing who have had a very hard time getting fulltime employment because they don't work on "cutting edge" topics. Nor is this a new development. Forty or fifty years ago, historians working on women or minority groups similarly had a relatively difficult time getting employment.
For those of you who really care about the academic job market, the biggest problem is not, however, the politics of hiring, but the incredible overproduction of PhDs. There are simply too many historians for the number of positions opening up, especially in American history. This situation is bound to create resentment as many who worked hard to earn their degree find it virtually impossible to get a tenure-track job.
Ronald Best - 10/27/2002
The real ragedy is the disgrace that Michael Bellesiles has brought to his profession. We Americans who understand the meaning of the Second Amendment are not gloating but are grateful that this fraud has been exposed.
R. B. Bernstein - 10/27/2002
This is a tragedy, and those who gloat should be ashamed of themselves.
A good man and a fine scholar, whose 1993 book REVOLUTIONARY OUTLAWS is still the best study of Ethan Allen and revolutionary Vermont, came up with a thesis that offended a powerful interest group, and made mistakes. He screwed up. Even the outside review committee rejected the charges that he committed fraud or set out to deceive or to mislead. But, if you challenge a powerful orthodoxy, the assumption on the part of those sharing the orthodoxy's dogma is that you are evil, you are a liar, you are a con artist, you are a purveyor of fraud.
And now the posters at this website are analogizing a good and decent man and a fine scholar to the D.C. sniper suspects.
Go ahead and dance on his grave. You know you want to.
Richard Henry Morgan - 10/27/2002
Thankyou for the lecture. Have you achieved the much-desired state of moral superiority yet? I certainly hope so.
Remarc E. Notyalc - 10/27/2002
At http://hnn.us/articles/1038.html, you make the following statement:
"Unfortunately, the very blatant political bias of university history faculties is for the same reason that universities used to be far less willing to hire blacks than private industry. Thomas Sowell's _Markets and Minorities_ makes the point that in 1938, there were three black chemistry PhDs on faculty in the U.S.; there were more than 900 black chemistry PhDs working in private industry. (If you find the notion that were 900 black chemistry PhDs in the U.S. in 1938--that shows how well the leftist bias of the educational institutions have suckered you in.)"
Sowell's claim is both counterintuitive in fact and revisionist in intent.
a) Are you skeptical of data only when its claim runs counter to your own political agenda?
b) Can you verify for us that Thomas Sowell does, in fact, make this claim?
c) What is the basis of Professor Sowell's information? Can others, like you or me, check his sources?
d) If it turns out that Sowell has miscounted African Americans in 1938 with ph.d.s in chemistry as badly as Bellesiles miscounted guns in early America, will you denounce him as a "liar" and a "fraud"?
e) If it turns out that Sowell has miscounted African Americans in 1938 with ph.d.s in chemistry as badly as Bellesiles miscounted guns in early America, will you demand that Stanford University convene a committee of inquiry regarding Sowell's reliability?
f) If Sowell's research is found by academic authorities to have been flawed, will you observe that his loss of his career is a sad obligation, like watching a murderer be executed?
f) Will you recommend, as you have in the Bellesiles case, that a class action lawsuit be brought against Sowell's publisher?
John G. Fought - 10/27/2002
I agree with Mr. Merrett on this. I picked up the book out of curiosity, read around in it for ten minutes or so, and saw that it was full of elementary mistakes about guns. I bought it, and as I read it through, I noticed the pattern of selection and distortion, which becamce more comprehensive as I checked more quotations and facts. The most amazing flaw is his complete omission of the chronology and scale of German immigrant impact on steelmaking and gun manufacturing in the Middle Colonies, and their cultural contribution to jaeger (irregular light infantry) tactics and weapons, and to hunting and recreational shooting. I made a point of this in my review essay posted quite early in the game on GunCite.com. I haven't noticed any other disucssion of this point, though it is scarcely a secret that there were a lot of successful Germans in Pennsylvania, New York, and Western Virginia in the Colonial period. I'm not trained as a historian, but the main problems were immediately evident and only became clearer over the two weeks or so of spare time that I put into writing the essay. The reason he got as far as he did was, I'm convinced, that a significant number of people keeping the academic gates wanted to believe him and to advance this agenda. I'm sure they still do, and will react to this outcome with a level of snideness worthy of Bellesiles himself.
J. Merrett - 10/27/2002
I have the benefit of exactly nothing in the way of specialized historical training beyond a Bachelor's degree in History from an altogether negligible private university. However, I can say with complete candor that when I first read Bellesiles' "findings" something deep in my redneck, reptilian, gun-slinging brain said "That ain't right!"
There really is nothing in American history which would justify anything kinder than a very, very skeptical reception for the proposition that colonial and early republican Americans were short of firearms. As it turns out (forgive me if I misremember), despite Bellesiles' groundbreaking work, the tradition appears to be the reality. Lindgren reported that (iirc) guns were more common in testate estates than Bibles or clothes; we have a folk tradition to the effect that our first wars were fought and won with privately owned weapons (OK, and French regulars); anybody who has shot a flintlock rifle knows that Bellesiles' denigration of that weapon is thoroughgoing nonsense; and millions of Americans were raised with guns because their fathers, and their fathers before them, were so raised.
It seems to me that there is no way to have spoken positively of Bellesiles' book without 1) failing to do even minimal cite-checking (which, admittedly, anyone could do - I didn't cite-check him either); and 2) (and truly damning) having been cocked and loaded to uncritically discard conventional wisdom in favor of a new argument which supports one's preconceived political notions. That's where the ridicule comes in. As a general principle, however hateful it may be to freethinkinkers and other elites, conventional wisdom came to be conventional wisdon for a reason: it is generally more or less accurate.
The TNR reviewer, like many anti-libertarians, started with the assumption that Bellesiles was honest and right because Bellesiles offered a liberty-constricting thesis consonant with the reviewer's political desires. As I said, I am no historian, and I smelled a rat - because I saw a smug insistence that some idealogue from Emory had singlehandedly found the goods to overturn a 220 year tradition. How sophisticated must one be to suspect - even without hostility - that which seems in ideological terms too good to be true?
The TNR reviewer praised Bellesiles' scholarship, and criticized Bellesiles only for failing to go far enough in attacking the "myth" of an armed citizenry. Let the Bailiff lead him to the intellectual pillory.
caecilia iustitia - 10/27/2002
I have to say, what is even sadder than the entire Bellesiles story is the way this has been handled by HNN and most of the people on this list. Schadenfreude is never admirable, people, and there is way too much of it in evidence here. For example, I point to the list of "unanswered questions" -- really, this is a soap opera gone mad.
And for those of you who think that Bellesiles' detractors (i.e., the NRA, extreme right-wing politicoes, etc.) have nothing to do with this, think again. If Bellesiles had been a historian of Early Modern Germany writing about the importance of pumpernickel in 17th c. Westfalia, no one would have cared. The book had a political agenda and it pissed off a lot of people who also have an agenda. Deal with it. Moreover, the fact that the independent committee found Bellesiles in the wrong does not negate the possibility that he did in fact receive death threats from gun rights fanatics. The issues are in fact separate.
What is most frightening is that the people writing in to this list seem more concerned with the ethics of one History professor among hundreds, and seem to think it is in any way representative. Have any of these writers expended the same energy in lobbying their congressional representatives for stronger ethics for our country's CEOs? or even our politicians? Does anyone besides me find it strange that as a country we show our respect for the importance of doing history well by letting almost anybody BUT historians teach history in K-12? I seem to remember a story in the news some years back about many people sympathizing with med students cutting ethical corners when dealing with their peers (removing required readings from libraries was an example), because of the stress of the competitive atmosphere in med school. When 30% of our 13-16 (2 and 4 year colleges) classes are taught by part-timers, and PhD holders look forward to a market growing in student attendance but shrinking in full-time positions with benefits, let alone job security, hw can there not be the same competitive stresses? And yet, strangely enough, if one reads the Chronicle of Higher Ed or the H-net lists, one can see that most academics do not succumb. Many take crappy jobs because they feel called to teach, and want to do it well.
I would venture to say that few academics intentionally put forth questionable work, because most want the approbation of their colleagues. Sadder yet is the fact that many trained academics will never be able to put their training to its proper use because they spend far too much time making ends meet to even begin to write articles, let alone books.
Here's my challenge to the HNN academics and readers:
Stop worrying about one very sad example of an academic "gone wrong" and start worrying more about the state of education in out country. Stop encouraging people to believe that history has to be sexy to be good and interesting. Start encouraging your fellow citizens (especially parents of K-12 and the people who hold the pursestrings) to require higher standards in our schools -- and make those standards be set by experts in the various academic fields, rather than by people with no expertise in anything but education/administration. Defend academic freedom (in our post-9/11 world, there are now websites that list the names of "unpatriotic" professors, and some were even sacked for expressing "un-American" opinions -- is it really that unsuprising that many jumped to Bellesiles' defense because they felt initially that he might have been unjustly attacked?).
And finally, be more human -- many of the people writing to this list are sadly lacking in compassion. If you expect the worst in people, you will find it. Not surprisingly, you will also show the worst in yourselves. No one is bettered by this. ANd it's not the end of the frigging world. WHen your sons are sent to war or another terrorist attack or sniper kills someone you know (or even a plain old DUI driver-- more likely), will you be happy you spent this much time on Michael Bellesiles instead of with someone you love? I doubt it.
Ralph E. Luker - 10/27/2002
I objected primarily to your suggestion of Jackson Lears' "fawning" over _Arming America_. A review so critical as his isn't "fawning" in my book.
Moreover, you and I, Lears, Bellesiles' external review committee and the world now have the benefit of several years of intense scrutiny of the "facts" presented in _Arming America_ by persons such as Lindgren who has expertise both in probate documents and quantification methods. A reviewer such as Lears for a popular periodical such as _New Republic_ had neither the benefit of Lindgren's research nor the specialized training in those fields nor the lead time to do the kind of skeptical inquiry Lindgren conducted. A reviewer for _New Republic_ might, for example, have no more than three weeks in which he was to read the book and submit his review.
Do you _now_ know more about some things that were doubtful in _Arming America_ than Jackson Lears did then? Probably so, but I don't think that leaves him much to be embarrassed about or you much to be proud of or chuckle at.
J. Merrett - 10/27/2002
Not on any factual basis, unless I grossly misread the review. As I understand it, the reviewer applauds Bellesiles' groundbreaking factual revelations, but criticizes him for failing to deal with the non-factual power of the "myth" Bellesiles has dispelled. Bellesiles is lauded by the reviewer for cutting the factual legs from under the myth, but faulted for failing to deal with the independent power of the "invented history" he demolishes. The reviewer swallows Bellesiles' bilgewater, but criticizes him for mere "fact-busting" without real "myth-busting."
If I missed something, let me know.
Ralph E. Luker - 10/27/2002
If you bother actually to read the review, J., you'll find that it is highly critical of _Arming America_.
J. Merrett - 10/27/2002
See http://www.tnr.com/012201/lears012201.html for the New Republic's gullible fawning over Bellesiles' claptrap. Wonder what the next issue will say?
Richard Henry Morgan - 10/27/2002
I guess I didn't make it clear enough, apparently, that I intended scare quotes around the expression "political extremism". I'm not even sure what that expression means, other than one doesn't agree with the person so tagged. To me, the evidence other than militia counts and wills is much more damning --which explains precisely why they were put outside the purview of the committee (Katz and Gray not exactly being hanging judges). I refer, in particular, to Bellesiles's reference to a lack of firearms in militia stores by Benedict Arnold, who in fact did not mention arms at all; invented references attributed to John Smiley; a famous travel relation that says precisely the very opposite from what Bellesiles claims; the unsubtantiated claim that a majority of militia weapons were kept in stores (Bellesiles cited three sources for his assertion, none of which supported it); etc.; etc.
What I do object to is the subtle blaming of critics for the failure of historians. I think Alpers is 180 degrees off -- the idea that the history profession would have quickly ventured forth in pursuit of Bellesiles but for the efforts of Cramer, is a proposition so ridiculous it deserves a special place of exhibit among mankind's stupidities. If the history profession, sans Cramer and his ilk, had gotten around to really examining Bellesiles's work in depth, it would have been in drips and dabs, and over such a stretch of years that Bellesiles's work would have already been enshrined in the literature, textbooks, and popular understanding (as well as court opinions) -- which, obviously, was exactly the intent of Bogus, Wills, Rakove, and company.
Peter Boucher - 10/27/2002
"...were it not for the 'political extremism' of opponents of Bellesiles's thesis and methodology (as opposed to the rather self-serving casting of them as 'Bellesiles opponents') not a damn thing would have happened. No investigation, nothing."
I don't think that's correct. I think that Lindgren and others (who are by no means political extremists) would have found Bellesiles out even if Clayton Cramer -- political extremist extraordinaire -- had not posted proof of Bellesiles' extensive fraud (which is NOT limited to the probate records or militia records).
mojo - 10/26/2002
Bang on the money, Mr. Spencer - it was all a horrible conspiracy by conservative NRA operatives inside academia, don't you know. I can hear the mendacious burbling of the soi-disant "Friends of Michael" now: "Bellesiles has been lynched!"
Bah. I expect him to show up on Oprah sometime in mid-2003.
Richard Henry Morgan - 10/26/2002
Let's make one thing clear -- were it not for the "political extremism" of opponents of Bellesiles's thesis and methodology (as opposed to the rather self-serving casting of them as "Bellesiles opponents") not a damn thing would have happened. No investigation, nothing. Bellesiles's work was accepted, validated, and promoted precisely because of its politics. I don't doubt for a minute that many historians supported Bellesiles because of their dislike for his critics (and a corresponding love for his thesis). The enemy of my enemy is my friend is a principle of realpolitik, not a method for discerning truth. That historians adopted that political principle is an indictment of historians, not of the people they dislike.
Bob Greene - 10/26/2002
Thomas L. Spenser left off the part where the VRWC ( vast right wing conspiracy) cloned the bones of Joe McCarthy, splice with selective DNA fron Hitler to create a new leader to enslave America and force all politically correct people to eat meat, drive SUV's and smoke cigars
J. Merrett - 10/26/2002
"Frankly, this process has been slowed by the political extremism of many of Bellesiles opponents. With enemies like these, he hardly needed friends. I think many historians made the mistake of supporting Bellesiles on the theory that the enemy of our enemy was our friend."
The cat, it would seem, is out of the bag. Let's take a close look at this confession.
"Frankly, this process has been slowed by the [conservative and/or pro-gun rights politics] of many of Bellesiles opponents. With enemies like these, he hardly needed friends. I think many historians made the mistake of supporting Bellesiles on the theory that the enemy of [conservatives and/or pro-gun rights advocates] was [the academics' or historians'] friend."
Amazing. People who claim to be exponents of enduring truth and courageous truth-seeking swallowed a pack of lies because they dislike the politics of those who criticized the lies. It seems that, had the critics been of a politically acceptable stripe,the academics might have actually done their jobs! However, as things were, the loathing of the historical profession for conservative and libertarian politics led its members to adopt a posture of willful blindness in service to a cherished political idea - or, more likely, in consequence of an elitist disdain for the beliefs of the heavily armed but sociopolitically unwashed.
That is truly disgusting, and suggests that I should be riding very close herd on the education of my college-freshman son.
John G. Fought - 10/26/2002
Mr. Alpers, you first ascribe Bellesiles' behavior to careerism rather than politics, and then portray him as protected by his colleagues from enemy political extremists. That's having it two ways, isn't it? If you have evidence to support your charge that our extremism caused his colleagues to rally around him, that is also evidence that he belonged to a political faction, one that was willing to sacrifice scholarly integrity to its agenda. Many would call that extremism.
I think that it's wrong to look for a single or simple explanation for what happened. Besides national politics there is disciplinary politics. Other recent postings have suggested how they may intersect. How one should perform within a discipline is partly defined by its leaders' scholarly stance, and partly by their politics. I lived through the period of Chomsky's ascent within linguistics and intellectual politics; his career is an excellent illustration of what I'm talking about. In the early seventies, a young disciple of his informed me, at the Linguistic Society of America annual meeting, that the refusal of the LSA to adopt a strong antiwar resolution the day before was "objectively anti-working class". I was amused more than appalled, because I knew that the politics had been adopted to match the syntactic theory, and that both were subject to rapid obsolescence.
What is more serious, I think, is Mr. O'Connor's statement of the issues that Mr. Frechtling cites. I agree very strongly with his position. There is no greater danger within the academy than the self-satisfaction, the widespread willingness to cut corners and tamper not only with facts but with inquiry itself, that he points to. I don't see this as an ornament of the left alone, by the way. Each institution apparently develops and subtly maintains its own approved and exclusive flavor. Penn's Wharton School of Business is not a leftist bastion. This is just the social contruction of (social) reality in action. Bellesiles found an environment he liked and conformed to it. He's not unusual for that, just for his ineptness and blatancy in doing it, and what apparently is an unusually intense need for approval. Incidentally, I too believe we'll be seeing him again.
My reform program would start with the mechanics of peer review. I'd try to open it up and make it much tougher as well as fairer by recognizing and openly fighting the cronyism and factionalism that dominates it in many disciplines.
Ben Alpers - 10/26/2002
I think the notion that Bellesiles was driven by a political agenda is entirely speculative (however much his most vocal opponents may imagine vast conspiracies to take away their guns). Most academic fraud (or sloppy, but spectacular work) is done to further a scholar's own career; it seems entirely likely (though, I'll admit, this is also purely speculative) that Bellesiles' motives were careerist, not political.
What has been proven clearly is that Bellesiles engaged in incredibly sloppy scholarship and, quite possibly, fraud (the latter is VERY difficult to prove, as it involves proving intention). I think the Emory committee report on this matter does a fine job of summarizing the situation.
The historical profession should be embarassed about the shoddy way in which Bellesiles work was reviewed prior to publication. But it is telling that the Emory committee was absolutely willing to come to the conclusion that it did. Like any profession, ours takes a long time to admit fault. But I think most historians would agree that justice has been done at the end of the day.
Frankly, this process has been slowed by the political extremism of many of Bellesiles opponents. With enemies like these, he hardly needed friends. I think many historians made the mistake of supporting Bellesiles on the theory that the enemy of our enemy was our friend.
Thomas L. Spencer - 10/26/2002
As I mentioned in previous threads, I don't think this is the last we've seen of him. He's promised us another book and I suspect that Knopf, his old publisher, with be trumpeting it as "Revisionist Scholarship" on the grounds that controversy sells. He will become the rogue scholar, to be sure, but that didn't prevent Eric Von Daniken from selling millions of copies of CHARIOTS OF THE GODS and sequels to an unwary public. He'll have his own following and continue to play the martyr role for the anti-gun crowd.
Not being an academic, I can't specifically answer your other question. It would appear that the atmosphere on campus is rather politically charged and that scarce jobs go for people
willing to toe the party line.
Andrew Frechtling - 10/26/2002
One is prompted to comes this thought-provoking question: Is the Bellesiles case just one of many examples of ongoing agenda-driven deception, just one professor who happened to get caught?
I'm a retired military officer and have some expertise about weapons and war, but I'm not as well qualified to address questions of academic policy and standards.
I'd like the professional academics at HNN to address Erin O'Connors' statement below:
" Without excusing Bellesiles, I want to emphasize that what went on with him--and what went wrong with him--is more symptomatic of contemporary academic culture than not. Bellesiles is very much to blame. But he is also very much a product of an extraordinarily lax scholarly system, one that does not reliably train its members in either proper research technique or scholarly ethics; one that openly rewards "research" that conforms to the "progressive" agenda of a disproportionately leftwing academy; one that makes it very hard for scholars who do not toe the progressive party line to get degrees, jobs, book contracts, and tenure; one that would rather scapegoat individuals than examine--and change--its own self-serving structure. "
The complete article by Erin O'Connor is at
http://www.english.upenn.edu/~oconnor/blog/2002_10_20_archive.html#83549089
Andrew Frechtling - 10/26/2002
I think most readers in the English-speaking world woke on up on New Year's Day 1984 with a little frisson of excitement and relief: Orwell was wrong, there was no Big Brother, and Winston wasn't rewriting history over at the Ministry of Truth.
I feel the same way this morning. An unscrupulous historian working to rewrite American history for political ends has been found out.
In a way, Bellesiles was caught up by the same problem the hapless Winston faced: it's hard to keep all the lies straight. San Francisco or Contra Costa? Eastasia or Eurasia?
Bud Wood - 10/26/2002
No, postmodernism isn't history, but it sure makes good fiction.
Thomas L. Spencer - 10/26/2002
My guesses are the gun control lobby will either ignore the recent events or seek to explain them away as Bellesiles tried to in his letter of resignation and/or continue to lionize him and his book. I predict that Knopf will continue to print the book. The corporate culture over there seems to be of the mindset that "controversy sells" now that they are part of a big conglomerate. I also predict that they will probably publish his next promised book [see his letter of resignation] claiming further "startling revelations" and maybe even have some major player in the anti movement do a carefully crafted intro. about his "revisionist history". I predict that the "Friends of Michael" will rally around him at a later date, once the public's short term memory has faded. THis story is probably going to be banished to the back of most newspapers, near the obits and want ads, with the headlines going to Sen. Wellstone's death and the ongoing business with the sniper prosecutions. B will emerge, sometime in the next year or so, with another book and take it on the road to soccer moms across the country, blast the NRA and others, etc., etc...
J. Merrett - 10/26/2002
I suppose that I feel a little badly for Bellesiles, but only in the same way that I feel bad for 20 year old carjacker when he's sentenced to life in prison. Bellesiles is a crook and he deserved to be caught and punished. I am happy that it happened.
This leaves me with a few questions. Some have referred over the course of this discussion to Bellesiles' situation as a product of his having been brave enough to tread on the toes of the NRA. I thought I saw a recent post mentioning that the result of the Bellesiles fiasco would be a chilling of academic freedom and inquiry - as a result of fear that offending the NRA (or some other conservative power) would result in similar treatment for the writer. (I couldn't find the post when I went back to look for it.)
Does anyone actually believe that NRA is responsible for Bellesiles' having been found out? If one believes that the NRA is the unseen hand pulling the strings in academia, does one also believe that it would have been better if Bellesiles had continued on undiscovered and unmolested?
Any guesses as to how the gun control lobby, which lionized Bellesiles, will treat the recent event? What about the hapless lawyers who cited Bellesiles in briefs in the federal courts? Will Gary Wills emerge from hibernation for an overdue mea culpa?
Walter Johnson - 10/26/2002
What a truly creepy analogy. Bellesiles was right about one thing. Many of his critics are extremists.
Thomas L. Spencer - 10/25/2002
I am reminded of an episode of the old TV show, "The Wild Wild West", where the villainous dwarf, Dr. Miguelito Loveless, would escape at the end of the episode to return another day.
With the public's attention span as it is, and this story probably being relegated to the back pages of newspapers, AT BEST, due to the capture of the sniper and Sen. Wellstone's death, B's departure by resignation and proclamations of innocence almost guarantees that we haven't seen the last of him.
Do you expect Knopf will withdraw the offending volume? Bet you a dollar against a doughnut they already have another book in the work, which the hypemeisters will pitch with a vengeance through the media as "revisionist history". And then with the inevitable attack come crowds of soccer moms and "Friends of Michael" to buy his next tome and hear his new pitch. Controversy sells.
Thomas L. Spencer - 10/25/2002
Bellesiles was a strident as ever in his letter of resignation, promising us yet another tome in the works. Methinks we haven't seen the last of him. What do you think the chance are of:
1. Knopf pulling the plug on AA with "contoversy sells" in mind?
2. Knopf publishing what may be yet another work of his as "revisionist scholarship", with the same caveat as above?
Remember, Eric Von Daniken sold a mountain of books to a credulous public, even after exposes of his life and works. I think this cash cow will be around for some time, selling books aimed at soccer moms and hitting the lecture trail for groups like HCI.
Don Williams - 10/25/2002
Here is a short note that I just sent to The Nation magazine.
----------------------------
Re your recent article defending Michael Bellesiles ("Fire at Will", Jon Wiener, Oct 17) , it must come as a shock that Bellesiles' resignation has just been announced by Emory University --see http://www.emory.edu/central/NEWS/Releases/bellesiles1035563546.html.
