Posted on 02/10/2004 6:16:00 AM PST by stainlessbanner
IS THE Confederate battle flag a symbol of hate? Although there are certain connotations that have been improperly associated with the Confederate flag, there are still many people within the American population who display it to show pride in their heritage.
Heritage, not hate.
The Confederate States of America was a compilation of southern states that seceded from the United States of America. Following the formation of this new government, the grievances between the North and South produced hostility and warfare.
Our differences divided us as a nation. Yet during that period, there arose a certain Southern solidarity that people cannot forget.
A liberal federal judge has banned the display of Confederate flags in cemeteries near our area. Could he, not the Southerners who revere the flag, be the prejudiced one?
Only two days out of 365 in a year are people allowed to fly the Confederate battle flag in Point Lookout in Maryland. There have been many appeals, but the judge concluded that it "could" cause hateful uprisings and counter-actions to prevent the flag from flying.
So much for those who died during the Civil War bravely fighting for the South. 3,300 Confederate soldiers died at Point Lookout Cemetery, and the flag would commemorate their lives and their deaths.
Although many people do not understand or agree with what the Confederate States of America stood for, these men gave their lives and had the courage to stand up for what they believed in.
In fact, Confederates fought for the ideals expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution--states' rights, no taxation without fair representation and freedom from oppressive government.
They weren't fighting for hate. They weren't fighting to destroy a race.
They were fighting to preserve the government that they had chosen--the Confederate States of America--the government that allowed them to preserve their own way of life.
Fact: The overwhelming majority of Southerners never owned slaves. Slavery as an institution was fading, and making way for more pragmatic agricultural practices, including the use of immigrant labor.
Too many people today do not agree with what Southern soldiers stood for, often basing their opinion on faulty history or willful ignorance. That doesn't mean that we should respect the soldiers from Dixie any less.
Ignorance has turned the South's past into a history of hate. I have grown up in the South. I am not racist. I consider myself to be an open-minded person.
I do have Dixie Pride, though.
I grew up in a Civil War town that has a Confederate Cemetery in the middle of it. There's even a store called "Lee's Outpost."
Yes, there are people who live in Fredericksburg who consider the Confederate flag as a symbol of hatred and racism. However, they do not know what it is truly about.
The war between the states was a time when brother fought against brother. It was a time when people didn't have the choice to be passive.
Ultimately, regardless of one's feelings about the flag, banning the Confederate flag is unconstitutional under the Bill of Rights. Flying the flag is considered a form of speech--and if it is legal to burn an American flag, it should be legal without question to fly the Confederate one.
I do own a Confederate flag. I'm a Southerner, proud of my heritage, and I take pride in the fact that my ancestors rose to the occasion and fought for their form of government.
They did not give their lives to protect slavery in the South. They did not die to keep African-Americans from sharing the same liberties and freedoms that they were blessed with. They believed they were fighting for their families, homes and states against an oppressive government in the North.
The book "The South Was Right" provides many facts to support this.
In the end, it almost doesn't matter why they fought. We claim to be a nation that believes in freedom of speech, where everyone can have their own beliefs and not be looked down on for it.
Are we or aren't we?
What makes this country great is that we have the right to make up our own minds about things. People are asked if they believe in freedom of speech. They reply, "Yes, of course I believe in freedom of speech."
Yet when they don't agree with the speech, sometimes they contradict themselves.
As a nation with millions of citizens, we will never agree on any principles or ideas as a whole--except for the fact that freedom cannot be replaced, and rights cannot be sacrificed.
So why should the Confederate flag be an exception? Free speech applies to everyone, and Southerners have great reasons to be proud of their past.
BUFFY RIPLEY is a sophomore at Virginia Commonwealth University.
The Terrors of Submission
"A few days since, we endeavored to show, that the pictures of ruin and desolation to the South, which the submissionists to Black Republican domination were so continually drawing, to "fright us from our propriety," were unreal and false. We propose now to reverse the picture, and to show what will probably be the consequences of a submission of the Southern States, to the rule of Abolitionism at Washington, in the persons of Messrs. LINCOLN and HAMLIN, should they be elected to the Presidency and Vice Presidency of the United States.
"1. The first effect of the submission of the South, to the installation of Abolitionists in the offices of President and Vice President of the United States, must be a powerful consolidation of the strength of the Abolition party at the North. Success, generally strengthens. If, after all the threats of resistance and disunion, made in Congress and out of Congress, the Southern States sink down into acquiescence, the demoralization of the South will be complete. Add the patronage resulting from the control of ninety-four thousand offices, and the expenditure of eighty millions of money annually, and they must be irresistible in controlling the General Government.
