Return to News Archives 3-03 to 4-03
From: Don Williams; small.corgi@verizon.net ; NRA member 052801824
Subj: US Army History Center which refutes Bellesiles needs to be saved
1) In 2000, historian Michael Bellesiles published "Arming America" to great acclaim by academic historians and by gun control groups. "Arming America" was called the "NRA's worse nightmare" because it argued that (a) the Revolutionary War citizens had few guns and (b) the citizen militias were incompetent and couldn't fight anyway.
What was not mentioned in the mainstream press was that "Arming America" was the spearhead of a strong campaign by some prominent historians to overturn the Second Amendment in a precedent-setting Supreme Court case, US vs Emerson.
(See http://historynewsnetwork.org/articles/article.html?id=741
and updates at http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=h-oieahc&month=0301&week=e&msg=5%2b8SY5LwwM8pBlTCpRhMcA&user=&pw= )
In 2000, Arming America was initially greeted with great acclaim by reviewers in the New York Times, the New York Review of Books, and by gun control advocacy groups. Some prominent historians allied with Michael Bellesiles in gun control advocacy in the US vs Emerson campaign praised Arming America highly --without noting their ideological alliance with Bellesiles. Arming America received History’s two highest awards -- the Binkley-Stephenson and the Bancroft prize.
However, review of Arming America by scholars outside of academia’s history departments triggered a rising tide of criticism, articles in several national newspapers, and an investigation by Mr Bellesiles’ Emory University. After Emory’s Committee of outside experts reached a negative judgment on his research methods, Mr Bellesiles resigned from a tenured professorship at Emory University, Columbia University rescinded the Bancroft Prize award to Mr Bellesiles, and Knopf decided to cease publication of Arming America.
2) Among the best refutations of Bellesiles was a reference --"American Military History" done by the US Army's Center for Military History (CMH). Throughout 2002, I cited this reference repeatedly when discussing Arming America in the historians' H-OIEAHC forum and in the Arming America discussion sponsored by the Chronicle of Higher Education.
3) Now, however, the CMH is slated for destruction -- as a recent History News Network article notes, some Pentagon bureaucrats are considering contracting out the CMH mission to liberal academia: see http://hnn.us/comments/8923.html#center , para 2.
This is a very bad idea for several reasons. First I will explain why --then I will explain what you need to do.
4) One, many academic historians have a strong liberal bias --as shown by the uncritical acceptance of Arming America and by the fact that the major criticism of Arming America largely came from outside the history departments of academia. Even historians who are not necessarily liberal largely remained silent -- probably to avoid offending the powerful historians involved in the US vs Emerson campaign.
Two, many academic historians appear to have an institutional and individual aversion to military matters. Historians' familarity with the military appears to have greatly declined since the end of the draft. In my opinion, Bellesiles' "Arming America" -- and it's receipt of academic History's two highest honors -- indicates that many academic historians today lack the basic understanding of military operations needed to interpret historical sources.
Three, Arming America suggests that academic historians do not understand the influence that politics, diplomacy, geography, and economics exert on military operations. Arming America greatly lacks the broad perspective of CMH's American Military History and of the monographs produced at the Army's Command and General Staff College. Bellesiles failed to recognize how the militia victories at Bennington, Saratoga, King's Mountain, and Cowpens convinced the French and Spanish to provide Congress with desperately needed aid. Bellesiles failed to recognize that King George was borrowing money from Dutch bankers to finance his war -- and that the bankers cut off his credit when the southern militia showed that he could never subdue several hundred thousand armed men in a trackless wilderness. At least, King George could not do so and make any kind of a profit in commerce.