When it comes to making the left look like a horse's ass, The Nation's timing has always been inpeccable.
Chris Bray - 10/25/2002
http://www.emory.edu/central/NEWS/Releases/Final_Report.pdf
From the report of the investigative committee, this seems to be the take-away quote, from the bottom of page 18 and the top of page 19:
"Yet the best that can be said of his work with the probate military records is that he is guilty of unprofessional and misleading work. Every aspect of his work in the probate records is deeply flawed."
Farther down on page 19:
"His scholarly integrity is seriously in question."
Clayton E. Cramer - 10/25/2002
It's like watching a killer executed: justice requires it, but it would have been best if the original crime hadn't happened.
Ralph E. Luker - 10/25/2002
Don,
Enjoy yourself. We can talk about it when your euphoria passes.
Thomas Gunn - 10/25/2002
I am profoundly sad!
I thought there would be some joy in the final solution, but there is not. I simply can not bring myself to dance on Michael's failed career. The fat lady is singing but it's not a happy tune.
I must now go and read the reports.
thomas
dorothy - 10/25/2002
I just read the report, and it looks like the committee went to some lengths to find the minimal grounds for dismissing him. In any case, this no longer looks like Kansas.
Don Williams - 10/25/2002
See top of posts here
Don Williams - 10/25/2002
Thanks/credit to Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit.com for the news flash/scoop. See http://www.instapundit.com/
Investigative report and Bellesiles comment is here: http://www.emory.edu/central/NEWS/
Don Williams - 10/25/2002
See http://www.emory.edu/central/NEWS/Releases/bellesiles1035563546.html
Ralph E. Luker - 10/25/2002
Don,
I hadn't replied to your lengthy posting from Cassius because I hoped that you would realize that his observation that the writing of history had been tainted by fraud does not anticipate postmodernism's claim that evidence is susceptible of a variety of interpretations. Tacitus is closer to the point, but only if we use a term like "the historian's bias" in relatively neutral ways.
DF Beck - 10/25/2002
Mr. Gunn, is there some new development that portends the release of a final decision that I have missed?
I have waited with bated breath for Emory and it's special investigative body to finally confirm to the public that Mr. Bellesiles strayed from truth and fact when writing 'Arming America but I have not seen anything that indicates that an announcement will be forth coming.
What, may I ask, makes you inclined to think that a decision is going to be released soon? I hope it's not just wishful thinking.
By the way, as the manager of several hundred telecom industry employees, I can confirm that 'whackings' are usually executed on Friday afternoon. The main reason for this timing is to minimize the loss of productivity that always occurs when the rest of the work force finds it necessary to 'chat' amongst themselves in an attempt to determine why a particular co-worker was 'whacked'.
D.F.Beck
Don Williams - 10/25/2002
In my post above "Shooting Mr Luker's Very Old Dead Horse", I noted the following:
-----------------------------------
With respect to Mr Luker, Foucault was hardly the first to point out that histories are social constructs. Consider the statement
by Roman historian Cassius Dio (b. 163 AD) re history after the overthrow of the Republic by Augustus:
"...the events which followed that period cannot be told in the same way as those of earlier times. In the past all matters were
brought before the Senate and the people, even if they took
place at a distance from Rome: in consequence everybody learned of them and many people recorded them, and so the true version of events,even if considerably influenced by fear, or favour, or friendship, or enmity in the accounts given by certain authors,
was still to a significant extent available in the writings of the others who reported the same happenings, and in the public records.
But in later times most events began to be kept secret and were denied to common knowledge, and even though it may happen that some matters are made public, the reports are discredited because they cannot be investigated, and the suspicion grows that everything is said and done according to the wishes of the men in power at the time and their associates. In consequence much that never materializes becomes common talk, while much that has undoubtedly come to pass remains unknown, and in pretty well every instance the report which is spread abroad does not correspond to what actually happened....
...Concerning these matters nobody other than those directly involved can easily obtain clear information, and many people never even hear in the first instance of what has occurred. So in my own account of later events, so far as these need mentioned at all, everything I shall say will follow the version that has been made public, whether this is really the truth or otherwise. But in addition to these reports, I shall give my own opinion, as far as possible, on such occasions as I have been able--relying on the many details I have gathered from my reading, or from hearsay, or from what I have seen --to form a judgement which tells us something more than the common report."
--The Roman History, Book 53, chapter 19
As I've noted before, the Roman historian Tacitus also noted how
histories for the period from Augustus to Nero were greatly distorted/falsified by fear, flattery, or hatred for a departed emperor. Tacitus's great histories themselves, in spite of his professed committment to the truth, sometime show the anger of his persecuted Senatorial class. In reading Tacitus's accounts of the Emperor Domitian , for example, it helps to know that Tacitus' father-in-law, Agricola, was supposedly forced into
suicide by Domitian.
Thomas L. Spencer - 10/25/2002
It would be nice if Emory would ante-up on its decision finally. This would make really good news on top of catching the D.C.
sniper[s].
Thomas Gunn - 10/25/2002
That's the only new information, and it has been soundly discredited.
I understand crow tastes just like chicken, only tougher to swallow.
thomas
Don Williams - 10/24/2002
With respect to Mr Luker, Foucault was hardly the first to point out that histories are social constructs. Consider the statement
by Roman historian Cassius Dio (b. 163 AD) re history after the overthrow of the Republic by Augustus:
"...the events which followed that period cannot be told in the same way as those of earlier times. In the past all matters were
brought before the Senate and the people, even if they took
place at a distance from Rome: in consequence everybody learned of them and many people recorded them, and so the true version of events,even if considerably influenced by fear, or favour, or friendship, or enmity in the accounts given by certain authors,
was still to a significant extent available in the writings of the others who reported the same happenings, and in the public records.
But in later times most events began to be kept secret and were denied to common knowledge, and even though it may happen that some matters are made public, the reports are discredited because they cannot be investigated, and the suspicion grows that everything is said and done according to the wishes of the men in power at the time and their associates. In consequence much that never materializes becomes common talk, while much that has undoubtedly come to pass remains unknown, and in pretty well every instance the report which is spread abroad does not correspond to what actually happened....
...Concerning these matters nobody other than those directly involved can easily obtain clear information, and many people never even hear in the first instance of what has occurred. So in my own account of later events, so far as these need mentioned at all, everything I shall say will follow the version that has been made public, whether this is really the truth or otherwise. But in addition to these reports, I shall give my own opinion, as far as possible, on such occasions as I have been able--relying on the many details I have gathered from my reading, or from hearsay, or from what I have seen --to form a judgement which tells us something more than the common report."
--The Roman History, Book 53, chapter 19
As I've noted before, the Roman historian Tacitus also noted how
histories for the period from Augustus to Nero were greatly distorted/falsified by fear, flattery, or hatred for a departed emperor. Tacitus's great histories themselves, in spite of his professed committment to the truth, sometime show the anger of his persecuted Senatorial class. In reading Tacitus's accounts of the Emperor Domitian , for example, it helps to know that Tacitus' father-in-law, Agricola, was supposedly forced into
suicide by Domitian.
Richard Henry Morgan - 10/24/2002
When they want to bury a story, they usually put it out late afternoon Friday, so as to avoid the weekday national news broadcasts. Of course, they might have "found" additional evidence, which triggers a new investigation, a new appeal, and which can be repeated again, and again, and...
Thomas Gunn - 10/24/2002
of an obese lady singing the praises of truth?
Yes! It is wafting in from the not too distant future. Friday maybe. The Good News frequently arrives on the last day of the work week the better to clear the decks for a fresh start Monday. A clean slate, new *honest* history to be made.
thomas
Ralph E. Luker - 10/24/2002
You acknowledge, then, at the least, that postmodernism is not the _only_ path to bad history.
I acknowledge that it _can_ lead to bad history.
That evidence is susceptible of being read in a variety of ways, however, seems to me to be a useful contribution to historical inquiry.
Richard Henry Morgan - 10/24/2002
That would seem to follow if, indeed, Wiener claimed the mantle of postmodernist -- but he doesn't. He has his good days and his bad. Perhaps if he was a postmodernist they would all be bad.
Ralph E. Luker - 10/24/2002
If, according to Mr. Morgan, Wiener's "take down" of Derrida was so thorough and, according to Mr. Morgan, postmodernism is the "negation" of a "better history," I have trouble accounting for Wiener's bad history of the Bellesiles affair. To paraphrase what Mr. Morgan says about postmodernism: "Show me what a Wiener believes, and I can tell you what" his "research will 'discover' on any topic beforehand."
John G. Fought - 10/24/2002
Thanks for the link. I will look at the material, but it will take me a while to find a block of time for it. I'll get back to you about this when I'm done. Incidentally, it would surprise me if there were arithmetic errors in it, but I'll check for that too.
Tim Lambert - 10/24/2002
If you want to learn how Kellermann measured gun ownership, go to
http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/ and download study 6898. You get the published article, the code books, and the data. If you find any mistakes in his calculations, please let me know.
Richard Henry Morgan - 10/24/2002
I refer readers to Robert Drews's The Coming of the Greeks for an excellent example of re-examining "facts" in light of later evidence, and coming to new and interesting conclusions -- all without any sign of postmodernist influence. For insight into just how badly postmodernism can corrupt history, I refer readers to Jon Wiener's takedown of Derrida in Critical Inquiry (relating to Derrida's rewriting of Paul de Man's Nazi collaborationist past). Postmodernism isn't the breeding ground of a better history, but its negation. As Frank Lentriccia said (roughly) after bowing out of the postmodernist camp -- tell me what a postmodernist believes, and I can tell you what their research will "discover" on any topic beforehand.
Richard Henry Morgan - 10/24/2002
I hasten to add that establishing that in 8 out of 14 cases there was a gun in the house, does not establish that there were guns in the house in any other cases at all (was 444 the total reported? I don't know, since I haven't read Kellerman's original, and I haven't read Lott in two years). I do know that you have understated the possible benefits of gun ownership -- it is not just restricted to lives saved, but must include property saved, and defense against assault, rape, etc.
I again refer interested readers to the Pratt interview of Kellerman, and you can decide for yourself whether the guy is a model of intellectual integrity. I also ask, whatever happened to the principle that when you report findings based on data, you have an obligation to release data upon publication of findings? Oh yeah, I remember now what happened to that principle -- it was eaten by the same dog that ate my homework. Or was it a flood? I can't remember right now. Or was it the incredible disappearing archive? McCarthyism!!!!!
Tim Lambert - 10/24/2002
One of the reasons people own guns is to protect themselves from being killed. That is a benefit that epidemiology can measure and see whether it is greater than the cost (someone using the gun to kill you). Control for other relevant factors like crime and drugs and there you are.
I am well aware that there are many criticisms of Kellermann on the net. They are in general, apallingly bad. For instance, and since you mentioned his criticism, let us look at Lott's effort (on page 24 of "More Guns, Less Crime"):
Lott grossly misrepresents Kellermann's study. He states that "they fail to report that in only 8 of these 444 homicide cases could it be established that the gun involved had been kept in the home." Kellermann et al do indeed fail to report that, but that is because it is not true. They do note that in 8 out of a subset of 14 cases the police report stated that the gun involved had been kept in the home. Needless to say, 14 is not equal to 444. Lott goes on to claim that "all or virtually all the homicide victims were killed by weapons brought into their homes by intruders". This claim is also false. Table 1 of Kellermann's paper shows that only 14% of the homicide victims were killed by intruders. My analysis of Kellermann's data shows only 8% of the homicide victims were killed with guns by intruders.
This is not the only way that Lott has misrepresented Kellermann's study. He claims that the case-control method, as used by Kellermann, was not designed to study these sort of issues because other factors could cause a correlation between gun ownership and homicide. This claim is also false. Lott fails to tell his readers that Kellermann did a multivariate analysis, controlling for dozens of other factors.
Since pro-gunners cried "wolf" over Kellermann, some folks might think that they were at it again over Bellesiles, and not even bother to look at the evidence.
Ralph E. Luker - 10/24/2002
There is a difference between saying that "postmodernism is passe'" and saying that "postmodernism is irrelevant." I believe the former; I do not believe the latter. That is my answer to Mr. Williams' question: why would one want to appropriate something that is passe'?
The historical fundamentalists who lurk here don't yet understand that evidence can be constructed in a variety of ways -- that history is socially constructed. They lag somewhere behind understanding what post-modernism had to teach us.
But postmodernism's insight that history is socially constructed is passe' because most historians now understand that, assume it, and go beyond that to recognize that it does not mean that evidence can either be fabricated or be construed any way you want. Those hard realities limit and transcend post-modernism; they don't make it irrelevant.
Richard henry Morgan - 10/24/2002
It is my impression that Kellerman stands accused (generally speaking) not so much of cooking data, but of drawing unsupported conclusions from the data. Kellerman is the beneficiary of CDC largesse designed to demonstrate that guns are a causal vector, by themselves, of death. That is, they are to be evaluated from an epidemiological perspective. Of course, this poses a conceptual problem -- how does one determine the "above normal" death rate from guns ('epi' meaning above), as opposed to the "normal" rate?
In any case, as I have been given to understand, death rates do not vary significantly from state to state based on gun ownership rates. The internet is filled with literature criticizing Kellerman, but I would suggest starting with the writings of John Lott, Jr. BTW, Kellerman has distinguished himself in other ways. After publishing his funky study in the always headline-seeking New England Journal of Medecine (viewed with a jaundiced eye by medical researchers), he refused to release his data for such a long time that it prompted a legislative attempt to set a 90 day limit for release after publication of research supported by government grants. I suggest you also consult the article on Kellerman by Larry Pratt. He called the evidence against Bellesiles "thin", though it is obvious from the interview he had never even read Lindgren's work. The article is a laugh riot. http://gunowners.org/opagny02pt.28.htm
John G. Fought - 10/24/2002
Thank you, Mr. Williams. My question to Mr. Luker was actually quite innocent, though I did reflect that he might not choose to answer it, coming from me. I hope that isn't the reason he hasn't responded, and I'm glad you did. I'm actually interested in PM in a way. I can't understand how it sustains itself, unless the grossest sort of careerism is the answer. The examples you sent me to were pretty bracing. My professional training, mostly in ethno- and historical linguistics, has had two effects on my perceptions of PM that are relevant here: one is to make its supposed conundrums of social construction seem quite ordinary, transparent, and amenable to analysis under any of several empirically ordinary linguistic protocols, and the other is to highlight even more strongly the emptiness or self-referencing rhetoric that forms the real subject for its devotees. Incidentally, the 'linguistics' invoked by Derrida is just as screwed up as the output, and has little to do with anything taught here as linguistics. But even contemplating the social construction of rhetoric leaves me pretty much where I started. It seems that the English Disease (the one still inflaming many departments) has jumped farther than I had thought. Really, I guess there's no reason to give it up, once it has taken over, and if one is trained in nothing else, what sort of work is available outside the fold? Valet parking? Thanks for the references. I'll probably wind up thinking some more about this. You'll be to blame.
Tim Lambert - 10/24/2002
John Fought accuses Kellermann of cooking data. I think charges
like this, which appear to be politically motivated and have no
basis in fact are one of the reasons why people might be sceptical about the charges against Belesiles. Unless they take
the time to examine the matter, they might believe that the charges are similar to the baseless attacks on Kellermann.
Consider Kellermann's most famous study which found that
keeping a gun in the home was associated with a higher homicide
rate. Unlike Bellesiles' probate data, Kellermann's data is
publically available. If he had fudged his calculations,
someone would have discovered this by now. Unlike Bellesiles'
probate numbers, Kellermann's result has been replicated by
two other studies (one of them conducted by Gary Kleck, who
set out to prove Kellermann wrong).
Now, if you think you knew all about Kellermann's research
and the facts in the previous paragraph were a suprise to you,
I think you need to reconsider the source of your information
about Kellermann.
Tim
Don Williams - 10/24/2002
By the way , Mr Luker's OAH Newletter article cited above is here: http://hnn.us/articles/909.html
To give John Fought a small piece of an answer, I point to an example of postmodernist speak (or is it poststructualist speak, Mr Luker?) Behold, for example, the following gem: http://www.eng.fju.edu.tw/Literary_Criticism/postmodernism/Hutcheon_outline.html
Note how history and fiction are considered to be almost the same thing (does that mean the Regency romance novels at Borders should be stacked with Arming America?)
Some more information for Mr Fought: Salon's review of Keith Windschuttle's "The Killing of History: How Literary Critics and Social Theorists Are Murdering Our Past." --see
http://www.salon.com/it/feature/1999/01/cov_11feature.html
(Recall that Arming America was developed circa 1996-2000 )
I particularly liked the explanation that "all claims to objective truth are regarded as manifestations of coercive
power". Is that why The Nation discounts criticism of Arming America as a case of NRA goons attacking Michael Bellesiles --while at the same time refusing to look seriously at the facts within the criticisms?
Don Williams - 10/24/2002
Well, darn, I was hoping Mr Luker would lunge at the lure John
Fought so artfully cast to him. Guess an ole bass like Mr Luker
has already bit on those feathers before? Guess he's too smart for us.
After I mocked postmodernism speak above, Mr Luker replied that "post-modernism is becoming so, well, passe' that this is a bit like shooting a dead horse"
I would note Mr Luker did not show the same distain to postmodernism in his comments to his fellow historians in the OAH Newletter:
"Further discussion suggested that two current influences require rethinking our professional ethics and practice. First, how do we appropriate and limit post-modernism's insight that all evidence is socially constructed? It surely means that it can be construed in a variety of ways. It surely does not mean evidence can be fabricated"
Why would one want to "appropriate" a "passe'" insight?
hee hee
Clayton E. Cramer - 10/22/2002
Cute. But the NRA doesn't have anything more than very mild interest in this subject. Certainly not enough to spend any money funding research.
I am just now finishing writing a very detailed analysis of colonial Virginia firearms regulation. If there were foundations that funded honest historical research (as opposed to be Bellesiles's sort of work), I could have done this months ago.
Clayton E. Cramer - 10/22/2002
I've spoken to the "big man" with the shaved head (mixed white and Asian ancestry--not quite the neo-Nazi sort that Weiner's article suggested?) No one who was handing out literature was wearing a flak jacket; indeed, he saw no one who was wearing a flak jacket there at all.
Bill Heuisler - 10/21/2002
Ralph Luker and Thomas Gunn, you guys should take this show on the road. Laughed so hard I dropped my pitchfork.
Bill Heuisler
Thomas Gunn - 10/21/2002
Ralph, thanks for the link. I read that and commented at the time.
The suspect is only linked by ballistic evidence, so far, but I suspect guilt by association will not be far behind should he prove not to be the sniper.
I also hope the sniper is caught soon. I was afraid the government was about to call out the militia to stand guard on every street corner.
thomas
Ralph E. Luker - 10/21/2002
The OAH article Don referred to is still at http://hnn.us/articles/909.html. There is nothing in it that worries me about guilt by association.
Good news indeed about the sniper, if he is the sniper.
Thomas Gunn - 10/21/2002
Ralph,
A link please to your OAH article.
The only "damage" you will sustain here, and the one your colleagues worry over is the fact that you may be turned. The anti rights crowd doesn't want another smart guy showing them the error of their ways. ;-0)
thomas
Thomas Gunn - 10/21/2002
Ralph, It is nice to see you maintain your sense of humor. I was a bit afraid you may decide you are being set upon by NRA goons because you are being robustly disagreed with.
Unfortunately you've put your two dollar bet on a horse at the back of the field, and he has no chance of success.
I've enjoyed the diversion, would that it was not so representative of the system as a whole.
Good news: The radio is reporting they have caught a suspect connected ballistically to the DC sniper.
thomas
Ralph E. Luker - 10/21/2002
"Just as I thought," which is also what I expect Don Williams to say whenever Emory releases its statement.
By the way, Don, why would I worry about "guilt by association" for the article in the _OAH Newsletter_? My professional colleagues _do_ worry that hanging out here with you fellows could be damaging.
Ralph E. Luker - 10/21/2002
a) My bad. I don't know anything about hotmail accounts. Fill 'er up, if you must.
b) Don was right. The boys with the flak jackets and shaved heads just stopped by for a little tea and sympathy.
Don Williams - 10/21/2002
box, by the way: http://www.thenation.com/contact/lett
Don Williams - 10/21/2002
I didn't see your recent posts before I put mine up --you had already made the points I cited.
Don Williams - 10/21/2002
Re Mr Luker's comments above:
---------
" ...
b) It is a fact that I was responding to a suggestion that it would be fun to fill Wiener's e-mail with unsolicited mailings.
c) It is a fact that that is harrassment. What's your point?
......
f) Wiener is responsible for any inaccuracies or ad hominem in his article. That doesn't justify harrassing him. "
-----------
1) Perhaps Mr Luker could point out where someone suggested filling Wiener's email with "unsolicited mailings" or subjecting him to harassment?
2) The Nation article itself provides the email link, stating:
"The author may be contacted regarding this piece at JonWiener@hotmail.com "
3) I thought the unwashed rabble here might, just possibly might, send Wiener/The Nation some information that The Nation would consider worthy of publication.
A forlorn hope, I admit. The media which have a monopoly on our national discourse rarely show interest in balanced, fair, intelligent discussions. Dignified, well-reasoned and well-footnoted arguments against Weiner's article will most likely be tossed in the trash.
If someone here really wanted to be published in Nation, they would need to say "I'm a NRA member" and then wrap a few mouth-foaming, incoherent death threats around whatever point they wished to make.
There aren't enough peasents with pitchforks here to stuff an email box. Plus Wiener had the wit to provide a HOTMAIL account-- such accounts are easily set up and discarded at will. It's not really possible to stuff a Hotmail account -- Microsoft can handle it.
Wiener doesn't even have to look at his hotmail --he can simply laugh, go out for a beer, and Microsoft will delete it in about 30 days.
Why is Mr Luker so jumpy? Ahhhh, I get it. After his article in the OAH Newletter, he's now worried about guilt by association??
Forgot to tell you , Mr Luker. We're all ex-convicts, live in trailer parks, and drive pickups. Except for those who are gay motorcyclists, of course.
J. Merrett - 10/21/2002
"Gotta go, there are four big guys with shaved heads and flak jackets ringing my front doorbell ..."
Now, _that_ is funny.
Thomas Gunn - 10/21/2002
Ralph,
A) My bad, but then contrary to your assertion, I never claimed a "monopoly of "fact"."
B)This is the quote which started this thread, I see no mention of fun but an information on where to respond to Wiener.
"I just noticed that the Nation has a Jon Wiener email link for anyone who wants send comments re the Bellesiles article: JonWiener@hotmail.com"
Williams possibly mistook the posted email addy as a solicitation for comment. I certainly did.
C) Kindly point me to the link showing harrassment took place, or is even suggested.
D) [Have you ever told a lie?] Was that rhetorical? Irregardless (I love that non word), I didn't publish my lies in an attempt to influence policy and confuse history. A discipline I supposedly love and am expected to hold in such high regard that I would never stoop the the level Bellesile did.
E) "Hold my glee"? While I may experience some internal satisfaction that the 'process' will *FINALLY* work, I thought I was being careful to stick to the facts of Bellesiles transgressions. More unseemly IMHO is a defense of an obvious liar based in emotional appeal.
F) Wiener *is* being held responsible for, "any inaccuracies or ad hominem in his article", and that is *not* harrassment.
I believe when I sit quietly and listen intently I can hear the sound of an obese lady warming the chords.
thomas
Richard Henry Morgan - 10/21/2002
Thomas,
the Wiener article in The Nation now contains the following notation: "The author may be contacted regarding this piece at JonWiener@hotmail.com." Help me out here, Thomas -- how exactly is that "unsolicited"? Just wondering, since I don't expect a coherent reply from other quarters. BTW, it's my guess that account was just created as a sink for e-mails that The Nation and Wiener are already getting and don't want to deal with.
Joerg Boettger - 10/21/2002
Mea culpa. Joyce Lee Malcolm's review of _Arming America_ indeed appeared in the January 2001 issue of Reason. If memory serves me right, her piece was posted online in late December 2000. A much expanded version appeared in the May 2001 issue of the Texas Law Review.
