🚀 go-pugleaf

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0027_01C07894.9F595A60
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

http://www.reason.com/0101/cr.jm.concealed.html

Concealed Weapons=20
The controversial book Arming America has the facts all wrong.

By Joyce Lee Malcolm

Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture, by Michael A. =
Bellesiles, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 640 pages, $30

Five months before the publication of Arming America, without seeing the =
text, The New York Times endorsed its author's claim that few guns, let =
alone a gun culture, existed in America prior to the Civil War. This was =
just the beginning of the media blitz that would greet the book. A =
glowing treatment by Garry Wills adorned the cover of The New York Times =
Book Review; congratulatory reviews appeared in The Washington Post, the =
Chicago Tribune, and other papers; the author, Emory University =
historian Michael Bellesiles, was interviewed on National Public Radio =
and had an essay in The Chronicle of Higher Education. Reviewers have =
hailed Arming America as a "myth-buster" that "changes everything," a =
book destined to raise the gun control debate to a more "fact-based and =
rational level."

If the point at which America became a "gun culture" seems too academic =
an issue to arouse such intense excitement, the tributes on the book's =
dust jacket make it clear that something else is afoot. "Thinking people =
who deplore Americans' addiction to gun violence have been waiting a =
long time for this information," says Stewart Udall, the former =
congressman and secretary of the interior. For those still uncertain why =
thinking people have been waiting for this, or what the "everything" is =
that has changed, Cornell University historian Michael Kammen cites the =
book's "inescapable policy implications." As those blurbs suggest, =
Arming America has been enthusiastically embraced by gun control =
advocates as an aid in their effort to persuade Americans (and their =
courts) that they do not have, and never have had, a constitutional =
right to be armed.=20

Any book that can raise the level of debate on any subject, especially =
one as emotional as gun control, is certainly welcome. The key to a =
book's value, however, is not whether its findings are those any of us =
"have been waiting a long time for" but whether they are, in fact, =
correct. Before considering whether Arming America has indeed shattered =
a myth, it might be helpful to reflect on why gun control advocates are =
so excited about a book that, even if accurate, seems only tangentially =
related to their cause.=20

Behind the hype is the cantankerous debate over the meaning of the =
Second Amendment's single sentence: "A well regulated Militia being =
necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to =
keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This debate has fallen prey =
to a passionate political agenda. Proponents of gun control are =
convinced that guns in the hands of individuals are to blame for =
violence in America. Their effort to strictly control, if not eliminate, =
those guns conflicts with the belief held by most Americans that "the =
right of the people to keep and bear arms" applies to them. Hence the =
Second Amendment has been subjected to intense and critical scrutiny.

Some commentators have argued that the awkwardly worded article =
guarantees only members of a well-regulated militia, such as today's =
National Guard, a right to be armed. According to this view, the =
amendment protects a "collective right" for particular groups. By 1975 =
the issue had become so confused that the members of an American Bar =
Association committee charged with sorting it out threw up their hands =
and announced, "It is doubtful that the Founding Fathers had any intent =
in mind with regard to the meaning of this Amendment."

Since then scholars from various fields have delved into the matter and =
found overwhelming contemporary evidence that the Founders inherited and =
meant to guarantee an individual right, and none to support the notion =
that a collective right was intended. This body of work has persuaded =
such eminent constitutional scholars as Lawrence Tribe and Leonard Levy =
that the Second Amendment protects an individual right.=20

Opponents of this view have come up with new, increasingly tenuous =
arguments. First came the claim that the phrase bear arms was used =
exclusively in a military context, so its inclusion in the Second =
Amendment must refer only to militia members. Yet in early American =
discourse, bear arms often referred to simply carrying a weapon, as a =
1998 Supreme Court decision found it still does. (The Second Amendment, =
of course, also protects a right to "keep" arms, but so far there has =
been no attempt to redefine keep.) Next came the theory of Carl Bogus, =
an employee of Handgun Control Inc., that the Second Amendment was the =
result of a conspiracy between Northern and Southern states to guarantee =
weapons to keep slaves under control. Among the problems with the Bogus =
approach is the absence of any direct evidence for such a conspiracy. =
Then there was the "comma theory," which argued that the stem of the =
Second Amendment's single sentence, which refers to "the right of the =
people," can be eliminated because it is set off by commas. The =
amendment would then read, "A well regulated militia being necessary to =
a free state.shall not be infringed." One wonders what would happen if =
the entire Constitution were interpreted by removing passages surrounded =
by commas.