Proof of the above observations can be seen by comparing Bellesiles' assessments of militia performance in battles with those of CMH's "American Military History". For examples, see my following H-OIEAHC articles:
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=0204&week=b&msg=hcb2A8JxkmLiHjUXhfDIsg&user=&pw=
http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=h-oieahc&month=0205&week=c&msg=csZZTSqxFnvjjPNWoan9nA&user=&pw=
http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=h-oieahc&month=0206&week=c&msg=l1zZ8lNGOUj3GQG41w32Fw&user=&pw=
http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=h-oieahc&month=0207&week=c&msg=PkrdkLRPluSObiMgdhAKPw&user=&pw=
5) In short, the Pentagon's closure of the Army's Center for Military History would be ill-advised because academic historians cannot serve the Army as well as CMH -- they have neither the inclination nor the ability to do so. The Army would be foolish to surrender it’s history to academia.
6) But the measure of CMH's value is not just what it provides the Army -- it is what CMH provides the American people as the Army's institutional memory. History is our only means for determining the long term consequences of governmental policies and laws. History is used by politicians when crafting measures to deal with current events (e.g., Homeland Security and September 11). It is used by professors of Constitutional Law in understanding the intricate checks and balances of the Constitution. It is used by students examining what it means to be an American citizen.
As an independent center of historical research, the Army’s Center for Military History(CMH)’s objective history is a badly needed counterweight to liberal propaganda from academia and the anti-gun Joyce Foundation. Propaganda like Arming America. The case files of two recent precedent-setting Second Amendment rulings -- US vs Emerson (Fifth Circuit Court of Federal Appeals) and Silveira vs Lochyer (Ninth Circuit Court ) are laded with Bellesiles’ now-questionable historical context for the Second Amendment , as described in my H-OIEAHC post cited in para 1 above. The work of the Army’s CMH is one of the authoritative rebuttals to Bellesiles’ false and misleading depictions of the early militias.
The CMH should be supported not because it takes a position in the ongoing Second Amendment debate (it does not) but because it’s objectivity, honesty, and committed professionalism are badly needed today.
The CMH should be supported because the cost savings of privatization are minor, vaguely defined and questionable. The Army would incur significant costs in privatization just in educating academicans on the nature of military operations,etc.
In closing, note that I know no one at the CMH nor have I spoken with anyone there. I support CMH because I am a grateful user of their products.
7) Here is what needs to be done (quickly):
Please Email your Congressman and Senators, expressing opposition to this action and specifically asking that the Army’s Center for Military History (CMH) be exempted from
A-76 “ outsourcing” consideration. If you are pressed for time, you are welcome to enclose a copy of this letter by way of explanation.
Carbon-copy your email to the following:
a) members of the House Armed Services Committee
b) members of the Senate Armed Services Committee
c) Dr John Armstrong, assistant deputy assistant secretary of the Army for manpower and
reserve affairs
The HNN article cited above indicates that Dr Armstrong made CMH subject to privatization. This article indicates that Dr Armstrong is the genius behind the wave of privatization throughout the Army--that he directed the study justifying it during the Clinton Administration: http://207.27.3.29/features/0599/0599s1.htm
d) Reginald Brown, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs (who supposedly will make the final decision)
e) The Center for Military History
f) Please also carbon copy President Bush and Lynne Cheney (wife of the Vice-President) --both of whom have voiced a strong desire to support history.
If you are pressed for time, simply note your opposition and enclose a copy of this letter by way of explanation.
Emails for the above parties are as follows:
Your Congressman: http://www.house.gov/writerep/
Your Senators: http://www.senate.gov/
Senate Armed Services Committee: http://armed-services.senate.gov/members.htm
(At least carbon copy Chairman John Warner at http://www.senate.gov/~warner/contact/contactme.htm
if pressed for time
House Armed Services Committee: http://armedservices.house.gov/about/members.html
(Chairman Duncan Hunter at http://www.house.gov/hunter/email.htm )
Dr John Armstrong at John.Anderson@hqda.army.mil
Reginald Brown, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs, via
james.wakefield@hdqa.army.mil
US Army Center for Military History at cmhonline@hqda.army.mil
President Bush at president@whitehouse.gov
Lynne Cheney via her husband at vice.president@whitehouse.gov
Subj: US Army History Center which refutes Bellesiles needs to be saved
1) In 2000, historian Michael Bellesiles published "Arming America" to great acclaim by academic historians and by gun control groups. "Arming America" was called the "NRA's worse nightmare" because it argued that (a) the Revolutionary War citizens had few guns and (b) the citizen militias were incompetent and couldn't fight anyway.