Ralph E. Luker - 10/21/2002
a) I am not a professor. So much for your monopoly of "fact."
b) It is a fact that I was responding to a suggestion that it would be fun to fill Wiener's e-mail with unsolicited mailings.
c) It is a fact that that is harrassment. What's your point?
d) Have you ever told a lie? Assuming that you are human and that the answer, therefore, is yes, what would be the moral weight of my saying "Thomas is a liar"? Thomas may be that, but he is also many other things.
e) Michael will face consequences of his actions. Hold your glee. It is unseemly.
f) Wiener is responsible for any inaccuracies or ad hominem in his article. That doesn't justify harrassing him.
Thomas Gunn - 10/21/2002
Ralph,
Since you are the professor, kindly point me to the facts in your post. All I've seen from you is emotional speculation. You have consistanly refused to debate the facts (Remember those? Bellesiles is a liar and needs to be exposed.) and instead offer up platitudes in Bellesiles defense. At least Wiener took a stand on Bellesiles, albeit erroneously.
As to your recent discovery, maybe if you offered something, anything concrete, fact based re Bellesiles scholarship I wouldn't be forced to see your posts as emotion laden pc rants.
Can you point to anything in Arming America that supports Bellesiles wacky theory, which isn't a lie, a misreading of the history, or politically motivated?
It must be tough for you, holding onto an idea whose time will never come. History proves it.
thomas
Richard Henry Morgan - 10/21/2002
The UC Irvine website says Bellesiles gave a talk there on Feb. 26, 2001 (I suppose this is the talk at Irvine that Wiener refers to).
Ralph E. Luker - 10/21/2002
Thomas,
Since there was no emotion in what I wrote, I finally figured out how your argument procedes: emotion is what "they" do; "facts" are what we have. It's a neat way of dismissing everything said by someone you disagree with. It's just as riddled with pc quotas as any standard set in the academy. Self-censorship may just be a negative term for self-control. It really isn't a bad idea, because when self-control fails, social control becomes necessary.
Thomas Gunn - 10/21/2002
Ralph,
How do you jump to such *emotional* conclusions? Wiener placed himself into the public forum, as did Bellesiles. They promoted wild speculation which cried out for a reasoned response. That there are millions of folks who disagree with them does not make the responses hostile, unsolicited (remember the email addy was posted) unwanted, (Bellesiles and wiener put themselves where they are) or harrassment. One might speculate the response they anticipated is not what they received.
I do agree with you that, "Tough criticism in a public arena is acceptable behavior" except when, in some public forums the criticism is arbitrarily censured by the forum administrator. Which leads to self-censure to avoid the wrath of the PC police. Know what I mean?
[Gotta go, there are four big guys with shaved heads and flak jackets ringing my front doorbell ...]
You have several choices; don't answer the door, dial 911, or retrieve your 1911 and see what the boys want. Or maybe they are cops looking for a sniper and your emotional appaeal failed again.
thomas
Jerry Brennan - 10/21/2002
Joyce Lee Malcoms's critique in Reason magazine seems to have appeared in the January 2001 issue, and in that article she mentioned, among other things, some of Lindgren's early findings, including his statement: "virtually everything Bellesiles said about these records was false".
http://reason.com/0101/cr.jm.concealed.shtml
The month and year may be of some interest to anyone who might attempt to decipher Wiener's:
"...-this was early in 2001, before he was charged with inventing evidence,...".
Ralph E. Luker - 10/21/2002
Thomas,
Filling someone's e-mail account with hostile, unsolicited and unwanted e-mail is a form of harrassment. It's also the kind of childish behavior the friends of Michael have come to expect of some of his unwashed critics. Surprise someone. Don't do it. Tough criticism in a public arena is acceptable behavior; harrassment and threats are not. Gotta go, there are four big guys with shaved heads and flak jackets ringing my front doorbell ...
Thomas L. Spencer - 10/21/2002
Alfred Knopf Proudly Presents MICHAEL BELLESILES: MARTYR OF ACADEMIC FREEDOM by Johnathan Whiner
[From the Dust Jacket]
A disturbing portrait that links Al Qaeda, THe Aryan Nations and the NRA in a fiendish plot to destroy academic freedom in America. This book is a must read for every American concerned with Gun Safety issues and American Homeland Security.
"A shocking expose of how far Terrorism has penetrated America"
OUR NATION
"One of the most profundly disturbing reads of the Fall. MICHAEL BELLESILES: MARTYR OF ACADEMIC FREEDOM is a story of black booted thugs, Terrorists on campus, and a man who gave his career in an effort to bring out the truth about America's Gun Culture" U.S. Today
"Soon to be a major motion picture, starring Russell Crow and Mel Gebson" Variety
Nominated for the Ira A. Glickman Foundation Award, American Assn. for Revisionist History.
Thomas Gunn - 10/21/2002
Any criticism of the politically correct ideology will be viewed as harrassment, intimidation and threats. The smart thing to do is keep the truth to yourself and let the Left live the lie they so desperately cling to.
BTW does anyone know how to pronounce Wiener's name?
Is it Wiener as in "he's such a whiner", or is it Wiener as in "hot dog Bellesiles has finally been revealed?
thomas
John G. Fought - 10/21/2002
Mr. Luker, a genuine and civil question: roughly when did postmodernism in history become passe? In my days (ca 1960-62) as a student of French lit, it was still around, but I lost track of it after that when I turned to linguistics, where I think it was never of much interest (as I understand it, Chomsky's thinking never qualified as postmodern -- he's a true believer, in himself). And what (apart from the Bellesiles style) has supplanted it as trendy? I would be interested in hearing from you and others from various history departments about this. Is there a manifesto? Were or are there gurus? Great works? It may even give us something to discuss when B is finally history.
Thomas L. Spencer - 10/21/2002
I can only wonder if Weiner might not have a contract soon with Knopf to produce a book giving the "revisionist" history of the Bellesiles scandal to the American public, to be favorably reviewed in various newspapers, by people who were assigned the task but have little background in the facts so essentially copy the liner notes, and on CBS "Sunday Morning". Part of the money would go to the financial relief of B after his sad departure from Emory. Maybe they can have a $100 a plate fundraising dinner too, with checks payable to "Friends of Michael".
Ralph E. Luker - 10/21/2002
Sorry, Don. I'm afraid that my own prejudices color my reading of what other people say sometimes. Besides, post-modernism is becoming so, well, passe' that this is a bit like shooting a dead horse.
Don Williams - 10/21/2002
Sigh.
Mr Luker, when I jokingly said "I worry that your talks with us may put you in dutch with your tribe. As a NRA member, I assure you that I will fight all attempts to put you in a mental institution. One of our values is that an AK-47 always trumps a hastily constructed episteme ..."
I was (jokingly ) referring to we gun nuts PROTECTING YOU from some of your more radical colleagues, not in any way suggesting a threat. Surely a historian like yourself is acquainted with Foucault's thesis that power groups enforce their cultural constructs upon the masses by consigning dissenters to mental institutions , prisons, or community colleges?? See, for example, the solemmn syllbus at
http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~ssen/Syll4973.htm .
I had assumed that you were fashionable enough to be a postmodernist historian --e.g,
http://www.wm.edu/wmnews/72197/postmodernism.html -- and I was
making some faltering attempts at communication. I acknowledge that my attempts at postmodernist-speak are hampered by an unfortunate tendency to collapse into helpless laughter.
Richard Henry Morgan - 10/21/2002
Rakove did, in his Chicago-Kent contribution, make snarky comments about how individual right theorists don't know their history. He then proceeded to support his other arguments by summarizing, to the tune of a better part of a page, Bellesiles's UNPUBLISHED work, prefacing it with an unintentionally funny remark to the effect that before Bellesiles, nobody had apparently studied the actual use of firearms in American history. To borrow a phrase from Rakove (borrowed it from Fisher Ames): risum teneatis amici.
There was a time, back when giants walked the earth, that scholars didn't lard their work with references to unpublished work. It had a purpose -- it prevented them from ending up looking like a horse's rear end.
Rakove did, however, profess to being impressed with Bellesiles's "behavioural" approach. Rakove's example was the fact that those who ratified the Constitution also, as state legislators, passed restrictions on firearm ownership -- to Rakove, a refutation of the individual right interpretation. Of course, an individual right interpretation constructs the second amendment as a barrier to federal action only (as it was intended, it being pre-14th amendment). The apposite analogy is to the religion clause of the first amendment. Some states ratified it specifically to allow them to maintain a state religion without federal interference or the imposition of a federal religion. I don't think Rakove's exposition of a "behavioural" approach was any better thought out than his hasty and uncritical acceptance and use of Bellesiles's work.
Ted - 10/21/2002
J, Keep your powder dry. You may not get the verdict you want.
Richard Henry Morgan - 10/21/2002
Mr. Fought,
if you're seeking even more perverse pleasure, I point you to Larry Pratt's article on Arthur Kellerman (author of the much-criticized New England Journal of Medecine article) and the co-founder with Bellesiles (over a shared bottle of wine, according Bellesiles) of the Violence Studies Program at Emory. Kellerman said that the evidence against Bellesiles is "thin", but couldn't say he had read Lindgren's work. Too funny!!
Ralph E. Luker - 10/21/2002
Do you really want to send Wiener more evidence that Bellesiles's critics are ready, willing and able to harass, intimidate and threaten people you don't agree with? That doesn't seem like a smart thing to do.
J. Merrett - 10/21/2002
but, assuming I read the Emory appeals procedure correctly, shouldn't I have my smoker fired up & ready to go Thursday evening, or Friday at the latest?
Ralph E. Luker - 10/21/2002
Don,
None of this sarcastic use of relativist or post-modernist language hits home with me. I try to speak in plain English and to be fair to an opponent's argument. Save your threats of either incarceration or bullets my way. I suspect that you are harmless.
Sinjin Smith - 10/21/2002
How interesting to find out that my positing was a partisan effort to muffle plain speaking on this matter? I like Harry Truman as much as the next person, and perhaps more than most here, but even the straight talking president would likely point out that there is a time and place for the tone employed by some in this thread. The juvenile giddiness expressed by some at the probabilty that Bellesiles will soon be demoted (as much as I feel more is in order, the likelihood that an award-winning, fraudulent or not, faculty member will be dismissed seems remote), and more comically, the personal snideness of many comments hardly befits gentlemen. The last section of my posting has been misunderstood. I have no intention of becoming the hall monitor as has been posited. My point was that Bellesiles can be put under attack without the sophmoric snideness that some feel compelled to use. If we must sink to such a level, then why not take matters further and make our points in profanity laden expletives. If those at HNN do not mind, I am certain we can all rise, err, sink to such a level.
Somewhat surprisingly, I find the call for maintaining a certain dignity and maturity in our postings most vehemetly attacked by those holding the same view on Bellesiles as I (or at least as I understand your views). Clearly I either failed to convey the basic tenant of the second portion of my comments, or they were lost in the torrent by those too narrowly focused on castigating Bellesiles with every word. I had hoped to reassure those that seem to believe that there is a Michael Bellesiles shrine in every history department across the country that such is not the case. The fact is that three of four faculty members here believe Bellesiles should be drummed out of academe, and expeditiously, for his dishonesty and continued odious conduct that reflects on the rest of us. If we hope to maintain the integrity of our profession, for those of us in teaching and writing, then there can be no half meassure. This is the position held by myself and two colleagues -all political/military historians (again, despite stating this to be the case, it was apparently not clear enough to some). Yes, one member of the faculty finds "Arming America" to be a usable work and does use part of it in class, but we continue to bring up pertinent facts as they become public in the hope that he will abandon the book.
Thus, it would seem my intent was misconstrued by some, so let me restate it in more simplified terms; if our institution is any reflection of how Bellesiles is viewed throughout history departments across the country, then most faculty members believe the preponderence evidence makes it clear that he is a fraud, and should be sent packing. (In a related thread, someone suggested he be sent off to work at a truck stop in Idaho; having spent many days fishing and hunting in Idaho, I can assure everyone that he would neither be wanted in that fine state, nor survive long among its large gun owning population).
As for the word parsing some are employing, let me say that just as the description of the "bald" man "harassing" Bellesiles was meant to create an image, so is the use of the word conspiracy. Hide behind the Webster's definition if you like, but do not insult us; we understand the image you are trying to conjure. "A person easily tricked," according to my desk Webster's (sorry I am not about to lug the condensed OED out of the main office), is a dupe. My point regarding the reviewers who, seemingly without question, trumpeted "Arming America" is that they read what they believed and therefore did not need to be tricked. If, as seems to be the case, the majority of reviewers were ill-equiped by training to have any real knowledge on the subject, thus one would hardly need to dupe such persons.
Mr. Fought, sorry no ploy intended, but it does hearten my soul that despite "expect[ing] nothing of Mr. Smith," you gave me credit for conspiring with Mr. Luker to craft a misdirection play (to use your football analogy).
Don Williams - 10/21/2002
I just noticed that the Nation has a Jon Wiener email link for anyone who wants send comments re the Bellesiles article: JonWiener@hotmail.com
Don Williams - 10/20/2002
Mr Luker, re the historical community's "lessons learned":
Although I do not have a PhD in history, I realize that all this talk re Bellesiles --including the "ocean waves" of argument on your HNN article and the William and Mary Quarterly -- is merely a bourgeois discursive formation. A coercive attempt to use Power/Knowledge to enforce Western cultural constructs -- "objectivity" , "rationality",etc. ;-- values which are
inherently variable and relativistic.
I worry that your talks with us may put you in dutch with your tribe. As a NRA member, I assure you that I will fight all attempts to put you in a mental institution. One of our values is that an AK-47 always trumps a hastily constructed episteme --unless one is dealing with an IRS auditor, of course.
In order to complete our structuralist analysis, we really need to ask the Indians what they think .
But first, let's catch Herodotus and give him to the Persians.
(hee hee)
Joerg Boettger - 10/20/2002
Wiener's sins of omission are many. He makes no mention of:
1. Historian Robert Churchill's trenchant critique of _Arming America_ in Reviews in American History (September 2001) or Churchill's postings on H-OIEAHC (19 and 28 September 2001).
2. David Mehegan, reporter for the Boston Globe, who looked into Vermont probate records and essentially confirmed Jim Lindgren's findings (11 September 2001).
3. Historian Joyce Lee Malcolm's critique in Reason magazine (January 2002) and its expanded version in the Texas Law Review.
4. Historians Ira Gruber's and Gloria Main's contributions to the WMQ forum, revealing serious errors and misrepresentations in _Arming America_.
5. Historian Bertram Wyatt-Brown's critique in the Journal of Southern History (May 2002).
Last, but not least, Wiener almost exclusively focuses on the issue of probate records, oblivious to the fact that Bellesiles also misused gun censuses, militia returns, travel accounts etc. This is demonstrated in extenso by Jim Lindgren's long review of l'affaire Bellesiles in the Yale Law Journal. Although Wiener mentions Lindgrens's fine article in passing, he hides from the unsuspecting Nation reader its substance, above all the appendix where numerous errors and misstatements in _Arming America_ are nicely documented.
Wiener's unsubstantiated drivel flies in the face of all available evidence. He has become complicit, in my view, in Bellesiles machinations, and thereby discredited himself as a historian.
Ralph E. Luker - 10/20/2002
Mr. Williams,
The views represented by Saul Cornell and Jake Rakov, as you summarize them in these brief quotations, are not mutually exclusive. A book may be deeply flawed, it may be factually incorrect at a number of points and it may, even, have elements of misrepresentation in it and _still_ make a major contribution. It may do so: a) by stirring debate about an important historical issue; and b) by drawing attention to important new insights it offers which are not otherwise tainted by flawed supportive evidence.
Most historians do not aspire to publish books which are deeply flawed, factually incorrect or include elements of misrepresentation. Yet, I suspect that more books than we are aware of do include elements of these problems. _Arming America_ will be remembered as an important book in its field, both for good and ill. It will stir other historians to take up its issues, argue with it and correct it. It will serve as a warning to other historians: your quotations, allusions and footnotes had better be on the money or representatives of the NRA, Clayton Cramer and Jim Lindgren or some other eager scholar will come after you!
Don Williams - 10/20/2002
There was also this comment attributed to Rakove in the Oct 15,2001 National Review article:
-------------------
Saul Cornell of Ohio State is one of the historians
whom Bellesiles suggested I contact. He has
looked into criticism of the author, but could not
identify any particular errors in it. Cornell says that
some of the criticism has been "hysterical [and]
ideologically driven," while other criticism — such
as Lindgren and Heather's — has been
"thought-provoking [and] powerful": "We are all
waiting to see what Michael's response to it will be.
Even if he is proven wrong, it is possible to write
an important book that moves the debate forward,
even if it is flawed. We are all in Bellesiles's debt
for opening the debate."
Yet Stanford's Jack Rakove, winner of a 1997
Pulitzer Prize in history, takes a much different
view. A historian's claims, he says, ought to be
verifiable: "Other scholars should be able to go to
the archives to see whether you've quoted them
accurately and used them correctly. Bellesiles will
have to defend himself. If he can't do it, we will
know. If he has really screwed up, he will be held
accountable."
---------------
Source: http://www.nationalreview.com/15oct01/seckora101501.shtml
Don Williams - 10/20/2002
The December 2001 New York Times article on Arming America
had this comment attributed to Rakove:
-------------------------Jack Rakove, a Stanford University historian who has been supportive of "Arming America," agreed: "The book
raises a host of interesting questions about the role firearms have played in American life and culture, and it goes
well beyond the probate data."
But Mr. Rakove conceded that he had not looked at the research that has been questioned, and he said it was
important that Mr. Bellesiles respond to his critics more fully than he has so far.
---------------
source: http://www.wmsa.net/nyt_011208_bellesiles.htm
Don Williams - 10/20/2002
In fairness to Rakove, he did indicate on H-OIEAHC that he helped set up the William and Mary Quarterly forum on Arming America.
Second, Rakove's Stanford Second Amendment Conference apparently invited proponents of both interpretations --although Bellesiles evidently gave the keynote address:
See http://www.rkba.org/research/stanford-law-conference.txt
I would be interested in comments from anyone who attended --I did not.
Don Williams - 10/20/2002
When we are trying to figure out how/why Arming America skated through the historical community's avowed peer review,
I don't think it's an "ad hominem" attack to point out explicit
events/acts which indicate that some prominent historians were
ideological allies of Bellesiles --and joined with him in an orchestrated campaign against the Second Amendment in a case which went to the Supreme Court.
1) I don't think it is "ad hominem" to point out that Jack Rakove and Michael Bellesiles were two of the eleven people invited to present papers at the Joyce Foundation's Chicago Kent Second Amendment Symposium. The Joyce Foundation's advocacy of gun control is well known and , as Carl T Bogus acknowledged in the introduction, the purpose of Chicago Kent was to defend the
"collective right" interpretation, not to have a balanced discussion. I have already described the major role the Chicago Kent articles played in the gun-control side of US vs Emerson.
2) I don't think it is "ad hominem" to point out that Jack Rakove
cited Bellesiles' alleged findings in Rakove's Chicago Kent presentation. See http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/RakoveChicago.htm , search for "Bellesiles"
3) I don't think it is "ad hominem" to point out that Jack Rakove should have recognized some of the errors in Arming America before he chose to give it credibility -- but to my knowledge, he has not done so. My understanding is that when Bellesiles spent a year at the Stanford Humanities Center, he was supposed to become a part of Stanford's "intellectual community" -- didn't Stanford historian Rakove ever review Bellesiles' work in that year?
4) I don't think it is "ad hominem" to point out Jack Rakove's response on H-OIEAHC to my HNN article: see
http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list;=h-oieahc&month;=0205&week;=d&msg;=kH8LPSl0BMyu3epYujtM%2bg&user;=&pw;=
5) I don't think it is "ad hominem" to explain why I think that
Rakove's H-OIEAHC statement "Arming America has very little to say about the adoption of the 2d Amendment or its interpretation " is
incomplete. Most of Bellesiles' Chicago Kent article was a slightly modified version of Chapter Seven of Arming America --and the forty seven pages of Chapter Seven are, in my opinion, an incomplete and misleading historical narrative which is heavily slanted against the “individual right” interpretation of the Second Amendment.
For details, See
http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list;=h-oieahc&month;=0206&week;=a&msg;=aN/jQb0GM4%2bsreh2LgfPNQ&user;=&pw;=
http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list;=h-oieahc&month;=0206&week;=c&msg;=l1zZ8lNGOUj3GQG41w32Fw&user;=&pw;=
6) I do agree with Rakove that Bellesiles' depiction of the early militias' performance is important -- but I think much of what Arming America presents in this area is false, incomplete or misleading. I explained why on H-OIEAHC, Rakove presented no significant rebuttal, yet he is now telling the Nation that
Bellesiles presents evidence "crucial to the debate over the origins of the Second Amendment because it undermines the NRA's picture of a citizen militia (rather than a national army) as the bulwark of American freedom ".
Please note that President George Washington's recommendation to Congress circa 1790 shared the view that
a citizen militia (rather than a national army) should be the bulwark of American freedom -- and subsequent Presidents/Congresses followed that recommendation up to the Cold War.
Historian Ira Gruber critiqued Arming America's treatment of militias in the William and Mary Journal -- didn't Rakove read Gruber's article?
Rakove is also apparently ignoring how Bellesiles' depiction of the militia is at odds with historians who have written books on specific battles (Cowpens, Concord, 1815 Battle of New Orleans). Rakove is also apparently ignoring how Arming America's depictions conflict with studies by the US Army's Command and General Staff College.
Re details, I discussed some of Arming America's shortfalls in this area in the following H-OIEAHC posts:
http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list;=h-oieahc&month;=0204&week;=b&msg;=ZaiNCJUF5zlXeniXAg0xzA&user;=&pw;=
http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list;=h-oieahc&month;=0205&week;=a&msg;=Up86uaNvZmaF3Dl9dWywvQ&user;=&pw;=
(Para 1-6)
http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list;=h-oieahc&month;=0205&week;=c&msg;=csZZTSqxFnvjjPNWoan9nA&user;=&pw;=
(Paragraph 4)
http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list;=h-oieahc&month;=0207&week;=c&msg;=PkrdkLRPluSObiMgdhAKPw&user;=&pw;=
John G. Fought - 10/20/2002
No, it isn't the same as Wiener's article. Here's the difference: there really is an association between Bellesiles and Kellerman and between Bellesiles and Rakove concerning the topic we are all debating. The first led to the founding of the Violence Study Program at Emory, whose initial foundation support was not renewed, and the second to the inclusion of prepublication material from Arming America in the amicus filings in the US vs Emerson case. Coincidentally, as they say, in 1998-9 Bellesiles had a research fellowship in residence at Stanford to work on his book, and in April 2000 he took part in a symposium there on the Second Amendment along with Rakove and others. Heady stuff for an associate professor whose CV wasn't exactly bulging with titles. Unsurprisingly, Rakove's article in the WMQ forum is the least critical of Bellesiles' book. Indeed, it seems to be mostly about Rakove's own work. Well, we've all known professors like that, haven't we? So what? Well, it turns out that one of them (two if you count '43X' Kellerman) was deeply involved in cooking data and the others just didn't notice, or didn't care. In fact, they still don't seem to care. Call me intemperate, call me perverse, but it still makes me angry to read excuses and denials about this kind of thing. It may not be criminal, but it sure is cronyism.
Ralph E. Luker - 10/20/2002
Mr. Fought,
I appreciate your candor in saying that "it gives me a perverse satisfaction to describe Bellesiles as a 'known associate' of Arthur Kellerman and Jack Rakove," for it is perverse. It is the same sort of ad hominem, guilt by association tactic which mars Wiener's article in the _Nation_ which associates Jim Lindgren with four large men in flak jackets and Joe McCarthy used to smear his political targets. You are correct in characterizing it as "perverse."
I regret that you hear Mr. Smith's and my appeal to civility as suppression. You don't seem to be suppressed, but ad hominem attack serves your cause no better than it does Wiener's.
John G. Fought - 10/20/2002
Mr. Luker, it's not my definition, it's the dictionary's definition: Merriam-Webster III unabridged, or their Collegiate. Their definitions are citation based, that is, drawn from established usage. And if a football team doesn't conspire before a game -- in secret and repeatedly -- it will lose.
