Disarmed A gun-hating historian comes under heavy fire.

NRO | October 4, 2001 | John J. Miller & Ramesh Ponnuru

[LavaDog]

NR's Melissa Seckora had the misfortune of seeing an important piece debut on National Review Online on the morning of September 11. Her story exposing the phony sources behind Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture, an award-winning book critical of U.S. gun culture by Emory University historian Michael Bellesiles, normally would have attracted a great deal of attention. Instead, it became a minor concern as we all came to grips with the horror of mass terrorism.

Now there's been a stunning new development in the Bellesiles case: The head of Emory's history department is demanding that Bellesiles write a detailed defense of his book. "What is important is that he defend himself and the integrity of his scholarship immediately," said James Melton, according to yesterday's Boston Globe, which also printed a September 11 story on Bellesiles airing charges similar to NR's. "Depending upon his response, the university will respond appropriately."

That's not exactly a ringing endorsement of a colleague. And it gets worse: "If there is prima facie evidence of scholarly misconduct, the university has to conduct a thorough investigation. Whether it be a purely internal inquiry, or the university brings in distinguished scholars in the field, will depend on how Michael responds," said Melton.

Seckora, in fact, interviewed some of the "distinguished scholars" any such effort is likely to involve — including a few recommended to her by Bellesiles. Let's just say he doesn't fare well in their estimation. But how could he? Key sources for his claim that guns were a much less important part of early American culture than is commonly believed simply don't exist. Many of those he cites, in fact, were destroyed in San Francisco's 1906 earthquake. There's not a historian alive who's seen them.

Bellesiles now must explain how they wound up in his footnotes — and he told the Globe he'll do it in a future newsletter published by the Organization of American Historians.

He has his work cut out for him, thanks in part to the intrepid reporting of Seckora, whose article may be read here, or in the October 15, 2001, issue of National Review.

[madison46]

Read my 2nd post (#3 or #4 area). The Northwestern study attempted to reproduce his numbers from the Probate records and can't do it. Gun numbers are higher. And yes, he can't produce his notes because he kept them on Post It Notes. He counted guns from the records with tick marks. Claims they were lost when the boxes they were in got wet in a flood. He said they were 'pulp' now.

Wonder if his students ever get to use that excuse????

[madison46]

See post number 21.

[Number_Cruncher]

Between 1800 and 1845, a man named John Chapman lived in the pioneer areas of Ohio and Indiana. One remarkable characteristic of John Chapman was that he went about never carrying a gun. It was so unusual as to be described as unique among his contemporaries. These observations tell us that virtually everyone carried guns at least part of the time and that guns were very common. It certainly contradicts Michael Bellesiles thesis in every respect.

By the way, John Chapman is more commonly known as Johnny Appleseed.

[KillerWabbit]

bellicism, bel·li·cism (n) - A statement containing falsehoods with respect to the extent of civilian possession of firearms in early America.

Heheh. Very good. Hope it catches on!

Bump.

[SurferDoc]

Bellicistic bellicose bump!

[lowbridge]

Take his reply and wipe his face in it. :-)

[lowbridge]

bump

[Professor Jim]

Actually two gun control scholars have recanted: Richard Uviller of Columbia has publicly said that he was duped, and the historian Don Hickey posted to historians that the book was false and possibly fabricated.