What was not mentioned in the mainstream press was that "Arming America" was the spearhead of a strong campaign by some prominent historians to overturn the Second Amendment in a precedent-setting Supreme Court case, US vs Emerson.
(See http://historynewsnetwork.org/articles/article.html?id=741
and updates at http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=h-oieahc&month=0301&week=e&msg=5%2b8SY5LwwM8pBlTCpRhMcA&user=&pw= )
In 2000, Arming America was initially greeted with great acclaim by reviewers in the New York Times, the New York Review of Books, and by gun control advocacy groups. Some prominent historians allied with Michael Bellesiles in gun control advocacy in the US vs Emerson campaign praised Arming America highly --without noting their ideological alliance with Bellesiles. Arming America received History’s two highest awards -- the Binkley-Stephenson and the Bancroft prize.
However, review of Arming America by scholars outside of academia’s history departments triggered a rising tide of criticism, articles in several national newspapers, and an investigation by Mr Bellesiles’ Emory University. After Emory’s Committee of outside experts reached a negative judgment on his research methods, Mr Bellesiles resigned from a tenured professorship at Emory University, Columbia University rescinded the Bancroft Prize award to Mr Bellesiles, and Knopf decided to cease publication of Arming America.
2) Among the best refutations of Bellesiles was a reference --"American Military History" done by the US Army's Center for Military History (CMH). Throughout 2002, I cited this reference repeatedly when discussing Arming America in the historians' H-OIEAHC forum and in the Arming America discussion sponsored by the Chronicle of Higher Education.
3) Now, however, the CMH is slated for destruction -- as a recent History News Network article notes, some Pentagon bureaucrats are considering contracting out the CMH mission to liberal academia: see http://hnn.us/comments/8923.html#center , para 2.
This is a very bad idea for several reasons. First I will explain why --then I will explain what you need to do.
4) One, many academic historians have a strong liberal bias --as shown by the uncritical acceptance of Arming America and by the fact that the major criticism of Arming America largely came from outside the history departments of academia. Even historians who are not necessarily liberal largely remained silent -- probably to avoid offending the powerful historians involved in the US vs Emerson campaign.
Two, many academic historians appear to have an institutional and individual aversion to military matters. Historians' familarity with the military appears to have greatly declined since the end of the draft. In my opinion, Bellesiles' "Arming America" -- and it's receipt of academic History's two highest honors -- indicates that many academic historians today lack the basic understanding of military operations needed to interpret historical sources.
Three, Arming America suggests that academic historians do not understand the influence that politics, diplomacy, geography, and economics exert on military operations. Arming America greatly lacks the broad perspective of CMH's American Military History and of the monographs produced at the Army's Command and General Staff College. Bellesiles failed to recognize how the militia victories at Bennington, Saratoga, King's Mountain, and Cowpens convinced the French and Spanish to provide Congress with desperately needed aid. Bellesiles failed to recognize that King George was borrowing money from Dutch bankers to finance his war -- and that the bankers cut off his credit when the southern militia showed that he could never subdue several hundred thousand armed men in a trackless wilderness. At least, King George could not do so and make any kind of a profit in commerce.