Now Michael Bellesiles' book has appeared with a new argument: Guns were =
rare before the Civil War, and Americans had little interest in owning =
them. Is Bellesiles correct that neither a gun culture nor many guns =
existed in early America? He defines a gun culture as a fixation on =
firearms, and he is probably right that no such general obsession =
existed until the mid-19th century, if then. But his claim of a nearly =
gun-free America, the real basis of his argument, is more problematic. =
Guns, he asserts, were expensive, inefficient, rare, and restricted. He =
says they were heavily regulated, were owned only by a wealthy few in =
England, played little role in the conquest of the New World, adorned =
few colonial mantles, were seldom used for hunting, and were borne by =
few militiamen and even fewer of their friends and neighbors.

Bellesiles is in good company in finding fault with early muskets; they =
were cumbersome and inaccurate. He is also among many who criticize the =
American militia as a fighting force, although few scholars would agree =
with him that it was "little more than a political gesture." His novel =
claims about the numbers and uses of firearms, however, demand careful =
examination. Readers and reviewers are entitled to assume that a =
professional historian will present evidence fully and fairly, although =
we might disagree with his interpretation. And any author can make =
mistakes. But Bellesiles' "myth busting" findings are not supported by =
his sources. Moreover, he presents a skewed selection of records, =
dismisses contradictory information, and even alters the language of =
quotations and statutes. A few examples must suffice.=20

Bellesiles' discussion of English customs and rights, which are the =
basis for American use of firearms, provides a starting point. He =
informs us that the few guns available in England from the 16th through =
the 18th centuries were severely regulated and restricted to the rich. =
It's true that there were restrictions on handguns, but when Henry VIII =
converted his militia from bows to muskets in the 16th century, =
thousands of Englishmen had to "find" a gun and be trained in its use. =
Indeed, Henry urged residents of every city and town to "have and keep =
in every of their houses any such handgun or handguns, of the length of =
one whole yard.to the intent to use and shoot the same" against the time =
"when Need Shall Require."

In the 17th century, numerous gangs of armed robbers prowled English =
highways, and poor laborers were routinely hauled into court for misuse =
of their firearms. Yet Bellesiles assures us that "only the aristocrats =
among private citizens owned the frightening new firearms" and that guns =
"rarely saw use outside of warfare." He claims that most personal =
violence in early modern England arose from contests between troops of =
Morris dancers! Neither source he cites for this astonishing allegation =
supports that claim, a discrepancy not confined to that footnote alone. =
Readers are informed of the right to have arms that the English Bill of =
Rights granted to Protestants-then some 90 percent of the =
population-only as proof that "the English preferred to maintain a tight =
control of guns."=20

On to America. Here Bellesiles finds firearms rare, expensive, =
regulated, and useless, a contention made easier by his equation of =
firearms with military muskets, ignoring handguns, fowling pieces, and =
other light weapons. He reports that Americans "often perceived the ax =
as the equal of the gun" and refers to "the complete failure" of early =
settlers to care for guns "or learn their use." Bellesiles writes that, =
while colonial legislatures "occasionally" required citizens to own =
firearms, they appreciated "how improbable it was for them to fulfill =
that goal." In fact, such laws were not occasional; they were routine, =
insistent, and enforced. Poor Virginians were provided with guns at =
reduced cost or set to work to earn their weapons. Historian Harold =
Gill, who examined 572 colonial Virginia inventories, found guns listed =
in nearly 80 percent of men's estates. Bellesiles claims weapons were =
usually housed in government arsenals, not homes. But Connecticut was =
typical in requiring every householder to "always be provided with and =
have in continual readiness" a musket or other firearms.=20