Incidentally, I expect nothing of Mr. Smith. In reminding you all of the scope of 'conspiracy' I aim to call attention to a frequent rhetorical ploy, implicit in what you and he have written, whereby it is willfully understood in its stricter sense, suggesting a caricature of formal conspiracy, with costumes, secret handshakes, and the rest, and is thus held up for ridicule, when in reality, all that was alleged was its looser sense, a meeting of minds, a concert of actions by like minded collaborators over time. Such actions are not necessarily criminal, but if concerted, they are by definition a conspiracy.
I believe that the climate of opinion on the private ownership of firearms prevailing within higher education was unquestionably a factor contributing to Bellesiles academic successes, such as promotion, frequent grants of research funding, leaves, and other perquisites he received. In this context, it gives me a perverse satisfaction to describe Bellesiles as a 'known associate' of Arthur Kellerman and Jack Rakove. I believe that a young faculty member with the opposite view on these matters would not have been so favored. I believe that Bellesiles understood this and acted on his understanding, knowing that such work would facilitate his career by attracting favorable attention and deflecting unfavorable attention to his research. Do you really doubt any of these propositions?
I reject calls for 'civility' when I perceive them as partisan
attempts to suppress discussion of unpleasant facts. The unpleasant facts here are that these and other recent and current fraudulent publications were made possible in part by the freedom from accountability enjoyed by tenured professors when publishing their own works or reviewing the works of others within a lax system of peer review which is not even proof against ordinary as distinct from ideological cronyism. Mr. Smith's posting was in large part an effort to suppress or muffle plain speaking about these matters by branding it as uncivil. Many of your own postings appear to have that same goal. My goal is different.
Thomas Gunn - 10/20/2002
I have noticed this problem is especially bad with some bloggers.
Especially bad is a truncated line that happens at a natural break. The sentence becomes unintelligable. A work around; drag the cursor over the text as in 'cut and paste' the text appears in reverse but a second click clears it and makes it visible normally.
Best of luck.
thomas
Richard Henry Morgan - 10/20/2002
Mr. Luker,
I have read up on the Abraham affair, via the internet, but since I don't have any real familiarity with the original documents, or papers quoting the original documents, I don't feel competent to judge the matter. I just thought the parallels were interesting. Abraham's defenders saw his errors as "mistakes'; his critics saw them as tendentious to the point of fraud. Feldman, like Hickey in the Bellesiles case, recommended publication, and then became a critic. As for institutional support, Princeton, which not only hired Abraham, but published him, defended him by attacking Feldman and Turner, and then turned around and denied him tenure (I offer this not as a parallel to Emory, but as a parallel to general institutional support in the Bellesiles case, followed by abandonment). Some initial defenders came around to being detractors (Gordon Craig, for example). Both cases are portrayed by Wiener as involving right-wing cabals attacking a martyr. I have no special knowledge in the Abraham case, but if Wiener's account there contains as many falsehoods, omissions, and tendentious interpretations as his Bellesiles article, then I'm inclined, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, to disbelieve him in the Abraham case.
I hasten to add that I admire Wiener for his Critical Inquiry dismemberment of Derrida. He also rather accurately took Norman Cantor to task for calling Lawrence Stone a Marxist (Cantor has lately followed up that massive howler by saying that the majority of philosophers are in the sway of Wittgenstein!! Too funny). But reading through Wiener's other work, I see some problems. For instance, in the Terry Anderson case (Anderson taught at Texas A&M;), Anderson was subjected to an unflattering and arguably libelous portrayal by the student newspaper there. This was picked up by student newspapers elsewhere, including the University of Minnesota Daily. Anderson sued the Minnesota Daily (as opposed to the Texas A&M; student publication), as explained by his lawyer (and faithfully repeated without contradiction or opposing comment by Wiener -- he does take good dictation from the left), because "it might affect his employability if he sought another job". Those without an axe to grind, and an IQ of room temperature or above, would feel compelled to describe it for what it was -- forum-shopping.
Jerry Brennan - 10/20/2002
From the HNN FAQ:
WHY CAN'T I READ COMMENTS I'VE POSTED ON THE SITE?
If you use an up-to-date browser to access the web, you should not have any trouble posting or reading comments on HNN's discussion boards. But readers who employ an old version of Netscape may face difficulties. Some comments may not be visible. Others may include truncated entries, including missing first sentences.
Our new publishing system unfortunately discriminates against readers who use old versions of Netscape. We apologize.
Note: If you use an old version of Netscape you should have no trouble posting comments even if you cannot read them from your computer.
(snip to end)
I will add that starting a post by hitting the enter, or return, key seems to bypass the problem regardless of what browser one uses.
Ralph E. Luker - 10/20/2002
Mr. Morgan,
A Google search, using the terms "David Abraham" and "Gerald Feldman," will give you considerable information on that controversy.
Jerry Brennan - 10/20/2002
Testing to see if preceding first paragraph with a 'blank line' may circumvent display problem.
If this is the first line displayed, the test flunked.
Jerry Brennan - 10/20/2002
First paragraph.
Second paragraph.
Third paragraph.
It seems that sometimes the first 'paragraph' of a post will not be displayed even though it is preent.
Jerry Brennan - 10/20/2002
From time to time I notice "empty" posts such as these two by Richard Henry Morgan. Some checking indicates that what Richard wrote is present, but not displayed.
Following are what Richard wrote in these two posts:
First post:
People familiar with the facts surrounding the Bellesiles case no doubt read Wiener with amazement, but there is a precursor in his background -- Wiener's writing on the David Abraham case in The Nation, back in 1985. Therein, Abraham is cast as a victim of a right-wing cabal who somehow overwhelmed academia and intimidated (get this!) UC Santa Cruz (of all places!!) from hiring Abraham. Not being fully conversant with the issues in that case, I can't comment on the accuracy of Wiener's portrayal. There is an article, though, in The New Republic (a book review of Novick's work on the objectivity question in history) by C. Vann Woodward which touches on the subject. To quote from Woodward:
"I offer as a codetta, this little observation about politics and strange bedfellows: both Abraham and his fiercest critic, Gerald Feldman, are signatories of the statement opposing a boycott of Israeli academics."
Followup post:
For some reason, my quote from Woodward was eliminated. Rather than chance that again, I simply refer you to The New Republic.
Ralph E. Luker - 10/20/2002
Professor Fought,
What drives you to criticize Sinjin Smith's appeal for a more civilized discourse here? He is on target, unless you wish to turn these discussions into some internet version of the Jerry Springer Show. It does no harm to show respect for those with whom you disagree.
Beyond that, those who speak of conspiracy take upon _themselves_ the full burden of proof that such a thing -- tacit or explicit -- was operative. It simply won't do to insist that Mr. Smith must now prove that there was no conspiracy.
Beyond that, your first definition covers all cooperative action, so that one must now speak of a baseball team conspiring to win a game and an orchestra to perform a masterwork. By that definition, unless all human action is individual, random and chaotic, it is by definition conspiratorial.
John G. Fought - 10/20/2002
Mr. Smith, your ex cathedra tone is perhaps a bit more dignified than your message warrants. Neither your students nor those posting messages here are likely to be shocked by what they read, and in any case, you have not been asked to be our hall monitor. Sarcasm and snideness may sometimes be an effective and well deserved counter to carelessness and pomposity. Don't you find it so?
Let me say, with as much dignity as I can summon, that your posting was quite vague, especially where it might have been most interesting. Are you yourself one of those social historians? Do they, like Bellesiles in WMQ, feel that their errors of fact are explained by claiming to write about culture? I was especially disappointed by your treatment of Mr. Williams.
Having crowned it as the most significant thread here, you then dismissed as 'unfounded' the content (you carelessly called it the 'rhetoric') of Mr. Williams' earlier posting about concerted efforts by historians, among others, to undermine the individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment. He gives names, dates, and titles. You, however, offer no evidence to support either your claim that this is what is most significant in our discussion, or that Williams is wrong about it. You might wish to look up 'conspire': you'll find that the case he makes clearly meets its broader definition, of acting in concert as if by agreement, and quite convincingly also the narrower one, of acting in concert by secret agreement. And while you're pondering the senses of words, please explain to us the difference between Cramer's suggestion that Bellesiles reviewers were duped and yours that they (wrongly) surrendered to their proclivities. Yours sounds like the same thing worded as an excuse.
Sinjin Smith - 10/19/2002
There seems to be a number of disturbingly interesting threads here worthy of commentary. The most disturbing charge is clearly that leveled by Mr. Williams. Although Bellesiles' gun rights position is well documented, as Mr. Williams points out, the rhetoric about prominent historians participating in a conspiracy to overturn the Second Amendment is unfounded. More probable, although not exactly correct in my view, is the charge by Mr. Cramer, is that reviewers were duped by Bellesiles. Duped, however, is the wrong way to see what happened initially when the accolades were heaped upon Bellesiles. Those falling all over themselves to praise Bellesiles were, more likely, guilty of surrendering to their own proclivities. The reason so many remained silent was most likely that they agreed with the argument. As others have suggested, the wrong people were reviewing the book. Not only did the lack expertise on the topic (which is more common than some will admit in the reviewing process), but their philosophical views were in accord with Bellesiles larger argument about an American gun culture.
I do not think the historians in question were allies in some ill conceived conspiracy as they were/are culpable in promoting what is, at least, a shoddy scholarly study, or at worst, a fabricated tale. They should be taken to task for allowing their own predispositions preventing them from an honest critique of the Bellesiles book.
Of a secondary nature is the accusation that it is because the field is dominated by social historians (by implication, with and agenda) that Bellesiles has not been more roundly criticized by our profession. Certainly it is true that social historians now hold sway in the field in general and, in most cases, at each institution, and that is neither an endorsement or a condemnation, but rather the reality of the field of history today. This should not, however, be used as an example why Bellesiles is not under criticism within the field. In fact, at the institution where I teach, he has been entirely discredited. Although this department is relatively small (there are 14 of us), there are four Americanists here who have expressed their views on "Arming America". Among this group, including myself, are three political and/or military historians who find the preponderence of evidence makes it clear that Bellesiles is guilty of either some of the worst scholarship in a generation or perhaps worse. Our colleague, however, represents what those supporting a conspiracy view believe the prevailing position across America's college and university campuses to be, namely that attacks on Bellesiles are politically motivated (which is certainly true in some cases) and that his work is an important refutation of one of the cornerstones to the NRA's defense of gun rights.
I have no way of knowing conclusively, but I suspect that our department is representative of the current sentiment. There are, and will continue to be, those whose own position is so connected to the Bellesiles argument that they refuse to acknowledge any flaws or violations of professional conduct, or worse, but that number does not reflect the dominant belief among the faculty. For those concerned about the state of history, and how grant money is spent, let me assure you that there are those of us who are repulsed by anyone spewing out either left or right wing rhetoric to their students. Yes, it does happen, but not as much as it seems when we historians get into these wars of words. No matter whether we support or despise Bellesiles, it cannot be denied that the entire episode, which does not seem to end, has been a colossal black eye for the field of American history.
Lastly, let me remind those adding their valuable opinions to this debate that the juvenile tone of many of the comments made here (and in the whole Bellesiles debacle in general) is hardly dignified. It is immaterial whether those making comments come from within the academic halls or outside, one would hope we could carry on this discussion with more dignity than those intoxicated California parents brawling at their sons' football game. For those of us in academe, imagine how surprised (one would hope they would be surprised) our students would be by the churlish tone of the commentary being posted here. I find the snideness in some of the comments in this thread so fundamentally insulting that it is difficult to keep track of the point being made, regardless of how valuable.
Ralph E. Luker - 10/19/2002
I would hate it if we were to leave you without something to do.
Thomas Gunn - 10/19/2002
Ralph,
I believe Bellesiles was there. I have no knowledge of who else may have been there. I've read the report at "Nation" which seems to change every time I look at it. Cramer never said he was there but he may have some information which might trap a less suspecting researcher.
I have seen Cramer's blog and thought I was up to speed on it. There is quite a lot of information swirling currently, and I missed his critique, so thank you for bringing it to my attention.
If Bellesiles was being disparaged by doubters, he should have been able to deflect the thrust. He did not, could not, and instead turned to his supporters in the audience with a look as if to say, see how I am being mistreated by the big bad gun lobby.
In any event, the fat lady is practicing scales in preparation . . .
thomas
Richard Henry Morgan - 10/19/2002
That last line of mine was a bit raw -- I apologize. I might take you up on that offer later at some point, but right now I'm a bit busy, working on a collection of essays about the intersection of politics and the writing of history, the uncritical repetition of others' work, the accretion of inaccurate material, and outright fraud. I'm gratified to say that historians have not failed to provide a good supply of examples.
Richard Henry Morgan - 10/19/2002
For some reason, my quote from Woodward was eliminated. Rather than chance that again, I simply refer you to The New Republic.
Ralph E. Luker - 10/19/2002
Thomas, If you read Clayton Cramer's response to the Weiner article closely, you'll see that he doesn't doubt that the confrontation Wiener describes took place. He obviously knows enough about it to know the racial identity of the guy with the shaved head. Maybe Cramer was there, but add his testimony to Wiener's and Bellesiles's. You still doubt? I have trouble believing that all three of them are lying.
Ralph E. Luker - 10/19/2002
Thanks to all for the corrections (especially the attention to typos), but I remind Mr. Morgan that I was responding, less to Wiener's article, about which I have many reservations, but to Thomas's objection to Professor Solomon's term, "NRA goons."
If Mr. Morgan cares to read some good history, even surpassing his high standards, I have several titles to recommend.
Richard Henry Morgan - 10/19/2002
People familiar with the facts surrounding the Bellesiles case no doubt read Wiener with amazement, but there is a precursor in his background -- Wiener's writing on the David Abraham case in The Nation, back in 1985. Therein, Abraham is cast as a victim of a right-wing cabal who somehow overwhelmed academia and intimidated (get this!) UC Santa Cruz (of all places!!) from hiring Abraham. Not being fully conversant with the issues in that case, I can't comment on the accuracy of Wiener's portrayal. There is an article, though, in The New Republic (a book review of Novick's work on the objectivity question in history) by C. Vann Woodward which touches on the subject. To quote from Woodward:
>
I offer as a codetta, this little observation about politics and strange bedfellows: both Abraham and his fiercest critic, Gerald Feldman, are signatories of the statement opposing a boycott of Israeli academics.
Richard Henry Morgan - 10/19/2002
For the reading-challenged, Wiener did not identify the four men as NRA members, it was Prof. Solomon, in defending Lindgren, that identified tham as "NRA goons". Somehow, Ralph, you managed to elevate them to "NRA representatives", and then put that description within the perception of Wiener and Bellesiles. Talk about playing telephone. It's a wonder any good history gets written with standards like that.
w whitelaw - 10/19/2002
Speaking as a gun-hugger, I'd like to point out that I know how to spell "primitive." Or perhaps the perceived error is actually a neologism based on "primate"? Sorry, that's not an insult, until some grad student working on his cladistics degree reclassifies H. Sapiens out of the order Primata. But moving on ... my questions are, how can anyone still consider Bellisles' personal testimony about anything whatsoever to be "evidence" (that's rhetorical, I expect no coherent answer)? Second, is there some evidence linking the notorious goons to the NRA? Bumper stickers adhering to their microcephalic appendages? Anything concrete, or is this just another smear-a-thon?
Rossz - 10/19/2002
> "gun-hugging primatives."
More attempts at using emotition rather than evidence in an argument. You have already decided that gun owner == nut case, and would rather not deal with evidence to the contrary. On that note, I can assume you are a reactionary left-winger who prefers to ignore any evidence that challenges your precious beliefs.
Oh, and I'm not a Republican or an NRA member.
Ralph E. Luker - 10/19/2002
Get over it, Thomas. Wiener and Bellesiles were there. That's two witnesses and, undoubtedly, if necessary they could produce the names of other persons who witnessed the event. Personal testimony is evidence.
Representatives of the NRA may not like being referred to as "goons." Objection noted. I prefer to think of them as "gun-hugging primatives."
The quality of the exchange between the NRA representatives and Bellesiles, even according to Wiener's account, leaves much to be desired. The NRA guys repeatedly asked the same question based on their personal knowledge of 20th century wills in probate, as if that were relevant. Bellesiles's generalization about 18th century probate records was inaccurate according to experts in the matter. As in so much of the discussion on HNN, the two sides were speaking past each other -- a function of intense political agenda, rather than genuine intellectual inquiry.
Thomas Gunn - 10/19/2002
Much has changed.
thomas
Thomas Gunn - 10/19/2002
Tabacca chewin' allowed, bubba?
Oh, my smile has a few gaps in it too, will that be a problem?
thomas
J. Merrett - 10/19/2002
For Immediate Hire. This is an entry level position with the Academic Field Office of the National Rifle Association. The position is designated as Goon I, but applicants' experience and education may warrant hire at Goon II or Supervising Goon level.
The successful applicant will have extensive training and experience in vicious thuggery, such as the posing of mildly confrontational questions in public fora, leafletting, and critical thinking. The employer will post bail when necessary.
Employee must provide flak jacket, bib overalls, camouflage T-shirt, vaguely unsettling hairstyle and/or other academically recognized indicia of goonhood/thuggishness. Pay commensurate with qualifications. Travel paid by employer. Apply in person at 11250 Waples Mills Road, Fairfax, Virginia.
Thomas Gunn - 10/19/2002
There is no justification for an appeal to emotion in a scholarly debate. And that is exactly what "NRA goon" was, an appeal to emotion. There isn't even any evidence that such a confrontation occurred, but it makes good copy.
Note also how the attempt is made to engender sympathy for Bellesiles b/c he was allegedly confronted by the "goons of the NRA". Note also the failure to acknowledge the amateur historians who raised red flags about Bellesiles in 1996. eg Cramer.
thomas
Andrew Frechtling - 10/19/2002
Dear Professor Solomon -
Nice rebuttal to Professor Wiener's attack, but I have to question your use of the words "By implying a linkage between four NRA goons who are unfairly and outrageously harassing Professor Bellesiles ...."
Now exactly what makes a man a goon? Is it that he's big? I'm a big man and a life member of the NRA... does that make me a goon?
What sort of unfair and outrageous harassment was cited by Professor Wiener? Asking a speaker questions at an open forum on campus? Passing out leaflets documenting another view of the relevant historical material? One that, in the end, seems to have been much more accurate than Professor Bellesiles'.
Thomas Gunn - 10/19/2002
to the report of "four NRA goons who are unfairly and outrageously harassing Professor Bellesiles?"
I have seen unsubstantiated reports of four unshaven men in flak jackets handing out pamphlets at a speech by professor Bellesiles, and their subsequent questions. This is the first time I have seen that incident described as 'outrageous harassment', by 'NRA goons'. (Did any such thing actually occur? There are myriad reports that professor Bellesiles made statements and acusations that can not be confirmed and great doubt cast upon his veracity. eg. the office door set afire, forced to move due to threats, the flood which destroyed the yellow legal pads, web site hacking.}
Isn't it bad enough Wiener uses a shibboleth to paint Lindgren without you embellishing it and then using it to paint the NRA?
thomas
Rayman L. Solomon - 10/19/2002
Professor Wiener asks "Who is James Lindgren?" I can say that I first met Jim in Law School at the University of Chicago in the mid-1970's. We worked together at the American Bar Foundation as research fellows for several years. We taught together recently at Northwestern University Law School for several years (we both teach Trusts & Estates) before I moved to Rutgers-Camden Law School as Dean. In addition to my law degree I have a PhD in American legal history from the University of Chicago. Jim is a meticulous researcher who has written numerous articles where he challenges commonly held assumptions or accepted theses by examining or reexamining the empirical bases upon which the thesis rests. Do I always agree with every methodological choice Jim makes? No. Do I wish sometimes that his conclusions did not undercut political positions I hold dear? Yes. But do I ever doubt the integrity of his research? Absolutely not – never. Over the years I have watched as he meticulously and thoroughly conducted research projects (including his examination of the Philadelphia colonial probate records for this project) and I have always admired his tenacity in trying to be accurate and honest to the sources.
For Professor Weiner to attack him by questioning his motives though association with other work Professor Lindgren has done is wrong. He should ask whether Professor Lindgren’s research is accurate. By implying a linkage between four NRA goons who are unfairly and outrageously harassing Professor Bellesiles and what Jim Lindgren is doing borders on the outrageous. Professor Lindgren has confined his “attacks” to the scholarly evidence and to debates in journals. This is what scholars are supposed to do. Professor Weiner should recognize this and join that debate -- not try to engage in guilt by association.
One of Professor Lindgren’s first public scholarly papers challenging Arming America was presented at a panel at the annual meeting of the Association of American Law Schools. An eminent empirical scholar from the Law & Society movement, who shares my liberal politics, turned to me after Jim’s paper (he did not know Professor Lindgren) and said, “I do not know the Bellesiles’ book, but it seems to me that Lindgren has raised enough doubt for the burden to be shifted to Bellesiles to explain the inconsistencies and errors.” Unfortunately, Professor Bellesiles has yet to do that. Professor Weiner has not advanced that effort either.
Don Williams - 10/19/2002
I sent The Nation a copy of the above post -- I'll see how
they respond.
Everyone have a good weekend.
Don Williams - 10/19/2002
In my opinion, the article by Nation magazine is similar to Arming America -- it greatly misleads the reader by cherrypicking secondary sources, by selectively quoting from sources and by leaving out major pieces of information which conflict with it's polemical argument.
a) It fails to note Ira Gruber's criticism of Arming America in the January 2002 Williams and Mary Quarterly.
b) The Nation fails to note the primary thrust of the Chronicle of Higher Education's article: to level scathing criticism on the historical community for letting Arming America skate through peer review. See
http://chronicle.com/free/v48/i21/21a01201.htm . Note how The Nation quoted selected sentences from the Chronicle but it did not give it's readers a URL link to the Chronicle's article.
c) The Nation fails to note that Arming America and Bellesiles' other articles were part of a concerted campaign by some historians to overturn the Second Amendment in the US vs Emerson Supreme Court case. It fails to note Bellesiles' personal involvment in that campaign. (See my article at History News Network:
http://historynewsnetwork.org/articles/article.html?id=741 )
The Nation lets Michael Zuckerman, "professor of history at the University of Pennsylvania and a prominent Americanist" render the final beneficent judgment on Bellesiles. Note how the Nation fails to inform the reader that Zuckerman was one of 53 professors who joined with Michael Bellesiles in signing the Yassky Brief -- the primary argument submitted by pro-gun control forces in the Supreme Court case US vs Emerson. See http://www.potomac-inc.org/yass.html -- scroll to signers at the bottom .
d) The Nation fails to mention the past six months of criticism leveled at Bellesiles and Arming America in the historians' H-OIEAHC list (See http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=lm&list;=h-oieahc starting with February. )
e) I posted a number of Bellesiles criticisms at H-OIEAHC but others have as well. Stanford historian Jack Rakove (cited in the Nation article) participated in that discussion but he didn't ,in my opinion, try put up much of a defense of Arming America.
John G. Fought - 10/19/2002
Having read Wiener's piece in the Nation, I can only wonder where he has been lately. He must not have looked at any of the critical work that has come out over the last two years, except for the titles and author's names. It's really true that there is a disorder aptly named, by Kates, I think, 'gun-aversive dyslexia'. Nothing troublesome sinks in at all.
There are many rhetorical gems packed into it, though. My favorite is the Four Very Large Men. Imagine them hulking menacingly (that shaved head!), but surely not in flak jackets -- those had steel plate inserts, weighed 20 pounds or more, and were issued to WWII Air Force personnel. Watch one of the Odes to Strategic Bombing films from the period and you can see plenty of them. Not suitable for evening wear. He probably meant field jackets. Anyway, there they were, PASSING OUT LEAFLETS ON A COLLEGE CAMPUS! No wonder the students gazed up with big Bambi eyes at Prof. Wiener. Maybe that made them miss the similarity of the Large Men's probate questions to the ones raised in the WMQ forum articles and elsewhere. Wiener certainly missed it, but then he probably gets all of his information directly from Bellesiles. He's a professor at UC Irvine, you see, where Bellesiles got his doctorate in 1986. I checked and found that Wiener was not on B's dissertation committee, so he wasn't blowing smoke to hide himself behind. But they do have very similar writing and thinking styles: selective yet careless, and, shall we say, inventive. I wonder if you can spot an Irvine historian anywhere?