"2. To plunder the South for the benefit of the North, by a new Protective Tariff, will be one of their first measures of Northern sectional domination; and, on the other hand, to exhaust the treasury by sectional schemes of appropriation, will be a congenial policy.
"3. Immediate danger will be brought to slavery, in all the Frontier States. When a party is enthroned at Washington, in the Executive and Legislative departments of the Government, whose creed it is, to repeal the Fugitive Slave Laws, the under-ground railroad, will become an over-ground railroad. The tenure of slave property will be felt to be weakened; and the slaves will be sent down to the Cotton States for sale, and the Frontier States enter on the policy of making themselves Free States.
"4. With the control of the Government of the United States, and an organized and triumphant North to sustain them, the Abolitionists will renew their operations upon the South with increased courage. The thousands in every country who look up to power, and make gain out of the future, will come out in support of the Abolition Government. The BROWNLOWS and the BOTTS', in the South, will multiply. They will organize; and from being a Union party, to support an Abolition Government, they will become, like the Government they support, Abolitionists. They will have an Abolition Party in the South, of Southern men. The contest for slavery, will no longer be one between the North and the South. It will be in the South, between the people of the South.
"5. If, in our present position of power and unitedness, we have the raid of JOHN BROWN-- and twenty towns burned down in Texas in one year, by Abolitionists-- what will be the measures of insurrection and incendiarism, which must follow our notorious and abject prostration to Abolition rule at Washington, with all the patronage of the Federal Government, and a Union organization in the South to support it? Secret conspiracy, and its attendant horrors, with rumors of horrors, will hover over every portion of the South; while, in the language of the Black Republican patriarch-- GIDDINGS-- they "will laugh at your calamities, and mock when your fear cometh."
"6. Already there is uneasiness throughout the South, as to the stability of its institution on slavery. But with a submission to the rule of Abolitionists at Washington, thousands of slaveholders will despair of the institution. While the condition of things in the Frontier States will force their slaves on the markets of the Cotton States, the timid in the Cotton States, will also sell their slaves. The consequence must be, slave property must be greatly depreciated. We see advertisements for the sale of slaves in some of the Cotton States, for the simple object of getting rid of them; and we know that standing orders for the purchase of slaves in this market have been withdrawn, on account of an anticipated decline of value from the political condition of the country.
"7. We suppose, that taking in view all these things, it is not extravagant to estimate, that the submission of the South to the administration of the Federal Government under Messrs. LINCOLN and HAMLIN, must reduce the value of slaves in the South, one hundred dollars each. It is computed that there are four million, three hundred thousand, slaves in the United States. Here, therefore, is a loss to the Southern people of four hundred and thirty millions of dollars, on their slaves alone. Of course, real estate of all kinds must partake also in the depreciation of slaves.
"8. Slave property, is the foundation of all property in the South. When security in this is shaken, all other property partakes of its instability. Banks, stocks, bonds, must be influenced. Timid men will sell out and leave the South. Confusion, distrust and pressure must reign.
"9. Before Messrs. LINCOLN and HAMLIN can be installed in Washington, as President and Vice-President of the United States, the Southern States can dissolve peaceably (we know what we say) their union with the North. Mr. LINCOLN and his Abolition cohorts, will have no South, to reign over. Their game would be blocked. The foundation of their organization, would be taken away; and, left to the tender mercies of a baffled, furious and troubled North, they would be cursed and crushed, as the flagitious cause of the disasters around them. But if we submit, and do not dissolve our union with the North, we make the triumph of our Abolition enemies complete, and enable them to consolidate and wield the power of the North, for our destruction.
"10. If the South once submits to the rule of Abolitionists by the General Government, there is, probably, an end of all peaceful separation of the Union. We can only escape the ruin they meditate for the South, by war. Armed with power of the General Government, and their organizations at the North, they will have no respect for our courage or energy, and they will use the sword for our subjection. If there is any man in the South who believes, that we must separate from the North, we appeal to his humanity, in case Mr. LINCOLN is elected, to dissolve our connection with the North, before the 4th of March next.