Bellesiles attacks as myth the idea that Americans owned firearms for =
hunting. He reports that 80 travel accounts he surveyed, written in =
America between 1750 and 1860, fail to mention hunting with guns. Yet =
many of the very narratives he cites, such as the memoir of Indiana =
frontier life by Rush Baynard and Anne Newport Royall's Letters from =
Alabama, describe the general use of guns for hunting and self-defense. =
And while the Englishman Charles Augustus Murray, one of the writers =
cited by Bellesiles, found few "gentlemen" hunters in the 1830s, he =
noted that "nearly every man has a rifle, and spends part of his time in =
the chase." Bellesiles omits dozens of other travelers who describe =
widespread ownership of firearms, among them Alexis de Tocqueville. The =
famed French observer describes a typical "peasant's cabin" in Kentucky =
or Tennessee as containing "a fairly clean bed, some chairs, a good =
gun."

Bellesiles' main proof for the absence of firearms is his analysis of =
more than 11,000 probate inventories from 1765 through 1859. He found =
that only 14.7 percent of 18th-century inventories even mentioned a gun, =
and many of these were described as old or defective. Probate records, =
however, are an uncertain source: These inventories don't mention =
bequests prior to death; families sometimes take items before the =
probate is taken; and some probates deal only with real estate, not =
personal property. Harold Gill found it not unusual for a probate =
inventory of a known artisan to include nothing indicating his trade. =
Still, Bellesiles insists that probates contain an exact reference to =
every item, no matter how trivial, even those that had been passed on to =
a friend or relative before death.

Although this exhaustive probate research forms a major part of his =
evidence, Bellesiles does not give the numbers of probates for each time =
period or any particular county, only a list of county names. Where he =
is specific, he has distorted the findings. Take the case of 186 =
inventories from early Providence-unusual, he reports, in that 48 =
percent mentioned guns. "If one could imagine these 186 men as a militia =
company," Bellesiles tells us, "half would be unarmed and a third armed =
with guns too old for service. And yet they would have been one of the =
best-armed forces of their time." Intrigued, James Lindgren, a professor =
of law at Northwestern University, examined the inventories and found =
that "virtually everything Bellesiles said about these records was =
false." Not 48 percent but 62 percent mentioned guns, of which not the =
33 percent Bellesiles claimed but only 9 percent were described as old. =
Lindgren also examined probates from one of Bellesiles' frontier =
counties and compared the numbers of guns listed to the other sorts of =
property mentioned. He found more guns than knives, more guns than =
books, more guns than Bibles.=20

Finally, we come to a more disturbing sort of misrepresentation. =
Bellesiles quotes George Washington's report on the state of the militia =
in 1756: "Many of them [are] unarmed, and all without ammunition or =
provision." Bellesiles adds that Washington found in one company only 25 =
of more than 70 men "had any sort of firearms." Yet historian Clayton =
Cramer found Washington was referring not to the general state of the =
militia, as Bellesiles would have us conclude, but, in Washington's =
words, to "the odd behaviour of the few Militia that were marched hither =
from Fairfax, Culpeper, and Prince William counties, Many of them =
unarmed."=20

Of the Militia Act of 1792, which enrolled all free white men between =
the ages of 18 and 45, Bellesiles writes that "Congress took upon itself =
the responsibility of providing [their] guns, and specified that within =
five years all muskets 'shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the =
eighteenth part of a pound.'" In fact, the law states that "every =
citizen so enrolled and notified, shall within six months thereafter, =
provide himself with a good musket or firelock" and other accoutrements =
(emphasis added). For tallies of firearms, Bellesiles uses a series of =
Massachusetts and federal censuses of militia firearms as if they were =
complete surveys of all civilian guns, and he omits tallies from federal =
arsenals.

