Mark R. Wenger
20 October 2001, 1:18 AM

Arms in Early America
Hello, I read DISARMING AMERICAN HISTORY with interest, but I am more inclined to accept Thomas Jefferson's appraisal of gun ownership in early Virginia. In NOTES ON VIRGINIA, published shortly after the Revolution, he reported that about 25% of the male popualtion-presumably whites--owned guns, and virtually all in that category west of the mountains owned guns--rifles in the latter case. According to many war-time reports documented by Joe Huddleston in COLONIAL RIFLEMEN IN THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION, these rifles could be accurate to a distance of about 150 yards--not "the twenty yards" mentioned in the article. For an account of some very accurate, long-range shooting, read John Audubon's account of Daniel Boone "barking" squirrels in Kentucky. Your author fails to mention self-defense as a reason for ownership of firearms, and he ignores the period after the Revolution, during which the gunsmithing trade grew rapidly in Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia. The U.S. government located one of two national armories at Harper's Ferry, Virginia precisely because there were so many gunsmiths in the surrounding area. As for the number of working gunsmiths, let me refer your readers to the many hundreds of gunsmith biographies compiled by Professor James B. Whisker in his numerous published volumes on American longrifles, now approaching two dozen. Regards, Mark R. Wenger

Kate Sherrod
9 October 2001, 12:24 PM

Re: WTC/"And now for something..."
It's a typical and automatic response to criticism to ask the critic "why are you being so negative?" or "can't you offer something constructive instead of just complaining or fault-finding?" And it sounds pretty reasonable and righteous. But it's not always fair. An ordinary person can come upon, say, a car broken down by the side of the road and notice that a part under the hood has a hairline crack in it. It doesn't take a mechanic with years of training and experience to notice a crack; it just takes a good pair of eyes and, sometimes, an uninvolved perspective. Is it fair to expect - let alone demand - that the person who noticed the crack also be the one to explain how to fix it? Perhaps that is too simplistic an analogy; our columnist is far from a layman, and has indeed proffered some good pointers in response to one reader's concerns. But I still think it holds: as we face new and scary versions of old, old problems, we owe it to ourselves to allow for passers by or well-wishing onlookers to make observations without immediately nullifying them with demands of "what are you going to do about it" - or, even more stifling to discourse and honest inquiry - "if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem" which often actually means "shut up if you don't agree or we'll shut you up." Which is often what is really meant when one man criticized another for not offering solutions to the problems he sees. Please note - I am not attacking Mr. Marks or his point of view. It is a common one and will surely grow more so as the present conflict continues. But remarks like this: "It is a pity that such academics do not employ their extensive learning and intellects to making the world a better place, instead of simply offering their opinion as to why it is so bad." serve to negate a role that is just as important as that of the Mechanic: the Critic - which is not just a sniper or a nitpicker or a nay-sayer, but is rather anyone who approaches a problem, an idea or a situation with a will to ask questions, find weaknesses or clarify issues. And discouraging or silencing such people could lead us to fall into traps that might easily have been avoided had we allowed someone to say "Don't step there; it's a trap" without telling him to shut up unless he knows how to disarm it.

Thomas S. Kidd
4 October 2001, 11:33 AM

re: No More Kings
I appreciated Jill Lepore's article on Schoolhouse Rock and its heir apparent, having used the video "No More Kings" in my colonial history class to raise students' awareness of the uses of colonial history in American popular discourse. The class this fall, frighteningly to this Watergate-era kid, had never seen "No More Kings" before but was about evenly split concerning whether the producers were being duplicitous or just giving a digestable version of history for children. I think one student said it best when she asked, "why can't a cartoon like this be simple AND true?"