I was not impressed, and I don't think I was fooled, by the possibility of demotion as an outcome. For Emory it has no advantages at all: it implies B's guilt, but opens the door to reinstatement and puts him right back in the classroom. I suspect that this is just a trial balloon launched by B, despite the coy claim Wiener made that 'Michael couldn't comment'. Wouldn't that be an inspiring outcome? "OK, they caught you this time, so we're going to make you an associate prof again for a while. If we don't catch you next time, we can promote you all over again in a couple of years, when this has all blown over." Of all the possible outcomes except acquittal on all counts, this would be the worst PR for Emory. Bellesiles would become the first academic Roadside Attraction.
Christopher Miller - 10/18/2002
Clayton,
Regardless of the merits of your agrument against MB, even assuming his guilt does not lead to the conclusion that an ENTIRE GENERATION of historians are misfits and untruthful. Such an accusation is childish; you have at best implicated 30 or so historians, and have not even proved that all of them acted out of malice. I bear no love for the current orthodoxy in the historical field, and indeed, I often find it distasteful. But merely holding opinions different from yours is not the sympton of a deep rooted affliction within an entire generation of scholars.
Christopher Miller
Marquette University
tosaboy@peoplepc.com
Christopher Miller - 10/18/2002
Clayton,
Regardless of the merits of your agrument against MB, even assuming his guilt does not lead to the conclusion that an ENTIRE GENERATION of historians are misfits and untruthful. Such an accusation is childish; you have at best implicated 30 or so historians, and have not even proved that all of them acted out of malice. I bear no love for the current orthodoxy in the historical field, and indeed, I often find it distasteful. But merely holding opinions different from yours is not the sympton of a deep rooted affliction within an entire generation of scholars.
J. Merrett - 10/18/2002
Why am I not surprised that Wiener entirely avoids mention of Bellesiles' abuse of travelogues and other original sources?
Clayton E. Cramer - 10/18/2002
A detailed criticism of Weiner's pathetic defense of Bellesiles can be found at http://www.claytoncramer.com/weblog/2002_10_13_archive.html#83170442.
Andrew Frechtling - 10/18/2002
But what to make of Prof Wiener's imputations about the intellectual honesty of HNN's own frequent contributor, Professor Sternstein?
Wiener wrote: "The lengths that critics will go to discredit Bellesiles are at least creative: Professor Jerome Sternstein of Brooklyn College put a dozen legal pads in his own shower for thirty minutes and reported to the world that they survived "intact and virtually unscathed"!" (Mental image of Sternstein as a mad scientist, pouring torrents of water over helpless yellow legal pads!)
Now if Professor Sternstein accurately reported the results of his simple experiment, it is quite likely that Prof Bellesiles' claim to having had his notes turned into unreadable pulp by a burst pipe will - pardon the expression - "not hold water". So one of these two is not exactly telling the truth. And not just about a peripheral issue -- it goes to the heart of Prof Bellesiles' inability to produce original data for other researchers to examine.
Richard Henry Morgan - 10/18/2002
There is a method to Weiner's madness -- he's obviously trying to make Bellesiles appear a model of intellectual honesty, if only in contrast to Weiner himself.
Richard Henry Morgan - 10/18/2002
Yes, Mr. Merret, you could be a hero that way -- but think of the work involved. Wouldn't it just be so much easier to write a book claiming to demonstrate that Dante was actually, say, a lesbian Eskimo, and that the Divine Comedy is, au fond, an allegorical critique of oppressive, proto-capitalist, phallocentric enforcement of gender roles in early 14th century Florence? Think of the possibilities. You'd be elected president of the MLA. You'd receive a MacArthur "genius" grant. The only drawback would be that you'd have to deal with Stanley Fish trying to recruit you to the University of Illinois, Chicago Circle.
Andrew Frechtling - 10/18/2002
And now we are starting to see revisionism of the revisionism! The Nation has just published Professor Jon Wiener’s comic-mythic retelling of the whole sorry Bellesiles story : read it at http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20021104&s;=wiener .
Some choice bits from Prof Wiener: “Edmund Morgan, the award-winning Yale historian,” is cited as having written a very favorable review in The New York Review of Books. In contrast, “Clayton Cramer, a gun activist and amateur historian who savaged Bellesiles on the National Review website and who writes about him regularly for Shotgun News, pleads on his own website for readers to support his campaign against Bellesiles by sending him money.” (Mental image of Cramer as Oliver Twist, holding out his porridge bowl and asking, "Please,sir, may I have some more?")
“So gun-rights groups targeted Bellesiles and his book, and large men in flak jackets came to his talk at Irvine and other places. “ (At 6’4” and 230 pounds, I must protest this gratuitous insult to large men!)
“ Who is James Lindgren? He told me he has no connection to the NRA and has never been a member or accepted funding from the group; furthermore, he contends that he is pro-gun control, dislikes guns and has never owned one. He accuses Bellesiles of bias, but apparently has some of his own: Before he weighed in on the Bellesiles debate, he published an article using data gathered by the right-wing Federalist Society that purports to prove the American Bar Association has been biased against George W. Bush's judicial nominees.” ("Breath-taking non-sequitur" is a cliché, but all else fails me here.)
Is this the best Bellesiles's defenders can do?
J. Merrett - 10/18/2002
This seems an appropriate moment for a profound mea culpa.
Having re-read the response to my post "Nothing like a pig roast," I have decided that I should review my comments and my attitude.
Upon reflection, I wish to say that
1. "Sources" are only clay on the wheel of the real historian, and may be legitimately formed to any shape so long as one's purpose is politically unimpeachable.
2. "Truth," (whatever that means) is a crypto-fascistic construct which must never be allowed to intrude upon the metamythical narative which underlies the people's drive toward transhistorical paramountcy.
3. Narrative accuracy is a bourgeoise hurdle intended to tie the study of history to a pedestrian and wealth-oriented obsession with mere events.
4. If I wake up tomorrow and write a book declaring that Andrew Jackson was actually an elderly Cherokee woman, I will be a hero to many readers of HNN, provided my motives are aligned with their political aspirations.
Don Williams - 10/17/2002
Mr Luker, my understanding is that Emory's decision on Bellesiles' appeal is due October 23-24? I base this opinion on the timelime prescribed in Emory's procedures for a formal investigation:(Source:http://www.osp.emory.edu/share/policies/misconduct.html )
0) T+ 0: Charge
--- Feb 7 announcement that Emory beginning formal process
1) Next 30 days: Prelim investigation to be done
2) Next 30 days: Dean is to consider prelim results and decide whether to initiate formal investigation:
--- April 25--Emory announces formal investigation a little more than 60 days after Feb 7
3) Next 90 days: formal investigation, results to dean;
--- July 23 --investigation reported concluded, roughly prescribed 90 days from start of
formal investigation on April 25
---dean on vacat until aug 7?
4) Next 30 days: investigation to be completed (within 120 days from start of formal investigation)
-- .--Dean calls off announcement Aug 22 --roughly 120 days after April 25
4) Next 30 days: review by accused, decision of whether to appeal: Sept 24--Emory Provost announces Bellesiles appeal roughly 30 days after news item on Dean rescinding Aug 22 announcement
5) Next 30 days: Appeal Committee considers appeal,decides whether appeal valid, reports to Provost:
--> Appeal Committee decision is due by Oct 23-24??
6) TBD* days: reinvestigation if appeal sustained
TBD= To Be Determined
Eric - 10/14/2002
Read read
Ronald Best - 10/14/2002
I too am a member of the National Rifle Association. Currently an Endowment Member and a Life Member since 1968. I am also active in Colorado shooting sports, a former competitive rifle shooter, a hunter and gun collector and a match director of one of the most distinguished gun clubs in the West. I may be just a dumb retired mechanical and aerospace engineer, but I know quite a lot about the history of firearms in North America.
I have read Michael Bellesiles' book; there are so many outrageous "facts" in it that it is difficult for someone who has a knowledge of firearms to concentrate on reading the book cover to cover. It is a fraud. The critics of the NRA and Knopf owe a very large apology to the NRA and its members who helped to expose this fraud.
I agree with Clayton Cramer that a class action suit against Knopf would be a good thing to quote Martha Stewart.
Clyde Howard - 10/12/2002
Well, I don't see the Bellesiles situation as involving any sort of witch-hunt. More like a hunt for a rabid skunk known to be at alrge in the community, a beast atht needs, for the protection of all, to be identified, located and shot down. And its head sent to the state laboratory for examination.
Bellesiles has dishonored a (generally) honorable profession, duped (or attempted to dupe) the American public and the academic and political communities and generally behaved in a fashion that is worthy of the most condign of punishments.
If the NRA hasn't appeared in this venue, it has certainly (and properly) been active in making Bellesiles duplicity known to its membership and has attempted to make the public at large aware of the lies spread by the creature. I may be rendering myself either persona non grata or marginalized by the following admission; if so, so be it, but as it happens I am and have been for 35 years a Life Member of the NRA. I was a Junior Memeber and an annual member for around ten years before i went on active duty as an Army officer and could aford a Life membership. I haven't ever regretted NRA membership, though I sometimes find myself in disagreement with some positions (or tactics) the organization takes.
Ralph E. Luker - 10/9/2002
Mr. Williams,
I am a patient man and am willing to concern myself in the next week with things other than guessing what mysterious wisdom occupies your head. Shall we assume, O silent one, that you believe that there will be a public announcement from Emory University by 15 October which will allow you then to say: "Ah, just as I thought ..."?
Don Williams - 10/9/2002
Mr Luker and I had a discussion re Arming America and the nature of sophistry on October 3 at the now-archived Sternstein article.
( see http://hnn.us/articles/996.html )
Some of you may be mildly amused by it -- especially by a small puzzle I presented to Mr Luker -- and my explanation to him re why I wouldn't give him the answer right away.
Maybe he can provide the answer here by , say, October 15?
Clyde Howard - 10/8/2002
This is a bit late in this string - BUT a rifle using a patched ball (teh common hunting rifle of the time, the sort usually called a "Kentucky" by folks outside the arms collecting fraternity and a Pennsylvania or simply long rifle by those who collect0 isn't actually much (if any) slower to reload tahn a common musket, at least in the hands of a skilled user.
What it lacks, for 18th century military purposes, includes no ability to use a bayonet (as Mr. Lloyd mentioend), a user who is trained in volley firea t a massed target, and robustness. Not to mention standardized bore, of course. It was not well adapted for linear tactics, and linear tactics are what were needed to deal with regulars, at least if they were formed. If you could get the Brits broken up and engaged in a dispersed fight, riflemen did quite well - look at Cowpens or King's Mountain for efective fighting by the "Over Mountain Men".
John G. Fought - 10/8/2002
Strange. Did you read all of the postings? The witch-hunt view is found in a small minority, and the NRA hasn't set foot here. Are you for real, Anon? 'You' sound like a leftie provocateur, a little too earnest. The sneer isn't quite convincing. In case 'you' are for real, though, please note that there are lots of people who see both campaigns as good reporting; others, like 'you', appear to see any attack on right-wing extremists as necessarily a witch-hunt. This bias might be clearer if 'you' read anything more liberal than Der Sturmer. Or maybe you get all your information from the sock puppets on Fox. To me, one of the most interesting manifestations of authoritarian hard right bias, such as 'yours', is all the whining about unfairness that starts up whenever your own ox is the one that's gored. Are 'you' actually still whining about Bork? Remarkable. Hey, too bad about that McCarthy guy too.
anon. - 10/8/2002
How come a smear campaign by highly biased jounalists and bedfellow political groups against Robert Bork or Clarence Thomas (et. al.) is deemed "good reporting" or "accuracy" or "the American political process at work," whereas the current crisis in the Academy over Mr. Bellisles "a witchhunt....carried on by the NRA........"?????
Thomas L. Spencer - 10/6/2002
Mr. Cramer, unfortunately, has some good points. I might add that it appears that, to let such massive amounts of blather slip by, a number of members of the history profession appear to be sorely in need of remedial course work in historical method. This allegedly went through "peer review"?
Clayton E. Cramer - 10/4/2002
"Conspiracies can and do occur. If my fellow historians were executing one, I'd like to think that they could do a better job than this."
Sorry, Mr. Luker, but what has come out of the scandal is the realization that a whole generation of historians has grown up, gotten their PhD, and an academic appointment, whose arrogance and ignorance prevented them from realizing that:
1. They were snookered by Bellesiles.
2. That people outside the academic community not only know how to read, but know how to use a university library to check sources.
This isn't just Bellesiles's hubris undoing him; it's the historical profession as a whole.
Clayton E. Cramer - 10/4/2002
Actually, Mr. Luker, it is a question of universal disarmament of the civilian population. Talk to the Violence Policy Center.
Clayton E. Cramer - 10/4/2002
There are several points that Bellesiles makes that are correct. Militias weren't spectacularly effective; American colonists obtained much of their meat by purchase from the Indians; colonial law was not laissez-faire with respect to guns. But that's all the significant points that Bellesiles made that were correct.
Clayton E. Cramer - 10/4/2002
It is hard for me to feel much joy about what has happened.
Justice is finally happening, but it's like watching someone
walk to the electric chair. It didn't HAVE to happen.
Professor Bellesiles made the decision to lie--not shade the truth, but outright lie, and on a massive scale. He lied when he wrote the book; when he wrote article after article about what a dramatic change in our understanding of history this would cause; when he wrote amicus curiae in the Emerson case; when he responded to the first polite, then pointed criticisms.
The only person directly responsible for what is going to happen to Michael Bellesiles is Michael Bellesiles. Yes, the historical profession as a whole, because of its unwillingness to allow political diversity within the profession, encouraged this, and they should feel some discomfort because of it.
But I am not gloating. I'm just very hurt by the snotty and nasty tone of academics who simply refused to listen when I had detailed examples of VERY serious problems in _Arming America_--and they decided to just blow it off, because truth doesn't exist in the post-modernist world of American history.
Alec Lloyd - 10/4/2002
Personally, I love that defense:
“Oh, historians are far too SMART to do something that stupid.”
Uh, yeah. Given the level of research used in Arming America, you’re going to have a tough job proving that intelligence argument.
Thomas Gunn - 9/27/2002
I apologize to everyone for my unfortunate choice of words, and specifically to those personally offended.
I offer no excuses for my lapse of decorum (I should know better) and promise to do better in the future.
I thank those who pointed out my failure.
Sincerely,
thomas
Thomas Gunn - 9/27/2002
Ralph,
[I really don't believe that Michael cooked evidence to sustain a gun-control case in court. How smart would that be?]
Criminals never _expect_ to get caught.
Remember that _Emerson_ was decided before AA was disgraced.
I do appreciate you're not reusing the shibboleth, "guns in cribs", and "guns 'n crims". Pro-rights is like pegnancy, in that ya can't be a little bit.
thomas
Rick Tan - 9/26/2002
Richard, you are so correct on this point. When word spread about the publication of the Bellisiles book, pro-rights forces were alerted to it, but criticism was not put forth until time was given to digest the book's premise.
You have various pro-rights organizations saying how the book is flawed, and they show proof of their assertions. Why do we not see the opposite from the gun-control organizations such as HCI, VPC and AGS? Can't they come up with proof that the book is correct? These groups were confident enough with accuracy of the book that they used it in an amicus curae brief in the US vs Emerson case.
Can it be that the gun-control forces encouraged the publication of this book, hoping that it would be firmly entrenched as time goes by and its assertions were not challenged, or not challenged in a timely manner? Or is it that the gun-control forces cannot be bothered with details as they strive to blaze a path to the nirvana of gun prohibition, and they cannot be detracted from that goal.
I pose to you a fact. In the VPC/MMM's website, regarding the Merrill vs Navegar case, why isn't the original trial court opinion and the Supreme Court opinion NOT included. Wouldn't it make the discussion complete if it were? Or could it be that since the trial court and the Supreme Court opinions ran counter to the VPC's wishes, it would undermine VPC's position if they were included.
John Rosevear - 9/26/2002
Mr. Luker:
Thank you for the suggestion, but I am content with my size.
Ralph E. Luker - 9/26/2002
Mr. Rosevear,
You need to see your shrink immediately.
Ralph E. Luker - 9/26/2002
Last time I checked, Thomas, "pro-life" advocates were capable of all sorts of emotional appeals.
Ralph E. Luker - 9/26/2002
Thomas,
I will continue to resist your characterization of my position as "anti-rights," just as people who favor the availability of abortion options resist being labeled "anti-life."
The problem with labeling is that it caricatures your dialogical opposite. Like most people, if I have to be labeled, I prefer to choose my own labels. I once taught at an "academic institution" where positive labels were invented for opposite conditions. One dorm was labeled "substance free." Another dorm was called "substance tolerant." In the latter, students could drink and smoke their college years away. In the former, students did not have to put up with their indulgent fellow students. Labels don't really foster dialogue. They just label.
As for _Emerson_, your allies have effectively argued that if Bellesiles' book was intended to undergird a gun control position in the case, he has shot that position in the foot. That is why I would continue to say to Don that if there were a conspiracy among my fellow historians I believe they are capable of organizing a more effective one than Don is capable of documenting. I really don't believe that Michael cooked evidence to sustain a gun-control case in court. How smart would that be?
John Rosevear - 9/26/2002
Gloating is indeed unseemly. But if it is indeed true that Bellesiles repeatedly and maliciously falsified research as part of a coordinated attempt to overturn part of the United States Constitution, and the preponderance of the evidence would seem to suggest that it *is* true, then he should be prepared to live with the consequences. I submit that justice would require a bit of gloating on the part of those he so savagely insulted, together with the deprivation of his current livelihood and banishment to a truck-stop in some God-forsaken part of Idaho, there to flip burgers and endure the impolite attentions of large, restless, unwashed men, broken, pitiful and pathetic, for the remainder of his shabby and unpleasant existence.
Kevin Hurst - 9/26/2002
Interestingly, I believe Bellesiles started the Emory Violence Studies curriculum along with Arthur Kellerman, that oh-so careful anti-gun scholar. Certainly, Bellesiles was heavily involved in anti-gun rights advocacy well before ARMING AMERICA was published.
I am not in a position to judge your claims of conspiracy, but I would like to suggest a simpler explanation. The Americanist side of the history departments with which I am familiar are exclusively the province of social history types. Nothing wrong with much social history, but there is a disturbing provincialism in their outlook. Thus, the Bancroft Committee does not feel embarrassed to assign a Jewish Studies prof. and a Women's studies prof. to judge ARMING AMERICA. The reason the book sailed through the reviews relatively unscathed is because very few of the reviewers possessed expertise in the areas necessary to review the book. No matter how well Gary Wills may think he understands the etymology of "arms", that doesn't qualify him to review the book. Military historians generally ignore the rest of academia and vice versa. Anyway, as I well know, you can make a lot more money as a military historian outside academia. Thus, the people most likely to say that something is wrong with this book without alot of effort were not paying attention. A historian colleague of mine who is an expert on tactics in the 18th and 19th centuries first looked at the book only 6 months ago at my urging. He read several pages and threw the book down in disgust. When I told him it had received the Bancroft Prize, he looked at me dumbfounded. Or maybe the reviewers merely gave the book the weight test...
Thomas Gunn - 9/26/2002
Ralph,
I'm afraid you've stired the pot. The "waves of democracy" are about to spread across these pages like ocean waves upon the shores of a storm tossed sea.
Your reply to Don Williams is typical of the anti-rights side. You don't answer the charges, you don't acknowledge looking at the evidence, you criticise a conclusion with, "I'd like to think that they {AR historian} could do a better job than this {at conspiracy)."
thomas
Don Williams - 9/26/2002
Oh, I don't know, Mr. Luker. My "conspiracy theory" might explain how Arming America and Bellesiles' associated papers sailed through the historical community's peer review, wouldn't it?
It might explain why prominent historians could cite Bellesiles and Arming America so frequently, apparently without the qualms we non-historians felt when we compared Arming America to the works of other historians --Babits, Fischer, Remini,Judith McGaw, etc -- and to primary sources.
It might explain why the primary criticisms of Arming America --the exposure of it's flaws --have been made by Clayton Cramer and Professor Lindgren -- men outside the historical profession and hence immune to retaliation. Where would we be today if those men had not sacrificed so much of their unpaid time -- while the historical community feasted on its grants from the taxpayers and remained silent?
It might also explain the relative silence within the historical community even after questions arose.
It does make one wonder whether much of what we receive as "Truth" from the univerity might be highly misleading sophistry. Maybe America will begin to ask why they should pay $130,000 to send their children to history departments. Maybe there will be a dropoff in enrollment if students decide that a History major only prepares one to be a corporate accountant.
Ever read any Michael Foucault?
Thoma Gunn - 9/26/2002
Ralph,
I say again, in our discussion, it was not the pro-rights side which brought up the guns in cradles, yet when confronted with that *fact* you repeat the emotion provoking charge and make a judgement based upon it.
These lines, "It will be decided by better qualified people than I. The flaws in Michael's work should make little difference in that decision." are very telling. You must know, Michael Bellisiles and his fictional account of narrow-spread ownership of guns antebellum, was used in a 5th circuit court case (emerson) to bolster the 'collective rights' claim. That is the reason the pro-rights side is up in arms so to speak and why truth matters.
thomas
Kevin Hurst - 9/26/2002
Mr. Luker,
I stand by my statement that the portions of Bellesiles' book that deal with military history can be divided into banal observations on peripheral matters and substantive points that can be characterized fairly as "lies". If you want to offer a rebuttal of this, please enlighten us. Of course, you plead ignorance when asked to defend your assertions, yet still feel qualified to constantly downplay the scope of Bellesiles' transgressions.
Of course, I think I can guess that you weren't on the debate team given the ridiculous babies and guns analogy. Perhaps you would like to share with us a "gun absolutist" who is advancing such a right...not that any baby could pull the trigger.
Ralph E. Luker - 9/26/2002
Mr. Williams,
If "Bellesiles' "Arming America" was part of a coordinated campaign by some prominent historians to overturn the Second Amendment in the Supreme Court case US vs Emerson," as you insist, it wasn't very well coordinated was it?
Conspiracies can and do occur. If my fellow historians were executing one, I'd like to think that they could do a better job than this.
Don Williams - 9/26/2002
Mr Luker, it seems to me that Bellesiles' "Arming America" was part of a coordinated campaign by some prominent historians to overturn the Second Amendment in the Supreme Court case US vs Emerson, as explained here at HNN by my article at http://historynewsnetwork.org/articles/article.html?id=741 .
It seems to me that Bellesiles circa 1999 was a middle-aged associate professor with a family to feed who was overwhelmed by
the patronage of the leaders in his field --patronage he received because he was supporting their ideological agenda. Now they appear to have abandoned him.
Have members of the historical community been reluctant to criticize "Arming America" for fear of hurting their careers by
offending Saul Cornell, Don Higginbotham, Jack Rakove,Garry Wills etc?
It might be possible to feel some regret for Bellesiles if not for his past behavior.
In his November 2001 letter to OAH, Bellesiles stated
"Arming America does not, to my knowledge, support
any contemporary political position." [ See http://www.oah.org/pubs/nl/2001nov/bellesiles.html ]
Was that an honest statement, given the heavy involvement of Bellesiles and "Arming America" in the gun-control campaign in US vs Emerson, as described above??
The acknowledged purpose of the Chicago-Kent Symposium was to advocate the "collective right" interpretation of the Second Amendment-- the interpretation which supports gun control. If Arming America was not intended to support gun control, why was Bellesiles invited to the Symposium
and why did he present a slightly modified version of Chapter Seven of Arming America to the Symposium? In a detailed critique
of Chapter Seven I posted on H-OIEAHC, I noted "page 214 /paragraph one of Arming America confirms that the "point" of Chapter Seven is "the historical context" of the Second Amendment. Yet an examination of the primary points made
in Chapter Seven show that it is an incomplete and misleading
historical narrative which is heavily slanted against the “individual right” interpretation of the Second Amendment"
[http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list;=h-oieahc&month;=0206&week;=c&msg;=l1zZ8lNGOUj3GQG41w32Fw&user;=&pw;= ]
Do you think Bellesiles' OAH statement was honest given his presentation at the February 16, 2000 Symposium hosted in Washington DC by the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence? The
stated purpose of the Symposium was "to challenge the gun lobby's on-going campaign of misinformation about the Second Amendment." See http://www.gunlawsuits.org/defend/second/symposium/symposium.asp .