Enough said. Point after point meant to illustrate a nearly gun-free =
early America is, upon examination, unsupported by the copious sources =
Bellesiles cites. He sidesteps counter-evidence. He ignores or dismisses =
statements by John Adams, Patrick Henry, Noah Webster, Richard Henry =
Lee, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and others to the effect that =
their countrymen were well-armed.

New views of history are useful. They provoke historians to re-examine =
their ideas and their evidence. Sometimes that evidence is found =
wanting, but not this time. Michael Bellesiles' eagerness to "bust a =
myth" about America's gun culture has induced him to create one.

Joyce Lee Malcolm (jmalcolm@bentley.edu"), a professor of history at =
Bentley College and a senior fellow in the MIT Security Studies Program, =
is the author of To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo-American =
Right (Harvard).




------=_NextPart_000_0027_01C07894.9F595A60
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4522.1800" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2><A=20
href=3D"http://www.reason.com/0101/cr.jm.concealed.html">http://www.reaso=
n.com/0101/cr.jm.concealed.html</A></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>
<P><STRONG><FONT size=3D+1>Concealed Weapons</FONT></STRONG> <BR>The =
controversial=20
book <I>Arming America</I> has the facts all wrong.</P>
<P>By Joyce Lee Malcolm</P>
<P><A=20
href=3D"http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=3D0375402101/reasonmagazin=
eA/">Arming=20
America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture</A>, by Michael A. =
Bellesiles,=20
New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 640 pages, $30</P>
<P>Five months before the publication of <I>Arming America</I>, without =
seeing=20
the text, <I>The New York Times </I>endorsed its author&#8217;s claim =
that few guns,=20
let alone a gun culture, existed in America prior to the Civil War. This =
was=20
just the beginning of the media blitz that would greet the book. A =
glowing=20
treatment by Garry Wills adorned the cover of <I>The New York Times Book =

Review</I>; congratulatory reviews appeared in <I>The Washington =
Post</I>, the=20
<I>Chicago Tribune</I>, and other papers; the author, Emory University =
historian=20
Michael Bellesiles, was interviewed on National Public Radio and had an =
essay in=20
<I>The Chronicle of Higher Education</I>. Reviewers have hailed =
<I>Arming=20
America </I>as a "myth-buster" that "changes everything," a book =
destined to=20
raise the gun control debate to a more "fact-based and rational =
level."</P>
<P>If the point at which America became a "gun culture" seems too =
academic an=20
issue to arouse such intense excitement, the tributes on the =
book&#8217;s dust jacket=20
make it clear that something else is afoot. "Thinking people who deplore =

Americans&#8217; addiction to gun violence have been waiting a long time =
for this=20
information," says Stewart Udall, the former congressman and secretary =
of the=20
interior. For those still uncertain why thinking people have been =
waiting for=20
this, or what the "everything" is that has changed, Cornell University =
historian=20
Michael Kammen cites the book&#8217;s "inescapable policy implications." =
As those=20
blurbs suggest, <I>Arming America</I> has been enthusiastically embraced =
by gun=20
control advocates as an aid in their effort to persuade Americans (and =
their=20
courts) that they do not have, and never have had, a constitutional =
right to be=20
armed. </P>
<P>Any book that can raise the level of debate on any subject, =
especially one as=20
emotional as gun control, is certainly welcome. The key to a =
book&#8217;s value,=20
however, is not whether its findings are those any of us "have been =
waiting a=20
long time for" but whether they are, in fact, correct. Before =
considering=20
whether <I>Arming America</I> has indeed shattered a myth, it might be =
helpful=20
to reflect on why gun control advocates are so excited about a book =
that, even=20
if accurate, seems only tangentially related to their cause. </P>
<P>Behind the hype is the cantankerous debate over the meaning of the =
Second=20
Amendment&#8217;s single sentence: "A well regulated Militia being =
necessary to the=20
security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, =
shall=20
not be infringed." This debate has fallen prey to a passionate political =
agenda.=20
Proponents of gun control are convinced that guns in the hands of =
individuals=20
are to blame for violence in America. Their effort to strictly control, =
if not=20
eliminate, those guns conflicts with the belief held by most Americans =
that "the=20
right of the people to keep and bear arms" applies to them. Hence the =
Second=20
Amendment has been subjected to intense and critical scrutiny.</P>
<P>Some commentators have argued that the awkwardly worded article =
guarantees=20
only members of a well-regulated militia, such as today&#8217;s National =
Guard, a=20
right to be armed. According to this view, the amendment protects a =
"collective=20
right" for particular groups. By 1975 the issue had become so confused =
that the=20
members of an American Bar Association committee charged with sorting it =
out=20
threw up their hands and announced, "It is doubtful that the Founding =
Fathers=20
had any intent in mind with regard to the meaning of this =
Amendment."</P>
<P>Since then scholars from various fields have delved into the matter =
and found=20
overwhelming contemporary evidence that the Founders inherited and meant =
to=20
guarantee an individual right, and none to support the notion that a =
collective=20
right was intended. This body of work has persuaded such eminent =
constitutional=20
scholars as Lawrence Tribe and Leonard Levy that the Second Amendment =
protects=20
an individual right. </P>
<P>Opponents of this view have come up with new, increasingly tenuous =
arguments.=20
First came the claim that the phrase <I>bear arms</I> was used =
exclusively in a=20
military context, so its inclusion in the Second Amendment must refer =
only to=20
militia members. Yet in early American discourse, <I>bear arms</I> often =