Proof of the above observations can be seen by comparing Bellesiles' assessments of militia performance in battles with those of CMH's "American Military History". For examples, see my following H-OIEAHC articles:
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=0204&week=b&msg=hcb2A8JxkmLiHjUXhfDIsg&user=&pw=
http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=h-oieahc&month=0205&week=c&msg=csZZTSqxFnvjjPNWoan9nA&user=&pw=
http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=h-oieahc&month=0206&week=c&msg=l1zZ8lNGOUj3GQG41w32Fw&user=&pw=
http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=h-oieahc&month=0207&week=c&msg=PkrdkLRPluSObiMgdhAKPw&user=&pw=
5) In short, the Pentagon's closure of the Army's Center for Military History would be ill-advised because academic historians cannot serve the Army as well as CMH -- they have neither the inclination nor the ability to do so. The Army would be foolish to surrender it’s history to academia.
6) But the measure of CMH's value is not just what it provides the Army -- it is what CMH provides the American people as the Army's institutional memory. History is our only means for determining the long term consequences of governmental policies and laws. History is used by politicians when crafting measures to deal with current events (e.g., Homeland Security and September 11). It is used by professors of Constitutional Law in understanding the intricate checks and balances of the Constitution. It is used by students examining what it means to be an American citizen.
As an independent center of historical research, the Army’s Center for Military History(CMH)’s objective history is a badly needed counterweight to liberal propaganda from academia and the anti-gun Joyce Foundation. Propaganda like Arming America. The case files of two recent precedent-setting Second Amendment rulings -- US vs Emerson (Fifth Circuit Court of Federal Appeals) and Silveira vs Lochyer (Ninth Circuit Court ) are laded with Bellesiles’ now-questionable historical context for the Second Amendment , as described in my H-OIEAHC post cited in para 1 above. The work of the Army’s CMH is one of the authoritative rebuttals to Bellesiles’ false and misleading depictions of the early militias.
The CMH should be supported not because it takes a position in the ongoing Second Amendment debate (it does not) but because it’s objectivity, honesty, and committed professionalism are badly needed today.
The CMH should be supported because the cost savings of privatization are minor, vaguely defined and questionable. The Army would incur significant costs in privatization just in educating academicans on the nature of military operations,etc.
In closing, note that I know no one at the CMH nor have I spoken with anyone there. I support CMH because I am a grateful user of their products.
7) Here is what needs to be done (quickly):
Please Email your Congressman and Senators, expressing opposition to this action and specifically asking that the Army’s Center for Military History (CMH) be exempted from
A-76 “ outsourcing” consideration. If you are pressed for time, you are welcome to enclose a copy of this letter by way of explanation.
Carbon-copy your email to the following:
a) members of the House Armed Services Committee
b) members of the Senate Armed Services Committee
c) Dr John Armstrong, assistant deputy assistant secretary of the Army for manpower and
reserve affairs
The HNN article cited above indicates that Dr Armstrong made CMH subject to privatization. This article indicates that Dr Armstrong is the genius behind the wave of privatization throughout the Army--that he directed the study justifying it during the Clinton Administration: http://207.27.3.29/features/0599/0599s1.htm
d) Reginald Brown, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs (who supposedly will make the final decision)
e) The Center for Military History
f) Please also carbon copy President Bush and Lynne Cheney (wife of the Vice-President) --both of whom have voiced a strong desire to support history.
If you are pressed for time, simply note your opposition and enclose a copy of this letter by way of explanation.
Emails for the above parties are as follows:
Your Congressman: http://www.house.gov/writerep/
Your Senators: http://www.senate.gov/
Senate Armed Services Committee: http://armed-services.senate.gov/members.htm
(At least carbon copy Chairman John Warner at http://www.senate.gov/~warner/contact/contactme.htm
if pressed for time
House Armed Services Committee: http://armedservices.house.gov/about/members.html
(Chairman Duncan Hunter at http://www.house.gov/hunter/email.htm )
Dr John Armstrong at John.Anderson@hqda.army.mil
Reginald Brown, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs, via
james.wakefield@hdqa.army.mil
US Army Center for Military History at cmhonline@hqda.army.mil
President Bush at president@whitehouse.gov
Lynne Cheney via her husband at vice.president@whitehouse.gov
Return to News Archives 3-03 to 4-03
by Don Williams on March 5, 2003 at 12:34 PM