NOTE: If the above page seems to still be loading after 5 seconds, hit STOP to see it.
Bellesiles' presentation starts on page 68 of the Symposium's Transcript. See how he notes that the upcoming publication of "Arming America" will provide detailed evidence for the points he is making in the presentation?
Re feeling sorry for Bellesiles, you might listen to the snide way in which he criticizes Joyce Malcolm's work. To do that ,
go to the page with AUDIO files of the presentation at http://www.gunlawsuits.org/defend/second/symposium/audio.asp and
select "British Heritage of the Right to Gun Ownership". Note the smug laughter of the audience. Some of Bellesiles other witticisms re the NRA are on the other audio files. Enjoy.
Ralph E. Luker - 9/26/2002
Mr. Lloyd, You don't seem to want to understand that the debate is about degrees of restriction. It isn't a debate between universal armament and universal disarmament.
Alec Lloyd - 9/26/2002
Given that there is a no credible organization lobbying for infant possession of firearms, Mr. Luker’s point was, well, pointless.
There ARE organizations urging a total ban on firearm ownership and to say anything less is disingenuous.
These anti-rights organizations may dissemble their purpose under the guise of “gun safety,” but that is only because they know they lack public support for their agenda.
http://www.instapundit.com/archives/003926.php has a series of links revealing this connection.
And we are expected to believe gun owners are paranoid…
Ralph E. Luker - 9/26/2002
Thomas, I "went there" simply to make the obvious point that there are no sane absolutist gun rights advocates, so the debates take place, not between those who would ban their manufacture absolutely and those who would have a loaded pistol ready at child birth to thrust it into a newborn's little hand, but among people on a spectrum of attitudes about gun control. My position on the constitutional question makes little difference. It will be decided by better qualified people than I. The flaws in Michael's work should make little difference in that decision.
J.Merrett - 9/26/2002
One last question for Mr. Luker: I understand your belief that Michael Bellesiles should be an object of understanding for what "went terribly wrong" with "Arming America." You hold that the fact that he deliberately lied, fabricated sources, distorted sources, attacked honest detractors, and betrayed every precept of his profession should lead us to quiet pity rather than condemnation and ridicule. I understand. _That_ sort of intentional wrongdoing, you say, shouldn't be exposed, ridiculed, and condemned, it should be understood.
The question is this: What on God's green Earth _would_ you condemn? Driving an SUV? Pitching beer bottles in the trash rather than the recycle bin? Thinking unkind thoughts about others? Please, please, tell us what is a sufficient evil to warrant open condemnation, if Bellesiles' wrongdoings are not?
J. Merrett - 9/26/2002
Again, I ask that you "tell what you can possibly mean when you suggest that 'something went terribly wrong?' Do you think that Bellesiles had written a factual and honest work, and accidently spilled a cup of falsehood on the manuscript before sending it to his publisher? That he meant something other than smug and arrogant condescension with his "Professor Heston" comment and his attacks on Clayton Cramer?"
Bellesiles did not slip up, or fall. He lied and became vicious when challenged. You DID urge that we look at the "personal tragedy" suffered by poor dear Michael. That is sniffling - nauseating sniffling.
Do you think that the appropriate response to the capture, conviction, and incarceration of street criminals is quiet reflection on the tragedy of their misguided lives? Should we quietly mutter to ourselves that there, but for the grace of God, go we? Bellesiles did a blatant, premeditated, advised, considered wrong. He compounded his evil by lashing out at honest men who denounced him. Please, describe for us in plain terms the lesson we are to draw from this, and the sympathy we should feel for informed mendacity and self-protective invective.
Thomas Gunn - 9/26/2002
Ralph,
Since it wasn't I, nor any pro-rights individual that has advanced such a position, and since I have never seen such position advanced except in an emotional exchange . . .
My question, Ralph, is why did you go there?
Another problem I have is the easy way anti-rights people blur the terms gun, weapon and arms, and only arms appears in the 2nd with a very specific meaning.
You could settle one thing: Do you subscribe to the Michael Bellesiles "collective rights view" or the founders "Individual rights view" of the second? ;0)
thomas
Ralph E. Luker - 9/26/2002
J. Merrett, I don't recall having said anything about Bellesiles being a "hero." To say that I did is the sort of distortion of the truth for which you would have a "pig roast." I don't recall "sniffling." I do believe that it is tragic that a talented historian's career is destroyed, even if it is his own doing. There is no need for cheering here. It is better simply to speak the truth in humility.
J. Merrett - 9/26/2002
It seems that sanctimony is the final refuge of error. Do tell what you can possibly mean when you suggest that "something went terribly wrong?" Do you think that Bellesiles had written a factual and honest work, and accidently spilled a cup of falsehood on the manuscript before sending it to his publisher? That he meant something other than smug and arrogant condescension with his "Professor Heston" comment and his attacks on Clayton Cramer? (Bear in mind that your tragic hero made these remarks while already fully aware that he had fabricated and distorted his source material - while fully aware that Heston, Clayton, and his other critics were correct.)
Bellesiles lied, and then attacked those who exposed him. There is no accident here, and no personal tragedy for poor dear Michael. I am sure he is upset. Bank robbers are upset when they are caught and convicted. Shame, humiliation, and punishment are the just lot of the willfully wicked. Your sniffling is most queer. There is, indeed, a lesson to be learned here: don't lie.
Thomas Gunn - 9/26/2002
Ralph E. Luker - 9/26/2002
Thomas, My point would be that, since neither of us is an absolutist, our disagreement is a disagreement about degrees of restriction and that it is not _mere_ emotion that tells both of us not to put loaded guns in babies' cradles or weapons in the hands of violent criminals. Nor are _all_ facts the property of one or the other of us.
Richard Henry Morgan - 9/26/2002
Gloating may be unbecoming, and since I work with a different understanding of the term 'tragedy' than Ralph Luker, I can't join him in that judgment. But I do think there is something to celebrate here -- the triumph of the internet.
Without the internet, things would have progressed much more slowly. There would have been whispers, growing over the years, and after many obstacles, an odd critical paper or two appearing at a lengthy interval, and his doctoral students would eventually have found trouble securing appointments (and they would have been left wondering why). It might have taken a generation or two before some senior scholar (with less to risk) undertook a general refutation -- I'm thinking, in particular, of the classicist J. E. Raven's exposure of John Heslop Harrison, and Derek Freeman's refutation of Margaret Mead, as models. Now, with computers to compare texts, and the internet to facilitate exchange of information, the plagiarist or fraud (and the simply mistaken) that ventures into any area of some interest will be more quickly exposed. I can't help but conclude that this is a salutary development.
Thomas Gunn - 9/25/2002
Lest there be any confusion I am definitely "pro-rights". And that means to me that if an individual is not otherwise proscribed, he is free to exercise his rights as he sees fit, or not.
The important words here are "or not". Because one _can_ exercise a right is not a duty to execise the right. eg. I can vote, I may vote, I am not forced to vote.
The anti-rights side takes the right away because they choose not to exercise it and will deny others the opportunity. (usually for emotional reasons) Or the individual is not to be trusted to exercise it. Using the voting analogy note the reasons the vote has been _expanded_ to *include* more and more individuals, and the facts that support that constitutional evolution butressed against the _emotional_ appeal used to infringe the right of women and blacks to vote.
Ralph is correct that I am not an absolutist about any right. I have no problem with a minimum age for voting (18). I might even agree that to vote one must be able to _read_ the ballot. I would balk at restricting the vote to Phd's. It becomes a problem when the requirements are onerous and serve no useful purpose. Fortunately we have a system in place to make that determination. The USSC.
thomas
Ralph E. Luker - 9/25/2002
Mr. Hurst,
If your characterization in your "Re: Nothing Like a Pig Roast" of what I actually said in my "Re: Nothing Like a Pig Roast" is a fair measure of whether you can actually understand what Michael Bellesiles wrote or what I write, I suspect that a reponse from me here would be a fruitless gesture, bound to be misinterpreted.
Kevin Hurst - 9/25/2002
Upon what basis do you assert that 'there is much in _Arming America_ which is not "a lie."' This must be a statement of faith. But I can assure you that faith is misplaced. Sure, many of his more banal observations are relatively accurate. But, what substantive portions of the book have you read that you find to be carefully researched and an accurate representation of the source material upon which they are based? I do not see how anyone who looks at the evidence presented in the book could make such a statement. Every substantive point I have looked at in the military history sections of the book were misleading or worse. The level of mendacity in ARMING AMERICA leads one to ponder how Bellesiles thought he could get away with the distortions. His overarching conclusion that the bayonet ruled the European battlefield after Culloden is ridiculous and contradicted by his own sources. He completely misunderstands the nature of the relationship between shock and firepower and distorts battle narratives at every turn in order to advance his bizzare fetish for bladed weapons. It is not hyperbole to say that I found nothing that he said of substance to be an accurate portrayal on that subject. There may be others areas of the book where the scholarship is of some merit, but I have yet to find any evidence of that, and I am curious as to why you assume that it exists.
John G. Fought - 9/25/2002
I feel no twinge of sympathy for Bellesiles, and I don't see why anyone should. He was not forced to do this: he saw or felt an opportunity. But there's a really good reason for not gloating yet (well, for not gloating too much). We should all bear in mind that the story isn't quite over. After the appeal, which will surely fail or it would never have been announced in the first place, and which may already have started some time ago, there will be a DECISION. It may actually include some kind of settlement, of all things, although it doesn't have to. Its terms may be kept confidential, even if the report is someday actually made public. I don't think that you've made full allowance yet for the awesome capacity of the academic system when it comes to denial and obfuscation. Let's wait and see.
One thing that strikes me about these immediate responses is the deep well of bitterness about the everyday abuses of the academic system that they reveal from so many people, alongside of Mr. Luker's loyalty to the higher aspirations of the same system. I still think it is necessary to apply firm and steady pressure if anything is to be changed. The danger of public humiliation and job loss may have more positive effects on scholarly practice than sympathy for the perpetrators and their enablers.
I do intend to write, not to email, to the Bancroft Prize givers, the AHA, the JAH, the OAH, and the Omohundro Institute, formally calling this recent finding to their attention and suggesting that they do something to correct their existing positions on the matter. I don't see why the JAH couldn't send out a little flap to its subscribers with the next number, which could be stuck to the 1996 article's first page (by a librarian, of course) warning that it contains fraudulent but prize-winning material. An editorial in which crow is eaten and passed around would be a handsome gesture too. It would be nice to have some company in doing this. You know how people love to get mail.
John
Ralph E. Luker - 9/25/2002
Thomas Gunn rightly reminds us that the failure of peer review in this case goes back to 1996. There will have to be some reconing with that fact in the days ahead. The _Journal of American History_, Alfred A. Knopf and the Bancroft Prize committee will all need to re-examine their responsibilities and appropriate responses. Clearly, peer review failed at many points along the line from 1996 forward and we need to know why it failed and how it can be improved.
At the same time, the marked tendency here to labeling and seeing things in simple terms of right/wrong, true/false, black/white isn't particularly helpful. It causes intelligent people like Thomas to say stupid things like the "pro-rights folk have the facts" (that is a paraphrase in quotation marks) and that "anti-rights" folk merely appeal to emotion. If Thomas calls himself "pro-rights," then by definition I am "anti-rights" and what decent human being would want to be known as "anti-rights"? But even Thomas isn't an absolutist about the "right to keep and bear arms." He wouldn't put a loaded gun in a baby's crib simply because it has a right to keep and bear arms. He wouldn't defend the right of a murderer to bear arms. Does that make Thomas "anti-rights"? I don't think so. Similarly, there is much in _Arming America_ which is not "a lie." Michael appears to have given us a very mixed brew, such that it takes experts to distinguish the true from the false, and he owed it to us to have done better than that.
Finally, in the larger picture, I am struck by the fact that all of the recent scandals among historians occur among historians of the United States. I know of no comparable scandals among my colleagues who study other parts of the world. Perhaps they aren't held to such close scrutiny. Perhaps their scandals remain hidden. But perhaps there is some inbred flaw among historians of the United States which is lately emerging. It surely is no wonder that our colleagues who study other parts of the world want to insist on their distance from us!
Thomas Gunn - 9/25/2002
The peer review process failed then and continued the failure right up to the awarding of the Bancroft. What is nearly impossible to comprehend is the blind allegence shown to what should have been suspect from the very beginning. Michael had a lot of encouragement along the way. His PC buddies finally had a bit of "scholarship" to validate their feelings, if they didn't look to close. Trouble was, the scholarship was a fraud, the theory a sham and an odiferous pall now settles on an entire profession already reeling under indictments for fraud of a different kind. Now is not a good time to be an Historian. Lots of people who would have cared less are seeing history for the first time; the picture is not a pretty one. I feel sorry for the ethical historians who toil in silence and obscurity for the joy of discovering the truth of our past and are whiffed because of the action of so very few. thomas
Thomas L. Spencer - 9/25/2002
I don't see Bellesiles as much more worthy of sympathy than executives at Enron and other companies who "cooked the books" at the expense of other employees and stockholders. It's morally wrong in both cases. It's given a black eye to the history profession to boot. If such actions were to be allowed where would it lead? More fictitious history? These books are the groundwork for other scholarship, and if you build on a weak foundation trouble is often the result, like someone constucting a building out of substandard materials that collapses, killing or injuring people or knowingly building a car with fatal design flaws that result likewise. Maybe the example of Michael Bellesiles will serve as a warning to others who might contemplate similar deeds. It says that NO ONE is immune, not students who would cheat on a test or paper or thesis/dissertation, and not professors who should be held to a high level of ethical and professional responsibility.
Steve Russell - 9/25/2002
I have watched this drama unfold and wondered whether, at some point, SOMEBODY would notice that maybe this one fraud is a symptom and not a disease.
The belittling of Clayton Cramer reminded me of what I endured for daring to enter academia without a PhD.
I remember the times student editors at law reviews have made me prove up citations they could not find in their local libraries and how every law review article I ever published saw print with more (verified) footnotes than I originally put in it and yet, in my first academic post, those publications did not "count."
And every time I get another asinine comment from a clueless reviewer from behind the cloak of anonymity, I wonder...why does this system have any credibility at all?
It rewards cowardice. It does not effectively police itself.
I can play. What I write, publishes. But I am not on the bus with this silliness voluntarily. It is rather a price I will continue to pay for the privilege of interacting daily with the brightest of the coming generation.
I guess it was too much to hope that significant players in the academic profession would look beyond this one case...
Kevin Hurst - 9/25/2002
When Mr. Bellesiles was under indictment, so to speak, Mr. Luker wanted everyone to remain mum while the academic authorities rendered judgement. With that judgement appearing to be closer at hand, Mr. Luker wants everyone to remember that Michael was a fine scholar, etc.
In the military history portions of ARMING AMERICA, I have catalogued more than 100 footnotes that are misconstrued, misrepresented, highly misleading, or, on occasion, just made up. There are undoubtedly more than that. And remember, the military historian is a small part of the book. When added to the damning findings of Clayton Cramer and Prof. Lindgren, one reaches the inescapable conclusion that the book represents a willful fraud of awe inspiring proportion. To say "something went terribly wrong" denies the malice of Bellesiles' scholarly transgressions. If Bellesiles was indeed such a promising scholar then it only makes his conduct all the more heinous. He must be punished severely, both for the reputation of the scholarly community and so that this book will never be taken as having any value with regard to the debate it fraudulently attempted to corrupt. Also, those "scholars" on the Bancroft committee who "reviewed" Bellesiles book deserve public ridicule for their incompetence.
Of course, some people will say rude or impolitic things at times like this, but I understand the frustration of those whose motives have been questioned at every turn during this episode. I care not whether Bellesiles holds a tin cup the rest of his days or gets a job as a used car salesman, but he should never be allowed to hold a position in academia again.
Alec Lloyd - 9/25/2002
Apparently Mr. Luker does not rejoice to see justice done. I, for one, do.
Bellesiles has thrown every convention to the wind; he has trampled upon almost every rule of scholarship and then hid behind his degrees. He even goaded well-meaning colleagues to stand up for him, all the while lying through his teeth.
It is a quite human reaction to feel satisfaction when deceit and fraud are found and punished.
I will not weep for the sins of the world, particularly when it is obvious Bellesiles knowingly and deliberately LIED. He crafted a book of lies and got caught. One can wonder why a respected and presumably financially well-off scholar decided to risk trashing his career in order to score political points and sell a lot of books on the commercial market. That is a legitimate question.
However, he made his choice and now must pay the full price for his actions. Let him be an example to deter others who might be hearing the siren song of fame and fortune, albeit at the price of their academic integrity.
Thomas Gunn - 9/25/2002
Ralph,
Michael engaged in a fraud for political purposes got caught and will now pay the price, part of which will be to endure the gloat.
His co-conspirators will get off much more lightly. Would that his publisher be forced to refund the full purchase price for each fraudulent volume returned.
I wonder though if all this has given _you_ pause. The anti-rights side is factually bankrupt and relys more and more on emotion and fraud to advance its agenda. That the history profession was used as the vehicle is the greater sin. I feel the greatest sympathy for you and your fellow _honest_ historians and will lose not a wink bemoaning what Michael has done to himself and the agenda he promoted.
thomas
Ralph E. Luker - 9/25/2002
What a sad spectacle of a self you present in this post. If you cannot see a tragedy in this near final judgment, you lack some elemental quality of human decency. Michael Bellesiles, by all accounts, is a talented historian in whose work something went terribly wrong. Did you cheer at Nagosaki? Did you dance over the dead at Antietim? This is a personal tragedy for Michael. You need not add to the humiliation by your squalid jeers. There is a lesson in humility in this for all of us. You've been studying the wrong one.
Anonymous - 9/25/2002
I don't understand the gloating.
While it is hard to have much sympathy for someone like Bellesiles who so viciously and dishonestly attacked his critics and encouraged others to do the same, gloating is unseemly.
It is a sad day for the profession, but it would have been sadder still if Emory had covered up the actions of one of its star faculty members.
There is a decent place between gloating and sympathy--a place where justice lives, or at least visits from time to time.
J. Merrett - 9/25/2002
How sweet it is to see that Bellesiles was found guilty by the outside examiners. What a delight it will be to see him defenestrated. How nearly orgasmic it will be to hear the squeals - or the culpable silence - of his supporters.
Ralph E. Luker - 8/30/2002
Market.
Clayton E. Cramer - 8/29/2002
If the pursuit of book sales is what drives this, can you tell me why publishers are simply uninterested in a book that examines Bellesiles's claims in detail, and corrects the errors?
Clayton E. Cramer - 8/29/2002
"Why waste good buckshot on paper?"
Because it doesn't scream in pain?
John G. Fought - 8/26/2002
First, let me thank Mr. Gunn for posting the links. It's more convenient to click just once than to browse along following the brief descriptions I gave instead.
I'm surprised that nobody has called me to account for the missing c- on 'ollective'. In the same helpful spirit, I note that the word is not 'pitard' but 'petard'.
There goes Mr. Luker again, appointing himself the watchdog of the reputations of all historians. The words that Prof. Adamson, the outgoing Emory department chair, put into the mouth of his invisible friend in History Newsletter 46 (August 2001) were introduced by 'We say'. 'We' means the speaker and one or more unspecified others. In that context, his personal reflections on the department, it seems even clearer that these words were meant to be his even if not his alone. I stand by my attribution.
As I wrote my posting I saw no need to point out that I have great sympathy and admiration (so far) for the Dean and the other administrators who must deal with this situation. Further, it is self-evident that the members of this or any academic department are a diverse group of specialists, with diverse opinions about what to do and why, and that even my skimpy guesses about what may be going on there could be very wide of the mark. Things could actually be better or worse than I imagine.
This brings me to Mr. Luker's remarks defending the uniformly
'intelligent, hard-working, and productive' members of the
history department at Emory, who are all by his pronouncement
innocent of everything connected with this or any other misconduct. I have some leading questions (and answers)for Mr. Luker about this, and then one last point to make.
First, in what capacity does he himself take offense at my remarks? They were not addressed to him. Second, how well does he really know all 32 (give or take one) members of that department? Well enough to vouch for the stainless integrity
and notable achievements of each and every one of them from his own personal knowledge of their lives and work? I think not. Anyway, the actions taken already, as well as the evidence that motivated them, go far beyond any reasonable presumption of widespread innocence. Third, if all this dudgeon is, as I suspect, merely a reflexive venting of righteousness simply
because they are history faculty, and therefore must be defended
from all outsiders, isn't this reaction what we might call Part
of the Problem?
Finally, my last point on this whole affair until a settlement is
reached (may it be soon), in response to Mr. Luker's blanket defense of the Emory Department of History. That department did take at least two undeniable actions: they hired Michael Bellesiles, making him an associate professor with tenure either all at once or serially, and then they promoted him to full professor. These are not mere accusations, they are facts. The promotion came after the publication of his 1996 article, which contains an analysis of probate records (from 38 counties) in a table corresponding very closely to table 1 in his appendix of Arming America, which covers 40 counties, and militia enrollment and gun counts corresponding to table 2. These are the same tabulations which mainly started the negative response by outsiders. Both the hiring and the promotion were surely preceded by a review of his published work, letters of reference, and other credentials by at least a committee of the
department faculty, then some kind of wider canvass of opinions,
and in the end, confirmation by the chair. They were all in a
position where they not only could have but were expected to
uncover such errors and distortions. To me, it seems reasonable
to think that this past complicity may color their present
deliberations.
Thomas Gunn - 8/26/2002
8.25.02-2200~
Ralph,
I'm not sure but I don't think one usually perfs paper with buckshot. Clays maybe.
I have a black powder cap lock that I use to scare the deer in the back yard. That's what I had in mind. A kind of 1830's assault weapon.
thomas.
Ralph E. Luker - 8/26/2002
Thomas,
I've always admired your sense of humor. Why waste good buckshot on paper?
Ralph
Thomas Gunn - 8/25/2002
8.25.02-1815~
Ralph,
Would you like to go out to the range one of these first days and perforate some paper?
thomas
Ralph E. Luker - 8/25/2002
Don,
I think you offer an intriguing and perceptive reading of the situation. If you are correct, this is pitiful, outrageous ...
Ralph
Thomas Gunn - 8/25/2002
8.25.02-1515~
Don,
First do you write spy novles in your spare time? If you do they would certainly be exciting.
Second, Emory investigates charges, determines a need for an independent investigation, looks at the results of the independent panel, prepares to make an official announcement, receives new and surprising information that could narrow the focus of the charges to something that can not be proven, reopens a continuing "inquiry" to deduce "it was all a stupid mistake".
As to the cryptic numbers (21 4930] in your post, I have determined you inadvertantly pressed 'caps lock' and then typed numbers when what you intended to type _ @! $(#) _. Clever huh? What *that* means, I have been unable to ascertain, however. ;-)
I do have a question for you and the esteemed assemblege:
How *do* you keep a professor in suspense?
thomas
Don Williams - 8/25/2002
xxx
As noted above by HNN,
" On the morning of Thursday August 22 HNN learned that Emory College's interim
dean, Robert Paul, scheduled a meeting with the Emory University History
Department for Friday morning to announce the outcome of the Bellesiles
investigation.
Late in the afternoon on August 22, the scheduled meeting between Dean Paul
and the History Department was called off, Emory releasing a surprise
announcement:...
...Just last month the university told HNN that at the end of the summer there
would be an announcement concerning the outcome of the investigation. "
----------------
This would suggest that Emory had reached a final decision at least by 20 August; based on findings by independent panel.
If you look at Emory's Fall 2002 Course Atlas, you see that a Bellesiles class was canceled at least as early as
20 August. See http://www.emory.edu/HISTORY/undergrad/atlas/fall02.html (search for Bellesiles) and then
http://www.emory.edu/HISTORY/undergrad/atlas/ . Note that the Atlas "lasted modified date" is 20 Aug.