"11. The ruin of the South, by the emancipation of her slaves, is not like the ruin of any other people. It is not a mere loss of liberty, like the Italians under the BOURBONS. It is not heavy taxation, which must still leave the means of living, or otherwise taxation defeats itself. But it is the loss of liberty, property, home, country-- everything that makes life worth living. And this loss, will probably take place under circumstances of suffering and horror, unsurpassed in the history of nations. We must preserve our liberties and institutions, under penalties greater than those which impend over any people in the world.
"12. Lastly, we conclude this brief statement of the terrors of submission, by declaring, that in our opinion, they are ten-fold greater even that the supposed terrors of disunion."
You say the issue was about "freedom - nothing more, nothing less." I say the issue was far more complex. What do the editorialists at the Mercury say?
Point #1 was about growing abolition sentiments in the North.
Point #2 was about tarriffs.
Point #3 was about the expansion of slavery into the territories and failure to enforce the fugitive slave laws.
Point #4 was about the pointential for abolitionists in the South
Point #5 was about abolitionist "terrorism."
Point #6 was about the depreciation of the value of slaves in the future.
Point #7 was again about the loss of value of slaves as property.
Point #8 was about the basis of the Southern economy.
Point #9 was about secession to thwart abolitionist ambitions in the South.
Point #10 was about secession as a way to avoid war with the North.
Point #11 was about the ruination of the South if the slaves were to be emancipated.
Point #12 was a statement that submission to the North was worse than disunuion with the North.
The most amazing and eye-opening statements are found in Point #11. Let me repeat them for your edification and enlightenment:
"The ruin of the South, by the emancipation of her slaves, is not like the ruin of any other people. ... it is the loss of liberty,property, home, country - EVERYTHING THAT MAKES LIFE WORTH LIVING. ... We must preserve our liberty AND INSTITUTIONS ..."
So there you have it. Twelve points made in an editorial by a leading Southern newspaper in October 1860, stating in unequivocal terms the Southern fears leading up to the War Between the States. Twelve points, nine of which dealt directly with slavery and its potential abolition. And the bold statement that human slavery was the basis for "everything that makes life worth living." And the finale that "we must preserve our liberty AND institutions (equally important in the eyes of the editorialists).
This editorial wasn't even unique. I can post several others, if you wish. They all say about the same thing.
I am not a "south-hater" or a "revisionist lunatic." However unpleasant you may find it, the WBTS was not simply about Southern freedom. It was very much about preserving the southern ruling plantation class and their way of life - based on the institution of slavery ... preserving "liberty and institutions."
Bump.
Also of note: The "new" damnyankees are the blue-zoners, and are not necessarily from the Northeast (plenty of evidence of that on these threads).
He's responding to your use of 9-11 in the use of your hatefilled rants.
You cheapen their memories, as you often do the 600,000 men who fell fighting for their vision of America.
8 parts brown sugar, 3 parts salt, 1 part chili powder
Stab pork ribs repeatedly with a fork. Douse liberally with above mixture, and let stand uncovered (on a cookie sheet works well) in the refridgerator overnight. Smoke at 225° for 2-3 hours or until tender. Finish on a charcoal grill turning frequently while painting liberally with a good barbeque sauce.
MMMMMMmmmmmm
Exactly my point. He says it's wrong then does it himself. I don't think it's wrong to tell the truth.
You cheapen their memories, as you often do the 600,000 men who fell fighting for their vision of America.
Look who's talking. You said Lincoln killed them. You use their deaths for your silly delusional obsession.
her TAMALE PIE is delish & is so filled with pepper as to be also usable as paint/varnish remover!
free dixie,sw
the other 94-95% couldn't have cared less about some rich guy continuing to own slaves. AND after the WBTS broke out & many the plantation-owning elites started collaborating with the enemy, the disinterest on the part of the common southerner turned to outright HATRED. (had the south won our war for independence, the lot of the collabortor would have been UNPLEASANT!)
free dixie,sw
free the southland,sw
#3 is one of the southHATERS on FR.
if he/she wasn't busily hating dixie, he/she would be hating some other group.
it has been my experience, that bigots are bigots, regardless of what group they "look down on".