referred to simply carrying a weapon, as a 1998 Supreme Court decision =
found it=20
still does. (The Second Amendment, of course, also protects a right to =
"keep"=20
arms, but so far there has been no attempt to redefine <I>keep</I>.) =
Next came=20
the theory of Carl Bogus, an employee of Handgun Control Inc., that the =
Second=20
Amendment was the result of a conspiracy between Northern and Southern =
states to=20
guarantee weapons to keep slaves under control. Among the problems with =
the=20
Bogus approach is the absence of any direct evidence for such a =
conspiracy. Then=20
there was the "comma theory," which argued that the stem of the Second=20
Amendment&#8217;s single sentence, which refers to "the right of the =
people," can be=20
eliminated because it is set off by commas. The amendment would then =
read, "A=20
well regulated militia being necessary to a free state&#8230;shall not =
be infringed."=20
One wonders what would happen if the entire Constitution were =
interpreted by=20
removing passages surrounded by commas.</P>
<P>Now Michael Bellesiles&#8217; book has appeared with a new argument: =
Guns were rare=20
before the Civil War, and Americans had little interest in owning them. =
Is=20
Bellesiles correct that neither a gun culture nor many guns existed in =
early=20
America? He defines a gun culture as a fixation on firearms, and he is =
probably=20
right that no such general obsession existed until the mid-19th century, =
if=20
then. But his claim of a nearly gun-free America, the real basis of his=20
argument, is more problematic. Guns, he asserts, were expensive, =
inefficient,=20
rare, and restricted. He says they were heavily regulated, were owned =
only by a=20
wealthy few in England, played little role in the conquest of the New =
World,=20
adorned few colonial mantles, were seldom used for hunting, and were =
borne by=20
few militiamen and even fewer of their friends and neighbors.</P>
<P>Bellesiles is in good company in finding fault with early muskets; =
they were=20
cumbersome and inaccurate. He is also among many who criticize the =
American=20
militia as a fighting force, although few scholars would agree with him =
that it=20
was "little more than a political gesture." His novel claims about the =
numbers=20
and uses of firearms, however, demand careful examination. Readers and =
reviewers=20
are entitled to assume that a professional historian will present =
evidence fully=20
and fairly, although we might disagree with his interpretation. And any =
author=20
can make mistakes. But Bellesiles&#8217; "myth busting" findings are not =
supported by=20
his sources. Moreover, he presents a skewed selection of records, =
dismisses=20
contradictory information, and even alters the language of quotations =
and=20
statutes. A few examples must suffice. </P>
<P>Bellesiles&#8217; discussion of English customs and rights, which are =
the basis for=20
American use of firearms, provides a starting point. He informs us that =
the few=20
guns available in England from the 16th through the 18th centuries were =
severely=20
regulated and restricted to the rich. It&#8217;s true that there were =
restrictions on=20
handguns, but when Henry VIII converted his militia from bows to muskets =
in the=20
16th century, thousands of Englishmen had to "find" a gun and be trained =
in its=20
use. Indeed, Henry urged residents of every city and town to "have and =
keep in=20
every of their houses any such handgun or handguns, of the length of one =
whole=20
yard&#8230;to the intent to use and shoot the same" against the time =
"when Need Shall=20
Require."</P>
<P>In the 17th century, numerous gangs of armed robbers prowled English=20
highways, and poor laborers were routinely hauled into court for misuse =
of their=20
firearms. Yet Bellesiles assures us that "only the aristocrats among =
private=20
citizens owned the frightening new firearms" and that guns "rarely saw =
use=20
outside of warfare." He claims that most personal violence in early =
modern=20
England arose from contests between troops of Morris dancers! Neither =
source he=20
cites for this astonishing allegation supports that claim, a discrepancy =
not=20
confined to that footnote alone. Readers are informed of the right to =
have arms=20
that the English Bill of Rights granted to Protestants&#8212;then some =
90 percent of=20
the population&#8212;only as proof that "the English preferred to =
maintain a tight=20
control of guns." </P>
<P>On to America. Here Bellesiles finds firearms rare, expensive, =
regulated, and=20
useless, a contention made easier by his equation of firearms with =
military=20
muskets, ignoring handguns, fowling pieces, and other light weapons. He =
reports=20
that Americans "often perceived the ax as the equal of the gun" and =
refers to=20
"the complete failure" of early settlers to care for guns "or learn =
their use."=20
Bellesiles writes that, while colonial legislatures "occasionally" =
required=20
citizens to own firearms, they appreciated "how improbable it was for =
them to=20
fulfill that goal." In fact, such laws were not occasional; they were =
routine,=20
insistent, and enforced. Poor Virginians were provided with guns at =
reduced cost=20
or set to work to earn their weapons. Historian Harold Gill, who =
examined 572=20
colonial Virginia inventories, found guns listed in nearly 80 percent of =
men&#8217;s=20
estates. Bellesiles claims weapons were usually housed in government =
arsenals,=20
not homes. But Connecticut was typical in requiring every householder to =
"always=20
be provided with and have in continual readiness" a musket or other =
firearms.=20
</P>
<P>Bellesiles attacks as myth the idea that Americans owned firearms for =