This might, repeat might, indicate that the decision was against Bellesiles. It would be interesting to know if Bellesiles
was also deleted from the History Departments Schedule of Courses by 20 August, but I can't tell because that file was updated 23 August.
My guess, and it is just a guess, is that Emory received information on 22 August which was not addressed by their panel and the information pointed out something that the panel had not realized. Hence, the need for further study. My guess is that the new info to Robert Paul came from a surprising and most unlikely source. (not me, by the way) 21 4930
In my opinion, if Emory is focusing solely on narrow specific charges, then Emory may reach a Scotch verdict "not proven"
because of an inability to prove something was not a stupid mistake. If Emory's investigation is more broad , then Bellesiles, in my opinion, will have difficult problems with criticisms not mentioned in the media yet
I'll hold further comment until Emory's verdict in a few months.
Ralph E. Luker - 8/25/2002
Apologies. Gunn provides the "link to the newsletter." There, Adamson speaks -- not of himself -- but a hypothetical historian.
Ralph E. Luker - 8/25/2002
For those who care to follow the links provided by Thomas Gunn in his post, "Ethical Dilemma," you will find that Dr. Fought has committed one of the same blunders that he finds so egregious in Michael Bellesiles' work: abuse of a quotation.
Fought said that former history department chair Walter Adamson described _himself_ as one who lurks in the archives gathering dust on his shoes. If Fought bothers to read what Adamson said, it isn't a self description but a characterization of a hypothetical historian.
Let him swing a while. Then, John or Thomas, it would be an act of human descency to get up there and cut him down.
Thomas Gunn - 8/25/2002
[http://www.osp.emory.edu/share/policies/misconduct.html ]
Didn't even hafta be clever ta find this.
thomas
Thomas Gunn - 8/25/2002
[http://www.emory.edu/HISTORY/BEIK/newsletter01/newsl01/adamson.htm ]
eom
thomas
Thomas Gunn - 8/25/2002
8.24.02-1950~
Ralph, John,
The profession of history suffers the same ethical shortcomings as many other professions.
I feel sorry for the vast majority of Catholic priests who are forced to suffer for the sins of their unchaste brethern.
I feel sorry for the teachers that are looked at askance b/c one or more of their members acted with impropriety with a student.
I feel sorry for the physicians unfairly judged b/c of the malpractice of some.
I feel sorry for the Historians at Emory who are being branded b/c of the actions of a colleague.
All of these principal 'bystanders' share a common responsibility to police their own.
John wonders aloud why those in positions of authority would allow this scandal at Emory to continue, and speculates (with some reasonable explaination) the possible thought process. John open a small window overlooking the machinations of University politics. I doubt what John wonders is any more damming than the op-ed pieces that have been the impetus for most of what we have discussed on HNN. John provides an inkling of the 'rules of the game'.
Ralph on the other hand sees Michael's University mates as innocents caught up in an unfortunate situation over which they have no control. Ralph also notes the 'rules of the game' are publicly available for abuse in this forum. To Ralph's credit he finally admits there is enough smoke swirling about Michael's scholarship to be assured of the flames. It must have been very difficult considering what his feelings about the Second Amendment appear to be.
Both of you do a diservice to the readers here by failing to provide a link to that which you reference. Clever webbers will undoubtably find the 'rules of the game'. Isn't there enough intrigue without adding to it?
Besides, there is nothing more entertaining than a little gossip over the back fence among friends. ;-)
thomas
Ralph E. Luker - 8/24/2002
For the moment, at least, I trust that you have quoted accurately from the documentary sources which you cite. Since Bellesiles' accuracy is in question, I assume that you have yourself been careful to be accurate. The documents are publicly available, vulnerable to use in a discussion such as this.
I object, however, to the public speculation your post invites about the quality of Professor Bellesiles' department and the qualities that mark his chairman and his dean. The department does not stand accused. Neither do his chairman nor his dean. Your speculations about the qualities of a group of people and authorities among them are uncalled for and professionally offensive. Your opening of such a line of speculation invites invidious comments about my professional colleagues. Apart from Bellesiles, not one of them stands accused of any wrong-doing. Since they may not slum here, on their behalf I object to your uncalled for and unjustified innuendo about an intelligent, hard working and productive group of people.
John G. Fought - 8/24/2002
Academic departments don't like taking orders, least of all from Deans. It clashes with their self-image. Decades ago, in a sociological study published as The Academic Marketplace, it was noted that when department chairs were asked to rank their own departments nationally within their disciplines, about 85% ranked them in the top 5. Not the top 5%, the top 5. The authors called this the the Aggrandizement Effect. I suspect that ollectively, the Emory history faculty is most concerned with how all this affects them: their ability to attract grant and fellowship money, good students, and promising junior colleagues. From this point of view, the best outcome might seem to be a whitewash. I do hope I'm wrong, and if it turns out that I am, I'll post an apology, with a copy to them.
I'm guessing also that some or all senior members of the Emory History department are deeply embarrassed by the Bellesiles scandal, and that the Dean is giving them time to talk around the settlement, both as a sop to them, and as a way of easing the tension rumored to exist between the American historians and the European historians. The current and previous chairs were from the European side. The former one posted his reflections on the job in the Aug. 2001 department newsletter. That's on the web too. In it he began with the Bellesiles case. He describes the book as "deeply researched and beautifully written", says that B was "deluged with hate mail from various right-wing groups", and affects surprise that such a controversy could even arise about "an historian" in the first place. Of himself, as an historian, he says, "I'm just a professional who trudged through archives gathering dust on my shoes." A careful reading suggests that he must not have stopped to take anything off the shelves. Normally I wouldn't quote something so embarrassing, but it helps to understand how the internal debate may sound. I'll bet you a yellow pad that he still thinks the book was deeply researched and beautifully written. And he may not be the only one. Mr. Luker is right to point out that the reassignment and cancellation of B's courses, and his extended paid leave of absence, are strong evidence that the Emory administration is taking at least some serious steps.
I hope that the Dean is just giving the department some time to talk about how awful it all is, and to work out some rationalization for the solution he has in mind, which I predict will still seem overly generous to non-academics who don't understand what a sacred cow tenure is. At least he can hope for some factional divisions to arise around it. The Dean looks like an interesting man. He's a cultural anthropologist with psychoanalytic credentials. I'm betting he'll be glad he has them.
There are published regulations governing research misconduct at Emory. You can read them on the web. The whole investigative process is to be completed within 120 days from its official start date, whatever that was, and an appeal, if made, must be based on rather narrow procedural or factual grounds, and resolved within 30 days. Contrary to what has been claimed on this thread, dismissal is definitely an option, whether the offender is tenured or not. Here's the relevant passage:
"At the conclusion of the proceedings, the dean/director, in consultation with the Provost and the appropriate Vice President, shall take necessary actions. If misconduct is substantiated, sanctions may be imposed. The specific sanction(s) will depend upon the severity of the misconduct and may range from a letter of reprimand to the dismissal of the individual."
Ralph E. Luker - 8/24/2002
Thomas,
It's a stretch to see in the Bellesiles case the declension of American civilization. If you read the documents, there is a long history of predictions of the decline of American civilization. Read 2nd, 3rd and 4th generation Puritan sermons; read pro-slavery tracts which saw in its demise the decline of American civilization; read Josiah Strong's _Our Country_, a big seller in the late 19th century, which saw threat of American demise from new immigrants and urban corruption.
Sure, I think there has been a failure in the peer review process in the Bellesiles case and the failure goes back as far as 1996. But if there is a current crisis for historians, as Fought suggests, it isn't only the Bellesiles case. It draws greater visibility because the issue is so impassioned. In the larger historical enterprise, was it peer review which failed in the case of Ambrose or Goodwin? They were producing books which reached print by a commercial publisher with virtually no prior critical review because the author had a good reputation for selling books. If so, the fault lies not only in the academic community but also in the commercialization of history. Is it political correctness that published Ambrose and Goodwin? I suspect it was the prospect of sales. Do I see the decline of American civilization in the publication of flawed history books because they are likely to sell well? Probably not.
Ralph
Thomas Gunn - 8/24/2002
8.23.02-1940~
Ralph,
I applaud Lindgren's efforts, but ask yourself, would Lindgren have spent the time had not Michael so abused the probate data that Lindgren is so intimately familiar with?
Recall that the peer process you have lobbied we all wait on, was the very process that garnered Michael the Bancroft. PC is alive and well in the History Realm. Need more evidence? Look how Emory is doubling over to give Michael every consideration, to the point of damaging their own reputation.
I think you have a have a good heart, and truely want to do the 'right' thing. I think a lot of stuff gets in the way of doing the 'right' thing, not just for historians, and professors either. It takes a great deal of intesinal fortitude to stand up and say, "that's wrong", even when one feels *something* must be done.
You might also ask yourself what do historians do and why they do it *and* are they succeeding. And then ask yourself where do we go from here. I'm afraid we are going the same place every previous civilization has gone, and for the very same reasons.
thomas
Ralph E. Luker - 8/23/2002
Thomas,
Your assessment is exactly wrong here. Lindgren is a good case in point. His previous work and personal inclinations have been, according to him, in favor of gun control. When he examines _Arming America_, however, he suspends political bias insofar as possible and examines the evidence. The result is a stunning indictment of the book. It doesn't happen because he is "pro-rights" or "anti-rights." It happens because he does a thorough review and summary of hard evidence.
As for Dr. F, it seems clear that he doesn't know whereof he speaks. I hold no high position in the history profession. I hold none at all. Why he would find it offensive that I call my fellow historians' attention to the fact that we have recently experienced an unprecidented series of embarrassments and ask them to reflect seriously on their implications for what we do and why we do it -- well, you tell me ...
Ralph
Thomas Gunn - 8/23/2002
The one major difference I see in the pesonalities of pro-rights vs. anti-right is the pro-rights folks provide facts and figures to support the position; anti-rights folks provide emotionalism and innuendo.
You fellers are suppose to be professionals and above the sniping that is happening. I certainly understand the frustration, I'm not immune to it. Just b/c we have differing opinions about guns and rights doesn't mean we can't be friends, or at least respectful.
I am also reminded that a mediater often finds himself in a crossfire with the likely result that he will take a ball.
thomas
Don Williams - 8/23/2002
Good afternoon, Mr Luker. You overlook a third possibility -- that Robert Paul and James Melton received some information
re Arming America which had been overlooked by their panel of experts and they were not around to deal with it. Their announcement may be what it says --that they need time to investigate further. An email sent to Mr. Paul on July 22 ,for example, would have received an automatic response from Emory's servers -- that Mr Paul was on vacation until August 5. An email to Mr Melton would have received the following response:
Subject:
Out of the country
Date:
Mon, 22 Jul 2002 00:02:52 -0400 (EDT)
From:
James Van Melton
To:
vze2t297@verizon.net
James Melton will be out of the country from June 28 until August 30.
He may be reached a the following address:
Bocksbergerstrasse 6/15
A-5020 Salzburg, Austria
Phone: 011-43-662-63-27-10
************
In closing, Mr Luker, I give you a quote from your illustrious predecessor, the Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus:
"But the successes and reverses of the old Roman people have been recorded by famous historians;
and fine intellects were not wanting to describe the times of Augustus, till growing sycophancy scared them away."
--The Annals of Imperial Rome; Book I, Para 1
For the end result of historical sycophancy in the service of politics, see chapter 45 of Tacitus' Agricola.
John G. Fought - 8/23/2002
Your recent 'Where do we go from here?' and the earlier 'Rush to Judgment' posting are good examples of the style and thinking I objected to in my message. I make no apology for my tone: I believe you deserve it. You occupy an important position in your profession at a time when it has a lot to answer for. If those messages constitute your response to this critical moment, there may well be worse in store for it and consequently for you. But I'm now finished with you as a topic.
Clayton E. Cramer - 8/23/2002
There are three possibilities here:
1. Emory is indeed, still investigating the charges.
2. Emory is, as you suggest, negotiating a settlement, so that Bellesiles doesn't sue them for firing him.
3. Emory is hoping the whole matter will resolve itself, or the public will lose interest.
If #1, I am astonished. The question about documents that Bellesiles cited but that don't seem to exist might take some time to resolve. The documents that Bellesiles misquoted and misrepresented that are easy to find would take all of about three hours of work in any decent university library. Both Lindgren's paper, and the material I sent to Dean Paul several months ago, give detailed, precise, easy to look up examples of Bellesiles's falsifications.
If #2, I am disgusted. Why would Emory consider it appropriate to negotiate anything? If Bellesiles did nothing wrong, then they should say so (and make themselves the laughing stock of the academic community). If he did what we claim--massive fraud, and then lies about burning doors, floods destroying his papers, death threats causing him to move out of Atlanta, etc.--then a simple firing is appropriate. If this massive quantity of documentation isn't sufficient reason for a suit-proof termination, then tenure really is employment for life, regardless of misconduct.
If #3, then Emory is in the business of politics, not education.
Clayton E. Cramer - 8/23/2002
I guess I'm a little peculiar about this: I don't see massive
fraud as something to be resolved by "negotiating" the matter
away. Would you make a deal with a student who engaged in
this level of fraud? "We'll give you a semester or two
to find some other school to transfer to, and then we'll just
pretend this didn't happen."
Eric Friedemann - 8/23/2002
1. If there were ever even a colorable claim that "Arming America" was not almost exclusively a work of fiction, the Lindgren Yale Law Review article dispells such a notion.
2. Assuming the hold-up in canning Bellesiles is that Emory is "negotiating" for his departure, this begs the question: why? It isn't as if the Bellesiles scandal could become any more public or any more embarrassing for Emory.
Why wouldn't Emory simply fire Bellesiles for cause? Such an action would certainly help Emory's reputation, casting the university as an institution that stands up to academic fraud. If Bellesiles were to contest such an action by filing suit, I would contribute to the university's defense fund and I'm not even an alum.
By way of contrast, if Emory "buys (Bellesiles) out," the university will appear craven. Certainly, if was an Emory alum, I wouldn't give another dime to the institution if it paid off a fraud.
4. The Newberry/NEH component to this story amazes me. At the point when the Newberry gave NEH money to Bellesiles, "Arming America" was already a successful book and, presumably, had made Bellesiles an affluent individual. Yet, the Newberry chose to help fund Bellesiles' next book, a controversial historical review of American gun laws. This follow-up book would certainly have been (and might still be) put in print by Bellesiles' publisher, Knoph. Why would Bellesiles need public funding to research and write another book that would make Bellesiles and Knoph richer?
Ralph E. Luker - 8/23/2002
I have no special inside information about the conversations between Bellesiles and Emory's administration. It was Mr. Cramer's assumption that he knew what was going on there that I challenged. What spectacle do you see there? A career is being evaluated by appropriate authorities. Tell us if you think Bellesiles' not teaching there this semester is of no significance, given the way things work in academe.
I'm not sure where you think I claimed to speak for the history profession ex cathedra or otherwise. I am not the only person here with academic experience, but not many professional historians who lurk here seem willing to expose themselves to the kind of abuse you and others dish out. You might try to achieve a more professional tone yourself. I will not exchange personal insults with you.
John G. Fought - 8/23/2002
I do not doubt that Mr. Cramer is as disgusted as I am with the continuing spectacle at Emory. I am sure there are many others like us. In any case, if you feel that his rhetoric is your business, I will in turn offer you some advice. It is tedious of you to behave in this setting as if you are safe in a seminar room, surrounded by people whose future opportunities depend on your approval. Unless there has been a serious violation of confidentiality, which you ought to report at once, you don't know the content of the current deliberations either, if indeed that is what they are, nor do you have any unique basis for knowing what would have happened if this and what will happen if that. You are not even the only person on this thread with long academic experience. Nor is it clear how you came to embody in yourself the spirit of the discipline of American history. But somehow, you feel free, very free, to speak for it ex cathedra. The effect on at least some of your readers is quite different from what you must have imagined. It would be a kindness to yourself and to those of us following the developments of the Bellesiles case on this site if you would adopt a more appropriate tone, and further, if you and your buddies would conduct the rest of your peripheral old-boy conversations via private email channels.
Ralph E. Luker - 8/23/2002
Thomas,
Michael Bellesiles is a tenured member of Emory's faculty. He cannot simply be fired. You may be opposed to the idea of tenure, but it is there to protect a faculty member's freedom of research and inquiry. If he has abused that privilege, he probably cannot simply be fired.
Will I take a stand? You will hit a nerve, won't you? I've taken more stands already than a wise man takes in a lifetime. I've been to jail for some stands; professionally blacklisted for others. I don't always make smart decisions. I'm no expert on the history of guns in American or the 2nd amendment. Other people are and other people will make the decision about Michael Bellesiles' fate. I think they will make a smart decision. That's my stand.
Ralph
Thomas Gunn - 8/23/2002
8.22.02-2300~
Ralph,
I mentioned before that I am not in nor of the "gun lobby", I am deeply concerned about the BOR, and consider myself pro rights.
In that you are likely closer to university euphemisms than I, what 'negotiations' could possibly be going on? Certainly, you realize that for Emory to fail to act decisively for or against Michael will besmirch Emory in particular and higher education in general. There are those that feel these institutions are a hot bed of social and political activism out of all proportion to the facts at hand. Ie. PC with out regard to any evidence to support it.
I wonder, are you constrained from having an opinion or just of expressing it? Will you ever take a stand?
thomas
Ralph E. Luker - 8/23/2002
Thomas,
Read between the lines of the announcement. If administrators at Emory believed that what is at stake here is simply Michael Bellesiles's freedom of research and inquiry, his freedom to publish controversial interpretations of information, you can bet that he would not be going on a paid sabbatical leave this semester. He would be in the classroom, as scheduled, no matter how loudly you folk in the gun lobby howled.
"Inquiry" here is a euphemism for negotiation. You can bet that the appointed authorities in the matter are currently earning their keep.
Ralph
Thomas Gunn - 8/23/2002
8.22.02-2100
Ralph,
Here is your request to wait on the investigation.
***Subject: RE: Why is History Important
Posted By: Ralph E. Luker
Date Posted: June 6, 2002, 8:44 PM
I can't see that anyone is stiffling you. I can see that headlines such as "Cowards of Academe" suggest character assassination of honorable participants in a process. No one ever, least of all me, suggested that it should take 30 or 40 years. Give it three or four more weeks, at least, before you and the journalists dig into the colorful vocabulary. As James Oakes' post elsewhere in this discussion suggests, the evidence in this matter may be far more complicated than true believers are ready to acknowledge.***
The dates are a bit messed but hasn't it been 8-10 weeks?
thomas
ps Though it may seem I'm taking pot shots at you in my frustration, I'm really hoping you will quit defending the process. Released last month was information the independant investigation had *concluded*!
t
Thomas Gunn - 8/23/2002
8.22.01-2030~
Ralph,
I reviewed some of our earlier exchanges after 'rush to judgement' and recall you saying "wait a couple of weeks for the investigatin to conclude".
Wanna give em a couple more weeks?
On the bright side you needn't hang your head when passing those whose hem you are disallowed to touch. Walk tall in the knowledge that you did the right thing while they continue to investigate glacially. You needn't support *them* any longer. Even Franklin let go the wire when the situation became this shocking.
thomas
John Horst - 8/23/2002
Mr. Luker, you continue as the Benjamin Franklin of this debate. I am very encouraged by this latest development. I never did see it happening that Mr. Bellesiles would be drawn, quartered, tarred or feathered. My quess is that he will simply be made to go away, and I think that is appropriate. Maybe one day he will even get his own talk show...
Ralph E. Luker - 8/22/2002
Clayton,
If I may say so, your rhetoric over-reaches the situation. You do not know the content of discussions between Bellesiles and Emory administrators. It seems very likely that this decision was reached in order to allow more time for a negotiated settlement of the matter. You should recall that Bellesiles was scheduled to teach on campus this semester. That apparently will not happen. Try to restrain your blood lust. By rhetorical over-kill, you obscure important signals of reality.
Ralph
Clayton E. Cramer - 8/22/2002
And Emory University has AGAIN delayed, cancelling the scheduled meeting with the history faculty about planned for tomorrow. Bellesiles gets a semester of paid leave while this very difficult problem continues to be investigated.
Emory obviously thinks the problem will just go away if they keep delaying. It won't. They can't make all the documents that Bellesiles misquoted and misrepresented disappear down the memory hole. Even worse, they can't create the documents that Bellesiles completely fabricated without a bit of suspicion being raised.
Historians need to draw a line in the sand and say, "Fraud is not an acceptable behavior, no matter how wonderful we think the cause is."
Eric Friedemann - 8/22/2002
I find the heel-dragging by Emory University, the Newberry Library and Bellesiles' publisher nauseating. Further, I cannot help but believe that if Bellesiles had fabricated research for a book that supported an individual right to bear arms vis-a-vis the Second Amendment, Bellesiles would be on a street corner panhandling for quarters with a tin cup, instead of sucking from the public tit at the supposedly prestigious Newberry.
For damn sure, if John Lott, Jr. had created evidence for his seminal work, "More Guns, Less Crime," the University of Chicago would have thrown him out on his butt so fast and hard he'd still be undergoing skin grafts so he could one day sit in a chair again. Certainly, Lott wouldn't currently be a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute; nor would his essays be published by the National Review.
Michael Bellesiles is the professorial equivalent of Bill Clinton. He gets caught with a smoking gun, pun intended, then claims that he is being unfairly attacked by right-wingers.
John G. Fought - 8/19/2002
For what it's worth, I think Bellesiles probably did receive some threats, and I thought my posting made that opinion clear enough. I guess it didn't, especially under the title that the editor supplied. At least one respondent first relied on that title as a summary of the point of my article, reasonably enough. The title I submitted was 'Sticks, stones, words, and bones', which I thought better suggested my main point: that nasty language goes with the job, and the real importance of whatever threats and abuse he received was in the amplified news coverage he made sure to get, as compared with the complete lack of attention to the threats from the other side received by John Lott Jr., for example. And that news coverage was poised to happen because that's how people are conditioned to think about 'gun nuts', that is, anyone who is not phobic about guns. How odd that a phobia is so widely accepted as a normal, responsible attitude on this topic. And if B is finally held accountable for his work, the NRA will be given the credit or blame for it over and over again.
L. Bateman - 8/15/2002
What has happened at Emory? Is Emory taking disciplinary action against him, or has the university bought him out of his contract?
there is a rumor that he will go on leave to St. Andrews in Scotland and then remain there for the rest of his career--courtesy of Emory?
Clayton E. Cramer - 5/29/2002
What First Amendment right is he claiming has been denied him?
No one has suppressed his work. No one has prohibited him from publishing. He hasn't even had any money taken away from him (not that the First Amendment guarantees a right to a government grant). All that he has lost here is the three letters NEH associated with his name.
John HOrst - 5/28/2002
"I regret that my name has been associated with an agency that values so little the principles of the First Amendment, due process, and academic freedom."
It is curious that Mr. Bellesiles finds the First Amendment immutable, while the second is open to revision and debate.
Alec Lloyd - 5/24/2002
That is an excellent point. While no expert on the topic, I believe one of the problems citizen militias faced was not a lack of firearms but a lack of *standardized* firearms. The multiple calibers and powder loads made logistics incredibly difficult.
Furthermore, hunting weapons could not take a bayonet, a major disadvantage given the tactics of the time. While a rifle was more accurate in the hands of a sharpshooter, they would be a hindrance to formed troops because of their slower reload time and the aforementioned lack of a bayonet.
I also understand Mr. Bellesiles' account of how muzzle-loaders work is filled with inaccuracies about the essence of their operation, reliability and creates the false impression that they were as dangerous to the user as to the target. This is yet another area that seems ripe for scholarly refutation.
If I were to write a book on the automobile and the origins of the "car culture" and I made consistent glaring errors concerning the mechanics of their operation, my work would rightly be suspect. Should not firearms be treated in a similar fashion?