REF: 9-11, i would point out that some of us were asked numerous times, at "Ground Zero" AND at the Pentagon crash site, what we were doing holding hands & praying on our knees.
on one of the Saturdays,one of the ladies (a MS belle, who has a REALLY SOUTHERN accent, think: moonlight & magnolias.) said "praying for the dead. would ya'll like to join us??", the louts started LOL and "making remarks" about how stupid & ignorant southern Christians are. some called us "Tammy Fay"s, while the other LOL AT the "jokes" & us.
i'm reliably told that ONE guy in NYC started telling LOUD "redneck jokes", while the prayers were being said, to the general laughter of his fellows.
on a different day at the Pentagon (the memorial activities went on for months EVERY Saturday.) i was asked what the flag i was holding was. when i said it was the SC state flag, one of the bystanders asked me if we were STILL owning slaves "down there"! others made EQUALLY STUPID "amusing" remarks.
such behavior toward Christians/southerners does NOT make me giddy with admiration for the damnyankees OR the society that spawned such cretins! (are all northerners like that? NO, but damnyankees ARE that way!)
NOTE: being northernborn no more makes you a damnyankee than it makes you a plumber;damnyankee is a LEARNED, rather than in-born, prejudice!
free dixie,sw
You're making me hungry.
Have a good week.
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
The actual number of slaveowners was determined by DeBow in 1860 as 347,255. That is between 5 and 6 per cent of the white population, the figure cited by stand watie.
Multiplication factors were added to create a different figure.
First, the actual number is multiplied by an unspecified average family size and "when this was done, the number swelled to about 2,000,000."
Next, he decided that "I have reason to think, that the separation of the schedules of the slave and the free, was calculated to lead to omissions of the single properties, and that on this account it would be safe to put the number of familites at 375,000, and the number of actual slaveholders at about two million and a quarter."
And then, "Assuming the published returns, however, to be correct, it will appear that one-half of the population of South Carolina, Mississippi, and Louisiana, excluding the cities, are slaveholders, and that one-third of the population of the entire South are similarly circumstanced."
Excluding cities and multiplying the actual number of slaves by the average family size is an interesting statistical method. One owner with 100 slaves swells to 648 slaveholders, even if he is a bachelor. There were not so many cotton farms in the cities, so the whole city population is ignored.
Below is the text of the beginning of the article which shows these figures being created.
The Interest in Slavery of the Southern Non-Slaveholder
By JAMES D. B. DE BOW (Charleston: Evans & Cogswell, 1860)
When in charge of the national census office, several years since, I found that it had been stated by an abolition Senator from his seat, that the number of slaveholders in the South did not exceed 150,000. Convinced that it was a gross misrepresentation of the facts, I caused a careful examination of the returns to be made, which fixed the actual number at 347,255, and communicated the information, by note, to Senator Cass, who read it in the Senate. I first called attention to the fact that the number embraced slaveholding families, and that to arrive at the actual number of persons, [that figure must be multiplied by the number of persons] which the census showed to a family. When this was done, the number swelled to about 2,000,000.
Since these results were made public, I have had reason to think, that the separation of the schedules of the slave and the free, was calculated to lead to omissions of the single properties, and that on this account it would be safe to put the number of families at 375,000, and the number of actual slaveholders at about two million and a quarter.
Assuming the published returns, however, to be correct, it will appear that one-half of the population of South Carolina, Mississippi, and Louisiana, excluding the cities, are slaveholders, and that one-third of the population of the entire South are similarly circumstanced. The average number of slaves is nine to each slave-holding family, and one-half of the whole number of such holders are in possession of less than five slaves.
i'll remind you that "figures don't lie, but liars can sure figure!"
may i also remind everyone that a "noted scholar", out of damnyankeeland of course, tried to prove last year that GUNS were UNCOMMON in the 17th,18th & 19th centuries in the USA. he actually published a book on that subject, though the title/author escapes me right now.
fyi, he got FIRED from his job @ the university when the TRUTH came out about the FACTS he had INVENTED!
free dixie,sw
WELL SAID!
free dixie,sw
May I expound upon the scholorship of Michael Bellesiles.
"America's gun culture is an invented tradition. It was not present at the nation's creation.... Rather, it developed in a single generation [following] the Civil War."
--- Michael Bellesiles, Arming America, 2000.
The Bancroft Prize, one of the most distinguished awards in the field of history, is presented annually to the authors of books of exceptional merit and distinction in the fields of American history and biography.
* * *
Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture, by Michael A. Bellesiles, explores how and when Americans developed their obsession with guns. The book asks the question: is gun-related violence so deeply embedded in American historical experience as to be immutable? The currently accepted answers to these questions are "mythology," says Bellesiles, a professor of history at Emory University.
Contrary to the romantic idea that the frontiersman relied upon his weapon, Bellesiles establishes the fact that, up until 1850, fewer than 10 percent of Americans owned guns, and half of those weapons were not functioning.
