AUTHOR UNDER FIRE ON ACCURACY OF GUN RESEARCH<p>Robert Stacy McCain
THE WASHINGTON TIMES<p>-----------------------------------------------------------<p>Michael Bellesiles' book "Arming America" won praise from
gun-control advocates for "demolishing the myth" behind the
individual right to gun ownership, with reviewers calling
the book "exciting" and "valuable and thought-provoking."<p>Now Mr. Bellesiles' book, which contended that private gun
ownership was uncommon in early America, is being called
something else: a fraud.<p>Several scholars, including some who favor gun-control laws,
say the research in "Arming America" is inaccurate or even
deliberately deceptive.<p>They say the book misinterprets Colonial documents,
misquotes early federal laws, distorts historical accounts
and cites San Francisco records that officials agree were
destroyed in the 1906 earthquake.<p>Gun rights activists denounced the Bellesiles book when it
was published in September 2000. In recent months, liberals,
too, have turned against Mr. Bellesiles.<p>Serious errors in "Arming America" have been exposed in the
Boston Globe and the New York Times, and pundit Russell
Baker has dubbed Mr. Bellesiles "the Milli Vanilli of the
academic community."<p>"There's absolutely no question in my mind of intentional
deception on [Mr. Bellesiles�] part," says Clayton Cramer,
author of two books on the history of American gun laws, who
says he's found "hundreds and hundreds" of errors in "Arming
America."<p>"Simple mistakes will not explain what's gone on here. This
is more than typos. This is massive misrepresentation of his
own sources," Mr. Cramer said, calling Mr. Bellesiles'
603-page book "a target-rich environment for finding
deception or fraud."<p>On his Web site - www.claytoncramer.com - Mr. Cramer shows
how Mr. Bellesiles' falsely contended that a 1792 federal
law required Congress to supply guns to militia members,
when in fact the law required militia members to provide
their own guns.<p>It is an important distinction, according to legal scholars,
because private ownership of guns for militia service is
linked to the constitutional "right to keep and bear arms."
By saying the 1792 law made the federal government - not
individual citizens - the source of militia guns, "Arming
America" struck at the heart of Second Amendment
protections.<p>"Bellesiles made no secret of his political agenda," author
Richard Poe says. "He stated it plainly. And he apparently
bent the facts to suit his agenda, with extravagant disdain
for the truth."<p>The most serious charge against Mr. Bellesiles, a professor
at Emory University in Atlanta, is that he based his book in
part on records that do not exist.<p>Mr. Bellesiles said he had researched more than 10,000
probate inventories - lists of estate items included in
official wills - and found that, contrary to popular belief,
guns were uncommon in early American homes.<p>"America's gun culture is an invented tradition," Mr.
Bellesiles wrote, disputing frontier legends of the pioneer
cabin with a musket hanging above the hearth.<p>His assertion that gun ownership was rare in America until
the mid-19th century made Mr. Bellesiles a hero of
gun-control advocates, who praised him for "debunk[ing] the
mythology propagated by the gun lobby."<p>Michael Barnes, president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun
Violence, said Mr. Bellesiles "has removed one more weapon
in the gun lobby's arsenal of fallacies against common-sense
gun laws."<p>In April, Mr. Bellesiles was awarded the Bancroft Prize,
perhaps the most prestigious award for an American
historian. Repeatedly, "Arming America" drew praise for Mr.
Bellesiles' heavily footnoted use of probate records, which
The Washington Post called the author's "freshest and most
interesting source."<p>But in many cases, researchers say, that evidence is
nonexistent.<p>In the most glaring instance, Mr. Bellesiles cites guns
listed in probate records for San Francisco between 1849 and
1859. However, authorities say, all such records were
destroyed in the city's 1906 earthquake.<p>"All official probate records were destroyed in the San
Francisco earthquake and fire because the city hall burned
down," a reference librarian at the city's Sutro Library
told National Review's Melissa Seckora.<p>Like other critics, Miss Seckora found that Mr. Bellesiles
changed his story when confronted with questions about his
research. Mr. Cramer says Mr. Bellesiles has "changed his
story three times" about misquoting the 1792 Militia Act.<p>In recent months, "Arming America" has attracted a growing
swarm of researchers who have found other serious errors.
Northwestern University law professor James Lindgren says
Mr. Bellesiles "counted guns in about 100 wills [in Colonial
Rhode Island] where people died without wills."<p>Although researchers often disagree over the interpretation
of data, scholars say, making up sources is an offense
almost unheard of among serious historians.<p>"Everyone makes some mistakes," Bentley College history
professor Joyce Malcolm said. "It's just in this case, the
mistakes were wholesale. The book is just riddled with
errors. It was so astounding, as a historian, I felt my jaw
drop."<p>Mrs. Malcolm, whose 1994 book "To Keep and Bear Arms" traced
the British roots of the Second Amendment, said the
possibility Mr. Bellesiles fabricated data "takes your
breath away."<p>"All his mistakes tend to support his thesis, every single
one of them," she said. "It's hard to believe it's in good
faith."<p>Mr. Bellesiles did not return telephone calls seeking
comment on "Arming America." In the November issue of the
Organization of American Historians (OAH) newsletter,
however, he replied to his "ideologically charged" critics,
saying he was the victim of "personal attacks," including
"hateful, threatening, and expletive-laced phone calls,
mail, e-mail and faxes."<p>In his OAH article, Mr. Bellesiles said many of his notes
for "Arming America" were destroyed when his Emory office
was flooded in April 2000 and that he "had to reconstruct
where I read the probate files from memory." He said an
upcoming issue of the William and Mary Quarterly devoted to
the "Arming America" controversy "will explore alternative
readings of the evidence."<p>The nature of the charges against Mr. Bellesiles causes some
academics to insist on anonymity in discussing what one
professor called "the worst historical scandal in memory."<p>James Melton, chairman of the Emory University history
department, has asked Mr. Bellesiles to answer his accusers
in detail.<p>Mr. Bellesiles must "defend himself and the integrity of his
scholarship immediately," Mr. Melton told the Boston Globe
in October, adding: "Depending upon his response, the
university will respond appropriately."<p>Emory's demand that Mr. Bellesiles' defend his work is
ominous, author John Lott says.<p>"The fact that Emory is asking him to respond to these
critics is something I don't remember a university asking a
professor to do," says Mr. Lott, a scholar with the American
Enterprise Institute, whose 1998 book "More Guns, Less
Crime" stirred debate over firearms laws. "I imagine Emory
would be forced to take some kind of dramatic response, if
[the accusations of fraud are] true."<p>
-----------------------------------------------------------
This article was mailed from The Washington Times
(http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020101-9981049.htm)
For more great articles, visit us at
http://www.washtimes.com<p>Copyright (c) 2001 News World Communications, Inc. All
rights reserved.