hunting. He reports that 80 travel accounts he surveyed, written in =
America=20
between 1750 and 1860, fail to mention hunting with guns. Yet many of =
the very=20
narratives he cites, such as the memoir of Indiana frontier life by Rush =
Baynard=20
and Anne Newport Royall&#8217;s<I> Letters from Alabama</I>, describe =
the general use=20
of guns for hunting and self-defense. And while the Englishman Charles =
Augustus=20
Murray, one of the writers cited by Bellesiles, found few "gentlemen" =
hunters in=20
the 1830s, he noted that "nearly every man has a rifle, and spends part =
of his=20
time in the chase." Bellesiles omits dozens of other travelers who =
describe=20
widespread ownership of firearms, among them Alexis de Tocqueville. The =
famed=20
French observer describes a typical "peasant&#8217;s cabin" in Kentucky =
or Tennessee=20
as containing "a fairly clean bed, some chairs, a good gun."</P>
<P>Bellesiles&#8217; main proof for the absence of firearms is his =
analysis of more=20
than 11,000 probate inventories from 1765 through 1859. He found that =
only 14.7=20
percent of 18th-century inventories even mentioned a gun, and many of =
these were=20
described as old or defective. Probate records, however, are an =
uncertain=20
source: These inventories don&#8217;t mention bequests prior to death; =
families=20
sometimes take items before the probate is taken; and some probates deal =
only=20
with real estate, not personal property. Harold Gill found it not =
unusual for a=20
probate inventory of a known artisan to include nothing indicating his =
trade.=20
Still, Bellesiles insists that probates contain an exact reference to =
every=20
item, no matter how trivial, even those that had been passed on to a =
friend or=20
relative before death.</P>
<P>Although this exhaustive probate research forms a major part of his =
evidence,=20
Bellesiles does not give the numbers of probates for each time period or =
any=20
particular county, only a list of county names. Where he is specific, he =
has=20
distorted the findings. Take the case of 186 inventories from early=20
Providence&#8212;unusual, he reports, in that 48 percent mentioned guns. =
"If one could=20
imagine these 186 men as a militia company," Bellesiles tells us, "half =
would be=20
unarmed and a third armed with guns too old for service. And yet they =
would have=20
been one of the best-armed forces of their time." Intrigued, James =
Lindgren, a=20
professor of law at Northwestern University, examined the inventories =
and found=20
that "virtually everything Bellesiles said about these records was =
false." Not=20
48 percent but 62 percent mentioned guns, of which not the 33 percent =
Bellesiles=20
claimed but only 9 percent were described as old. Lindgren also examined =