Clayton E. Cramer's Speech Before Columbia University Conservative Club
April 18, 2001
My topic is Michael Bellesiles’s book Arming America, winner of the Bancroft Prize, and the very serious problems with it. Thank you to the Columbia University Conservative Club for inviting me to speak here today. Let me emphasize, first of all, that the problems with Arming America have, or at least should have, nothing to do with politics: whether one is conservative, liberal, progressive, or Marxist, careless, sloppy, grossly inaccurate history should be unacceptable.
Back in 1996, the Journal of American History published a paper by Professor Bellesiles that contained the essential ideas of his book Arming America. According to Professor Bellesiles, before the 1840s, guns were scarce in America; few Americans owned guns; most didn’t have any interest in owning guns; few Americans hunted, even on the frontier; and at least among whites, there was very little violence.
When I read that paper by Professor Bellesiles in 1996, I was intrigued by his claims. They were certainly outside the mainstream of American history, but that’s okay; it would not be the first time that conventional wisdom both inside and outside of the academic community has been wrong.
I found Professor Bellesiles’s claims intriguing because I was researching a related issue at the time: why did eight slave states take the lead in regulating the carrying of concealed deadly weapons? Professor Bellesiles’s paper suggested a possible explanation, and one that I attempted to verify.
But as I researched my topic, I found myself increasingly perplexed. The newspapers, travel accounts, diaries, and official documents of the early Republic described a country where guns were common, hunting nearly universal, and at least in some parts of America, white-on-white violence was depressingly common--with guns, with knives, even with hammers. I completed my research project, and wrote a letter to the Journal of American History suggesting that Bellesiles’s America was, at least from my research, a very incomplete description. Like the blind men attempting to describe an elephant, I concluded that Professor Bellesiles and I had grabbed different parts of the early Republic, and ended up with different descriptions because of it.
At that point, I was convinced that Professor Bellesiles’s paper reflected some sort of unconscious political bias. It was clear from the opening and concluding paragraphs of that paper that he had some sort of interest in promoting restrictive gun control, and I assumed that, as often happens, his desire to find a gun-free and therefore peaceful America had caused him to selectively pick or misread ambiguous sources. It was, I thought, a common enough sort of mistake. Of course, just because a mistake is honest doesn’t mean that it is okay for it to become the basis of public policy.
When Arming America was published last year, I received a review copy of it, and I started reading it. I found that the book was, indeed, an extended treatment of the same ideas as the Journal of American History paper. But as I read, and started making notes of startling claims, I found something quite disturbing: Bellesiles was quoting some of the same travel accounts that I had read, and "an examination of eighty travel accounts written in America from 1750 to 1860 indicate that the travelers did not notice that they were surrounded by guns and violence."
[snip]
Bellesiles resigns as fraud investigation ends
External panel asserts guilt in July; main report released today
By Michael de la Merced
Senior Editor
October 25, 2002
Professor of History Michael Bellesiles announced his resignation from the University Friday, bringing an eight-month investigation into his research to an end.
Bellesiles was under fire by fellow academics for alleged fraud in research conducted for his 2000 book Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture.
Bellesiles wrote in a statement Friday he could not continue his teaching commitments given the controversy surrounding him and his book.
"I will continue to research and report on the probate materials while also working on my next book, but cannot continue to teach in what I feel is a hostile environment," Bellesiles wrote.
In a University statement, Interim Dean of the College Robert Paul said he accepted Bellesiles' resignation, effective Dec. 31. The announcement was released along with the long-awaited results of an Investigative Committee's inquiry into allegations of scholarly fraud against Bellesiles.
The Committee, headed by Stanley Katz, a professor of public and international affairs at Princeton University (N.J.), concluded that Bellesiles was guilty of both substandard research methodology and of willfully misrepresenting specific evidence in Arming America.
Many people have wondered how to pronounce Mr. Bellesiles's name. It's ba-leale ... "leale" rhymes with feel.)
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, the Emory 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."
[snip]
Below is an official announcement released Friday, December 13, 2002, by the Columbia University Board of Trustees.
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.
http://guncite.com/gun-control-more-bellesiles.html
More Bellesiles: "Cite Correction"
An expose of the citations provided within the work of Mr. Bellesiles.
RESPONSES TO THE EMORY REPORT
THE ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN HISTORY (OAH)
On November 22, 2002 the OAH released 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.