John HOrst - 5/23/2002
Dear Mr. Cramer:
I also share your disappointment. I was particularly dismayed at the fact that no arms or military historians have been called upon to question the claims of Professor Bellesiles. Professors Shumway, Whisker, Wallace Gussler, George Neumann, to name a few could offer so much to the present debate. No one of the community of historians investigating this issue seems to be interested in exploring the vast data that exists about guns and gunmakers of the pre and Revolutionary war era. Additionally, no one seems to be interested in drawing the distinction between military guns and working/sporting guns in the country at that time. This, to my mind is a crucial point in explaining Mr. Bellesiles misreading of history. Certainly, there was a vast shortage of military muskets in the country before and during the war for independence until French intervention, but one cannot conclude, as Mr. Bellesiles does, that nearly NO firearms therefore existed.
Clayton E. Cramer - 5/23/2002
I'm afraid that the W&MQ; articles about Bellesiles's book show what happens when the academic community gets so focused on being polite that they aren't willing to come right and call a piece of fraud what it is. Anyone who reads the three critical articles carefully will be able to read between the lines, but I see that Professor R. B. Bernstein continues to insist that because the articles didn't directly call Bellesiles's book a fraud, that this means that there is no reason to believe that it is a fraud.
Bellesiles's book was a fraud. It was not incredibly sloppy scholarship, or the misquotations, misrepresentations, and miscalculations of the probate data would be randomly distributed. They aren't.
If this had been just one ideologue's insane effort to pull a massive fraud, it would be disappointing, but tolerable. Bellesiles continues to have a sizeable body of support among historians who really, really want to believe that Bellesiles's conclusions are correct, even though much of the evidence is fraudulent. This tells me that there are much more serious problems in academia than just one ideologue who thought he could put one over on the academic community. It seems a whole generation has grown up who believes that, "What is the meaning of 'is'?" is a sensible question, instead of an attempt at evading truth.
John HOrst - 5/21/2002
Please give your thoughts on the significance of the William and Mary Quarterly treatment of the Bellesiles issue. I understand that this was a crucial piece in deciding how Emory University was to proceed with their investigation. Thank you.
Jerome L. Sternstein - 5/3/2002
Readers of my comment about what Mr. Grossman and the Newberry knew or should have known about the scholarly controversy over Prof. Bellesiles's book when they gave him a fellowship, have pointed out to me two points I would like to clarify. For one, Prof. Malcolm's first review taking issue with "Arming America's" dubious scholarship appeared in Reason, its Jan. 2001 issue, that came out in Dec. 2000. A later review appeared in the Texas Law Review.
Secondly, Prof. Lindgren made his first formal scholarly presentation detailing his findings about the serious evidentiary problems of Prof. Bellesiles's book in Jan. 2001. At the time, Prof. Lindgren did not term what he discovered about the way Prof. Bellesiles handled the sources he cited "falsification." But many academics were coming or shortly would come to that conclusion as a result of what Prof. Malcolm, Prof. Lindgren and other non-academic scholars like Clayton Cramer were uncovering about Prof. Bellesiles's questionable research, all of which Mr. Grossman and the Newberry chose to ignore.
Jerome L. Sternstein - 5/3/2002
James Grossman's claim that there was no dispute among academics over whether "Arming America" employed falsified evidence or evidence which "does not exist" before the Newberry Library awarded Michael Bellesiles a $30,000 grant is inaccurate and is belied by the facts.
By the time the Newberry announced the availability of the fellowship, in early Jan. 2001, it later awarded Prof. Bellesiles, serious questions about his scholarship -- or lack of it -- had already been raised by Prof. Joyce Malcolm, of Bentley College, a specialist on the Second Amendment, in a devastating review of the book that appeared in Dec. 2000/Jan. 2001 issue of a leading law journal. A detailed, scholarly article focusing on Bellesiles's misuse of probate records had already been presented by Prof. James Lindgren at academic meetings and seminars in late 2000 and early 2001. In other words, questions over whether "Arming America" violated scholarly norms were a hot topic of debate in academic circles when Mr. Grossman says they weren't.
It is difficult to understand how Mr. Grossman could have been unaware of this, since Rebekah Holmes, Toby Higbie, Catherine Clement, and Jim Ackerman, all of whom appear to be senior staff members of the Newberry, were posting messages on H-NET (H-OIEAHC) at the very time, between Sept. 2000 and Feb. 2001, when an active debate concerning Bellesiles's disputed research was in progress.
Most importantly, on the very day, Jan. 9, 2001, the Newberry's fellowship announcement was posted on H-OIEAHC, Prof. Bellesiles posted remarks on that same site, in a pseudo attempt to answer those who pointed out that part of the evidence in his book simply didn't exist. On Jan. 17, Prof. Lindgren answered Bellesiles's post, with a detailed description of the questionable evidence Bellesiles employed for some of his arguments in "Arming America." Prof. Lindgren called upon scholars to look at the easily available, published documentary evidence and to compare it to how Bellesiles misused and falsified those documents. All of this must have been known to Newberry's senior staff who were also posting comments. Does Mr. Grossman contend that his senior staff at the Newberry kept him in the dark and did not inform him that distinguished scholars were raising serious doubts about Bellesiles's scholarship? Did he not know, nor did his senior staff members tell him, that in Prof. Lindgren's Jan. 17, 2001 post on H-OIEAHC (which they must have read) he had written this about Bellesiles's falsification of Providence probate records: "Bellesiles has no database, no counts, and no cites to ANY sources of probate records that actually support his claims of low gun ownership and poor gun condition." Prof. Lindgren, in his detailed analysis of how Bellesiles misused evidence, went on to predict, rightly it turns out, that his "current strategy of attacking the sources he cites and giving no evidence for his claims will untimately fail. . . The truth will utimately come out because most historians are moved more by evidence than by prejudice or appeals to their vanity as careful scholars."
Unfortunately, however, these words apparently had no impact on the Newberry Library administrators in early 2001. Unmoved and obviously deaf to the dispute then raging in academia over whether Prof. Bellesiles book was based on fraudulent research, it awarded him a $30,000 fellowship. Now it must justify why it did so. One would hope, however, that Mr. Grossman and others at the Newberry would be truthful to the NEH, and say it ignored the controversy, or did not do a proper investigation into the evidence such scholars and Joyce Malcolm and James Lindgren were presenting, before it gave Prof. Bellesiles a fellowship. Instead Mr. Grossman, to avoid embarrassment over the way his institution turned a blind eye to "Arming America's" scholarly critics, is now trying to distort the record by claiming no such serious academic criticism existed.
To the same question Sen. Howard Baker asked of Richard Nixon during the Watergate Hearings, "What did he know, and when did he know it," Mr. Grossman and the Newberry, like Nixon, plead ignorance. The facts, however, say otherwise, in both cases.
James Lindgren - 4/30/2002
It is sad to see Peter Eisenstadt's comments, one minute complaining of a political witch hunt, the next moment engaging in one.
The time has long past when any informed commentator could say with a traight face that the academic criticism of Michael Bellesiles' book is primarily politically motivated. Eisenstadt seems to buy into the political ad hominem attacks that Bellesiles has been leveling at his critics from the beginning, a reprehensible form of argumentation even when it is basically right--which it isn't here.
It is true that the initial criticisms from nonacademics were from the pro-gun side and that these have continued, but the academic criticisms have always come from people on both sides of the spectrum on gun control--as is widely known by any fair-minded observer. The simple fact is that many, if not most, of the critics who have been quoted unfavorably about the book in the press favor gun control--Randolph Roth, Eric Monkkonen, Jerome Sternstein, David Garrow, Roger Lane, Al Alschuler, Gerry Rosenberg, and myself (to name the ones who come to mind whose views I know). If you add to these people, scholars whose negative views have not yet been reported in the press (such as Garry Wills), there is little that the pro-gun and anti-gun forces agree on besides the serious errors in Michael Bellesiles' work. I am proud that we proponents of gun control put the truth above our gun politics.
That bias is not driving things is also suggested by the fact that the harshest academic criticisms that I have personally heard or read in the press all come from former positive reviewers of Bellesiles' scholarship--Don Hickey, Roger Lane, and Garry Wills. Obviously, Roger Lane's and Garry Wills' devastating conclusions about the book are not driven by their gun politics (I know nothing of Hickey's gun politics).
By mentioning only the National Review and the Wall Street Journal, Mr. Eisenstadt apparently quite consciously omits to mention that chief articles were also published by the New York Times, the Boston Globe, and the Chicago Tribune. Very negative stories also ran in NPR and the Economist. Indeed, although Melissa Seckora of National Review has done perhaps the most extensive and revealing reporting on this matter, no single article has had as much impact as David Mehegan's prize-winning article in the Globe, one of the country's more liberal papers. Being candid and straightforward would not have fit Eisenstadt's own political witch hunt, so he just left out the liberal papers from his list. In a field that has shown too little candor recently, Eisenstadt thinks he can persuade people by misleading them. The field deserves better.
As for talking to the press, until Michael Bellesiles falsely claimed that I forged his emails to me, I had published nothing in the press--and to this date, all I have published is a short piece on those emails for the online History News Network and some comments here. Bellesiles has published attacks on critics in the Wall Street Journal, Atlanta Journal Constitution, OAH Newsletter, and History News Network. He gave full text interviews to Playboy, Salon, and others. He gave scores of interviews to the press. Is Mr. Eisenstadt suggesting that, when the press called me, I was not supposed to talk about my research on the book after it had been replicated in articles scheduled to appear in the WMQ or Reviews in American History? Why should Bellesiles be talking repeatedly to the press while Roth and I who found problems with his work should not? I consider it the obligation of researchers to correct false information when asked by the press, especially when that information was spread by such prominent sources as the New York Times, NPR, Playboy, and Salon, among many others. Remember Randolph Roth, Robert Churchill, and I answered press inquiries about our scholarship only when we were ready to present our scholarly work in public.
As to evidence of serious errors that might raise the possibility of fraud, that was the subject of Jerome Sternstein's article. The recent email fiasco has made it harder for those who assumed that Bellesiles' mistakes were inadvertent to hold to that line. In denying his emails, Bellesiles claimed never to have said that he read most of the inventories in the East Point archives, but he was revealed on WBEZ radio (still available online) falsely claiming that the inventories are ALL on microfilm and that he read them at the East Point archives. If such a blatant falsehood were inadvertent, he would have already apologized, but he hasn't. As Randy Barnett of BU and Harvard told the Emory Wheel, "Were these trivial matters, Bellesiles would not have to invent such desperate accusations. This latest incident should reveal much about Professor Bellesiles' character to anyone who previously harbored any illusions."
Bellesiles was also caught by the Emory Wheel trying to persuade the students that I had not offered help to him in late 2000 because he swore off email in October 2000. Yet, as the Wheel pointed out in part to Bellesiles, he was still posting (including his email address) on both CONLAWPROF and on H-NET in December 2000 (and January 2001; see, e.g., Bellesiles Jan. 9, 2001 email post to H-OIEAHC). When the Wheel pointed out this falsehood, Bellesiles chastised them for catching him, rather than apologize for making false statements about our correspondence.
Mr. Eisenstadt suggests that he has not seen evidence to persuade him. It has been known for over a year that in Arming America Bellesiles counted guns in documents that never existed and published data that are mathematically impossible. Everyone who has checked out these claims has confirmed them, including Roth in WMQ. If Mr. Eisenstadt wants to check them himself, he could do so.
The thing that has most surprised me is the unwillingness of many historians to look things up before publicly engaging in ad hominem political attacks. It's as if they can see only their own politics, not the evidence in the sources; this is profoundly ahistorical and profoundly embarrassing. If people had originally been more open-minded and more intellectually curious, this dispute would have been essentially over a year ago--rather than continuing until the WMQ came out and more or less settled it for now.
James Lindgren
Stanford Clinton Sr. Research Professor
Director, Demography of Diversity Project
Northwestern University School of Law
James Lindgren - 4/30/2002
It is sad to see Peter Eisenstadt's comments, one minute complaining of a political witch hunt, the next moment engaging in one.
The time has long past when any informed commentator could say with a straight face that the academic criticism of Michael Bellesiles' book is primarily politically motivated. Eisenstadt seems to buy into the political ad hominem attacks that Bellesiles has been leveling at his critics from the beginning, a reprehensible form of argumentation even when it is basically right--which it isn't here.
It is true that the initial criticisms from nonacademics were from the pro-gun side and that these have continued, but the academic criticisms have always come from people on both sides of the spectrum on gun control--as is widely known by any fair-minded observer. The simple fact is that many, if not most, of the critics who have been quoted unfavorably about the book in the press favor gun control--Randolph Roth, Eric Monkkonen, Jerome Sternstein, David Garrow, Roger Lane, Al Alschuler, Gerry Rosenberg, and myself (to name the ones who come to mind whose views I know). If you add to these people, scholars whose publicly expressed negative views have not yet been reported in the press (such as Garry Wills), there is little that the pro-gun and anti-gun forces agree on besides the serious errors in Michael Bellesiles' work. I am proud that we proponents of gun control put the truth above our gun politics.
That bias is not driving things is also suggested by the fact that the harshest academic criticisms that I have personally heard or read in the press all come from former positive reviewers of Bellesiles' scholarship--Don Hickey, Roger Lane, and Garry Wills. Obviously, Roger Lane's and Garry Wills' devastating conclusions about the book are not driven by their gun politics (I know nothing of Hickey's gun politics).
By mentioning only the National Review and the Wall Street Journal, Mr. Eisenstadt apparently quite consciously omits to mention that chief articles were also published by the New York Times, the Boston Globe, and the Chicago Tribune. Very negative stories also ran in NPR and the Economist. Indeed, although Melissa Seckora of National Review has done perhaps the most extensive and revealing reporting on this matter, no single article has had as much impact as David Mehegan's prize-winning article in the Globe, one of the country's more liberal papers. Being candid and straightforward would not have fit Eisenstadt's own political witch hunt, so he just left out the liberal papers from his list. In a field that has shown too little candor recently, Eisenstadt thinks he can persuade people by misleading them. The field deserves better.
As for talking to the press, until Michael Bellesiles falsely claimed that I forged his emails to me, I had published nothing in the press--and to this date, all I have published is a short piece on those emails for the online History News Network and some comments here. Bellesiles has published attacks on critics in the Wall Street Journal, Atlanta Journal Constitution, OAH Newsletter, and History News Network. He gave full text interviews to Playboy, Salon, and others. He gave scores of interviews to the press. Is Mr. Eisenstadt suggesting that, when the press called me, I was not supposed to talk about my research on the book after it had been replicated in articles scheduled to appear in the WMQ or Reviews in American History? Why should Bellesiles be talking repeatedly to the press while Roth and I who found problems with his work should not? I consider it the obligation of researchers to correct false information when asked by the press, especially when that information was spread by such prominent sources as the New York Times, NPR, Playboy, and Salon, among many others. Remember Randolph Roth, Robert Churchill, and I answered press inquiries about our scholarship only when we were ready to present our scholarly work in public.
As to evidence of serious errors that might raise the possibility of fraud, that was the subject of Jerome Sternstein's article. The recent email fiasco has made it harder for those who assumed that Bellesiles' mistakes were inadvertent to hold to that line. In denying his emails, Bellesiles claimed never to have said that he read most of the inventories in the East Point archives, but he was revealed on WBEZ radio (still available online) falsely claiming that the inventories are ALL on microfilm in the East Point Archives and that he read them there. If such a blatant falsehood were inadvertent, he would have already apologized, but he hasn't. As Randy Barnett of BU and Harvard told the Emory Wheel, "Were these trivial matters, Bellesiles would not have to invent such desperate accusations. This latest incident should reveal much about Professor Bellesiles' character to anyone who previously harbored any illusions."
Bellesiles was also caught by the Emory Wheel trying to persuade the students that I had not offered help to him in late 2000 because he swore off email in October 2000. Yet, as the Wheel pointed out in part to Bellesiles, he was still posting (including his email address) on both CONLAWPROF and on H-NET in December 2000 (and January 2001; see, e.g., Bellesiles Jan. 9, 2001 email post to H-OIEAHC). When the Wheel pointed out this falsehood, Bellesiles chastised them for catching him, rather than apologize for making false statements about our correspondence.
Mr. Eisenstadt suggests that he has not seen evidence to persuade him. It has been known for over a year that in Arming America Bellesiles counted guns in documents that never existed and published data that are mathematically impossible. Everyone who has checked out these claims has confirmed them, including Roth in WMQ. If Mr. Eisenstadt wants to check them himself, he could do so.
The thing that has most surprised me is the unwillingness of many historians to look things up before publicly engaging in ad hominem political attacks. It's as if they can see only their own politics, not the evidence in the sources; this is profoundly ahistorical and profoundly embarrassing. If people had originally been more open-minded and more intellectually curious, this dispute would have been essentially over a year ago--rather than continuing until the WMQ came out and more or less settled it for now.
James Lindgren
Stanford Clinton Sr. Research Professor
Director, Demography of Diversity Project
Northwestern University School of Law
Michael Burlingame - 4/29/2002
Emory University may conduct a serious investigation into the allegations against Michael A. Bellesiles, but it may well produce a whitewash like the one issued by the University of Massachusetts-Amherst during the Stephen B. Oates case in 1991. UMass claimed that a panel of distinguished scholars found that Oates was innocent of plagiarism without bothering to consult me or any of the four other professors who lodged complaints with the AHA about Oates's plagiarism, which, as William Styron noted, was as plain as the nose on the end of your face. UMass did not explain how or why their unnamed consultants reached their decision.
Clayton E. Cramer - 4/29/2002
Unconfirmed accusations? If Mr. Eisenstadt is looking for detailed accusations that he go to the library and check for himself, start with http://www.claytoncramer.com/primary.html#MilitiaLaws which contains both an astonishing claim from _Arming America_, and image after image of the sources that Professor Bellesiles cited to back up that astonishing claim. To put it bluntly, if Bellesiles isn't intentionally lying, he is an extraordinarily poor reader. I was able to locate 17 of the 19 sources that Bellesiles cited for his claim. None of those 17 sources agreed with his claim; several directly contradicted it; the rest either failed to support his claim, or were completely irrelevant to it.
This, unfortunately, is a recurring problem with _Arming America_--hundreds of claims that are either unsupported by his sources, or more commonly, DIRECTLY CONTRADICT his claims. See http://www.claytoncramer.com/columbia.18apr01.htm for some examples where I used photocopies of pages from his book, and then of the sources he cited to show that _Arming America_ is a fraud.
For those with a bit more time to read, see http://www.claytoncramer.com/TheImportanceOfFootnotes.PDF . Unfortunately, for too many of the gatekeepers of the history professional journals, the reaction to serious and well-documented accusations of fraud by a highly honored book was this snotty letter from the editor of the Journal of the Early Republic: http://www.claytoncramer.com/jerresponse.jpg.
I am tired of hearing Bellesiles's friends complain about "unconfirmed accusations." This is not a whispering campaign, nor is it just a bunch of right-wing crazies upset about Bellesiles's claims. The Boston Globe has published a number of articles about this fraud as well, and to David Mehegan's credit, he didn't just cover this as a dispute between academics: he went out and checked some of the documents, and found that Bellesiles's claims were not just wrong, but consistently wrong, and in a manner that did not suggest accident.
Professor Bellesiles is a fraud. He uses documents that do not exist. He alters dates, quotes, and misrepresents sources to make his case--and on a massive scale. He is, in many respects, the academically respectable equivalent of a Holocaust denier. What he writes has the form of history, but does not survive even cursory checks of accuracy. Like the Holocaust deniers, he pretends that his work is purely an intellectual concern, yet it is clear to anyone but an idiot that _Arming America_ was written to serve a political purpose in support of Bellesiles's pet project, gun control. This, unfortunately, is one of the reasons that many academics initially enthusiastically reviewed Bellesiles's book, and as some of them are now admitting, they feel their cause was betrayed by Bellesiles's dishonesty.
Clayton E. Cramer
clayton@claytoncramer.com
norman heath - 4/29/2002
Mr. Eisenstadt's seemingly reasonable admonitions are premised on the rather dubious supposition that if we all just go on about our business the History Police take responsibility for exposing cases of academic fraud. I am sure that upon reflection he will concede that no such entity exists. His discomfort with do-it-yourself policing would be appropriate in instances of legally defined criminal acts. But in its munificence the state, perhaps foolishly, actually allows academics to police themselves, imagine that. Scholars have, therefore, no recourse but to judge for themselves that a misdeed has been perpetrated, and to raise a hue and cry, in something very much like the legal sense of the expression, wherein the members of a community were legally bound to participate in maintaining order among themselves. If that smacks too much of vigilantism then perhaps Mr. Eisenstadt would like to petition government to take responsibility for cases of academic fraud, as the AHA certainly will not: "The AHA is not and cannot be the historical profession's police force." http://historynewsnetwork.org/articles/article.html?id=693
Mr. Eisenstadt will no doubt point to Emory's investigation as the official arbiter of this controversy. With apologies to the many fine adminstrators at Emory, that university has or had an institutional interest in Prof. Bellesiles' career. As an unsullied prize-winner he was an asset: should disciplinary proceedings ensue, he will be a potential litigious risk. Emory's administrators, having a fiduciary responsibilty to their insitution, as well as a natural hesitation to impugn an associate, have been understandably reluctant to press the matter.
It is only unrelenting pursuit and disclosure of the facts by self-appointed investigators that have prompted Emory to examine this matter at all. I remind Mr. Eisenstadt that the academy fell all over itself to heap accolades on Bellesiles, despite the pleas of outsiders that certain citations be checked *before* the reviews be written. This cannot be emphasized enough. The various reviewers and members of the academy made it profoundly clear that they were enamored of Bellesiles' thesis and would not hear a word said against it, facts be damned. If the exertions against ARMING AMERICA appear excessive at the moment, the force has built slowly, and is only equal to the resistance which has quite recently collapsed.
If, as Mr. Eisenstadt suggests, Bellesiles is entitled to the open-ended presumption of innocence, then the professor was wronged from the very moment some churlish type presumed to check a single citation from ARMING AMERICA. The fact is that Bellesiles has a PhD, which entitles him to the presumption not of innocence but of competence, a presumption on which he has traded profitably in the past, but which today he cannot deny profusely enough.
I notice that Bellesiles' former defenders have fallen silent, and that the only ones speaking on his behalf are those, like Mr. Eisenstadt, who admit not knowing the facts, but can't help expressing an opinion anyway. I appreciate the gentleman's concern for propriety, but unless he can assure those most familiar with this affair that it will somehow take care of itself, I suggest that he will be unable to stop the hue and cry, and with good reason.
Norman Heath
Chris Messner - 4/29/2002
The focus on Prof. Bellesiles is a major story, because he and the gun-control groups turned it into a major story. His book received top attention of the anti-gun reviewers, he went on shows to discuss it, and it was used as a reference in a Supreme Court case.
Actually the critics of his book from non-professional circles did not, and still do not, receive much media attention. It was only when Bellesiles himself began to insert his foot into his mouth on sources, e-mails, and probate records that academics took up the investigation of his book, and mainstream media began real looks at it. I agree that it is time to put aside the probate records, but only because there are other glaring areas of dishonest sourcing in the book that demand attention.
Please take the time to review Clayton Cramer's website (www.claytoncramer.com), and especially gun manufacturing in Early America, and if you still doubt the merit of arguments against Prof. Bellesiles post again.
Chris
peter eisenstadt - 4/29/2002
I for one am getting extremely tired of reading article after article of alleged and generally unconfirmed accusations against Michael Bellesiles--revocation of the Bancroft award; cancellation of an NEH fellowship--and so and on. The campaign against Bellesiles, initatied by the NRA, carried on by the National Review, the Wall Street Journal, and various academic allies, is the worst case of academic character assassination in my memory. In the nature of these campaigns, enough smoke is produced to convince almost everyone that there must be some fire. I don't know. I certainly have read nothing that convinces me that there was any effort at deliberate fraud. As for the other charges, I think we need to reserve judgment. The banner headlines on this matter in this history news network threaten to turn this worthwhile service into an adjunct of the Drudge Report. Why can't historians disagree, and disagree vociferously, about such matters as probate analysis without this becoming front page news? Why can't Bellesiles' critics wait for the committee appointed by Emory carefully and deliberately investigate the accusations, and retain the presumption of innocence until proven guilty? Why isn't more attention being paid to the unrelenting efforts by various parties to sully Bellesiles' reputation before all the facts are in?
NEWS
C