probates from one of Bellesiles&#8217; frontier counties and compared =
the numbers of=20
guns listed to the other sorts of property mentioned. He found more guns =
than=20
knives, more guns than books, more guns than Bibles. </P>
<P>Finally, we come to a more disturbing sort of misrepresentation. =
Bellesiles=20
quotes George Washington&#8217;s report on the state of the militia in =
1756: "Many of=20
them [are] unarmed, and all without ammunition or provision." Bellesiles =
adds=20
that Washington found in one company only 25 of more than 70 men "had =
any sort=20
of firearms." Yet historian Clayton Cramer found Washington was =
referring not to=20
the general state of the militia, as Bellesiles would have us conclude, =
but, in=20
Washington&#8217;s words, to "the odd behaviour of the few Militia that =
were marched=20
hither from Fairfax, Culpeper, and Prince William counties, Many of them =

unarmed." </P>
<P>Of the Militia Act of 1792, which enrolled all free white men between =
the=20
ages of 18 and 45, Bellesiles writes that "Congress took upon itself the =

responsibility of providing [their] guns, and specified that within five =
years=20
all muskets &#8216;shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the =
eighteenth part of a=20
pound.&#8217;" In fact, the law states that "every citizen so enrolled =
and notified,=20
shall within six months thereafter, <I>provide himself</I> with a good =
musket or=20
firelock" and other accoutrements (emphasis added). For tallies of =
firearms,=20
Bellesiles uses a series of Massachusetts and federal censuses of =
militia=20
firearms as if they were complete surveys of all civilian guns, and he =
omits=20
tallies from federal arsenals.</P>
<P>Enough said. Point after point meant to illustrate a nearly gun-free =
early=20
America is, upon examination, unsupported by the copious sources =
Bellesiles=20
cites. He sidesteps counter-evidence. He ignores or dismisses statements =
by John=20
Adams, Patrick Henry, Noah Webster, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, =
James=20
Madison, and others to the effect that their countrymen were =
well-armed.</P>
<P>New views of history are useful. They provoke historians to =
re-examine their=20
ideas and their evidence. Sometimes that evidence is found wanting, but =
not this=20
time. Michael Bellesiles&#8217; eagerness to "bust a myth" about =
America&#8217;s gun culture=20
has induced him to create one.</P><I>
<P>Joyce Lee Malcolm (<A=20
href=3D"mailto:jmalcolm@bentley.edu">jmalcolm@bentley.edu"</A>), a =
professor of=20
history at Bentley College and a senior fellow in the MIT Security =
Studies=20
Program, is the author of </I><A=20
href=3D"http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=3D0674893077/reasonmagazin=
eA/">To=20
Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo-American Right</A>=20
<I>(Harvard).</I></P>
<P><EM></EM>&nbsp;</P></DIV></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0027_01C07894.9F595A60--