THE AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION (AHA)
When Michael Bellesiles reported that gun activists were harassing him, the AHA passed a resolution defending scholars who come under attack for holding controversial views. Some critics of Bellesiles have expressed skepticism about his claims, particularly his allegation that his office door had been set on fire. Arnita Jones, executive director of the AHA, told HNN that the organization stands by its resolution. She also noted that Bellesiles is scheduled to participate in an AHA session at the upcoming annual meeting in Chicago:
Michael Bellesiles will be a participant in a session on "Comparative Legal Perspectives on Gun Control" at the Chicago annual meeting of the AHA this coming January. It is a session that was chosen many months ago by the AHA Program Committee from among those proposed by members of the association. We expect a vigorous debate among the many scholars who are intensely interested in Mr. Bellesiles' and others work on this subject.
In such discussions, of course, it is always important to strike an appropriate balance between the needs of criticism and civil discourse. The AHA stands by its position that all scholarly work should be subject to criticism but that ad hominem attacks upon or harassment of an author are inappropriate.
We continue to believe that a full public airing of controversies relating to historical research and writing is best and we commend Emory University for making its report public. One of the goals of public debate and criticism among historians is precisely to make sure that our arguments are based on appropriate evidence and methodologies. We are pleased that the committee commissioned by Emory University found the AHA's Statement of Standards of Professional Conduct--which deals with these matters--helpful in its deliberations.
JON WIENER
On November 7 Jon Wiener, contributing editor to the Nation , defended Bellesiles while attacking the committee that wrote the Emory 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.
THE ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN HISTORIANS (OAH)
In 1996 the OAH's Journal of American History published an article by Bellesiles in which he laid out his main argument that guns did not play a significant role in American life until the Civil War. The article won Bellesiles the highly coveted Binkley-Stephenson award, which is given to the author of the best article published by the Journal that year. Bellesiles received $500.
Critics have suggested that the OAH should withdraw the article and rescind the prize. Lee Formwalt, executive director of the OAH, told HNN that the Bellesiles matter is on the agenda of the November 8 meeting of the executive board of the history association. In the meantime, he indicated, OAH staffers will round up the records relating to the publication of Bellesiles's article in anticipation of the meeting.
CLAYTON CRAMER
Clayton Cramer was one of the first people to detect errors in Bellesiles's research. Though not a professional historian, he gradually persuaded academics that he was right and Bellesiles was wrong. Shortly after the Emory report was issued, he commented on HNN: "It's like watching a killer executed: justice requires it, but it would have been best if the original crime hadn't happened."
JEROME STERNSTEIN
Jerome Sternstein, who demonstrated that Bellesiles's yellow legal pads almost certainly could not have been "pulped" as a result of the flood at Bowden Hall, told the Chronicle of Higher Education:
"It was a resignation made under duress. Had [Bellesiles] not resigned, I think they would have fired him."
MICHAEL ZUCKERMAN
Michael Zuckerman, a historian at the University of Pennsylvania, told the Emory Wheel "Emory's losing an immensely talented historian. He's got a million other pieces of his argument that don't remotely touch on inventories."
HANNA GRAY
Hanna Gray former president of the University of Chicago and member of the panel that wrote the Emory Report: "It's very difficult to talk about intentionality. Who knows what goes on in the mind of someone? But I think you will see that there are some assertions that go a little bit beyond carelessness."
RANDY BARNETT
Boston University Law Professor Randy Barnett "Even if the book were true, it would have made no more difference to the Second Amendment debate than the number of printing presses that were available back then would make to the First Amendment. To me, the real story is that in the beginning the professional historians closed ranks behind Bellesiles and savaged the professional and amateur researchers who questioned him, and unless those historians are now willing to step forward and admit they were wrong and the critics were right, they run the risk of turning Bellesiles into the Alger Hiss of the history profession."
KEN JACKSON
Ken Jackson, professor of history, Columbia University:
I have not read the book and do not know the author. But my general position is that history is history. He won the Bancroft Prize. Perhaps that was a bad decision. But the decision was made by a respected jury in a particular year, and that is that. I wish I could change many things about history, but I cannot. I view this as a fact. He won the prize. The Twin Towers fell.
The larger point is that most prizes probably do not go to the books that will have the most influence over the decades. The juries do the best that they can. Human judgments are inherently problematic. Mistakes are made. This is perhaps an example of one.
free dixie,sw
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.