Jeff Pasley
3 October 2001, 11:19 AM

WTC crisis
I have no idea how to "solve the present crisis"; I doubt there are too many early American historians who have a lot of expertise on fighting terrorism. Moreover my focus was on the cultural reaction to the crisis rather than the specifics of the "new war," if such it is. I am well convinced, however, that the crisis will not be "solved" by historians or anyone else shelving their intellects and waving the flag until further notice. Suspending judgment is precisely what has gotten the country into trouble on previous occasions, and one hopeful sign at present is that neither the people nor the Congress have done that, at least not completely. In my view, a world clearly understood is a better place, and we academics would be forsaking our duty if we stopped offering analysis in a time of crisis. There is plenty of uncritical celebration and inspiration available on television, and contrary to the apparent beliefs of some, I see no need for us to offer more of the same, so long as we remain respectful. I would offer a couple of prescriptive thoughts, if that will make Mr. Marks feel better. We should strongly and permanently increase the security at airports and other potential terrorist targets, such as water treatment plants and nuclear reactors. Ample federal funds and training should be provided, on an ongoing basis. Such a program might even be used as a jobs program to alleviate the current economic troubles in a way that will help ordinary people in a direct and tangible fashion -- unlike, say, the capital gains tax cut that some Republicans are already proposing. We should continue to investigate the attacks and then take whatever steps are necessary to bring those responsible to justice, including military action if the administration is truly committed to seeing it through to the end. But we should also moderate our rhetoric about crusades and new wars and eradicating evil; we should not repeat the mistakes that helped create Osama bin Laden and the Taliban by making common cause with anyone -- such as the tottering dictators, would-be monarchs, and self-appointed "freedom fighters" we have already signed to our current team -- who says they support us, without regard to their actual beliefs and practices. (I do not look forward to bankrolling the Shah of Afghanistan and the secret police establishment he will need to deal with the Osamists he will have in his midst no matter what happens to bin Laden himself.) And we should not fundamentally change our system to fight the battle against terrorism, thereby proving those who think democracies are weak and fragile to be absolutely right.

Stephen R. Marks
3 October 2001, 6:12 AM

WTC crisis
Re: "...And Now For Something Completely Similar" by Jeffrey L. Pasley. I am very curious as to how Mr. Pasley would recommend that we solve the present crisis. He is very quick to criticise, but offers precious few positive suggestions that would lead to a better, safer world, wherein there no longer existed hatred towards America and murderous attacks on America were no longer wholeheartedly cheered by certain groups and populations. This tendency to analize rather than solve and resolve is one of the more depressing tendencies of many academics; it is a pity that such academics do not employ their extensive learning and intellects to making the world a better place, instead of simply offering their opinion as to why it is so bad.

Bridge
6 September 2001, 11:52 PM

This was surely a misnomered article on the English Roots of slavery. The article concluded "Not surprisingly, much of the evidence--like the parish records and early Renaissance dramas--is difficult to interpret. The remaining parish records may reveal that our preliminary sample was not representative of London, or that it was representative of the metropolis but not the hinterland; other dramas may undercut our preliminary findings on early English representations of Moors."

The reason for this conclusion is that guilt is trying to be put on the English when it was the Portugese, AFTER African-Africans (as opposed to African-Americans) sought out and enslaved their brethern and sold them to the Portugese. Today it is called black-on-black crime.

Savannah Robillard
6 September 2001, 11:14 PM

Impossible to Compare Today with Yesterday
Re: Slaves you have never seen:

You Said:

"Sielberg's blockbuster auteur status and Oprah Winfrey's formidable marketing power could not overcome the movie-going public's ingrained reticence about and avoidance of the devilish details of chattel slavery."

This is not true as avoidence of "devilish detail of chattel slavery." That is not why any audience inherently revolted against these films.

The revolt was against the obvious brainwashing. The audience inheriently knows these examples were not the majority of cases at that time.

As an amature genealogist who has reviewed hundreds upon hundred of wills. Most owners, who owned 3 to 25 slaves, had wills or probate records that had specific ways in which family slaves, not considered chattel, were to be directed. Usually a slave went to a family member with which that slave and family member were attached. Most of the wills read that the slave was to be cared for for life. Even if they were sold on the court house steps to satisfy the law, most were bought back by the immediate family. Slave records, such as those at the reknowned Gunston Hall, would have a slave appraised at $0 if they were old or infirmed, yet this slave was the first to be mentioned in a will to be taken care of. The WPA project "Bullwhip Days" of interviews of slaves who said, against the ingrained the idea of the title "bullwhip", that they were less hungry during slavery than during the Depression; and abolistionist Frederick Olmsted's "Slaves States," a travelogue that would render him a racist today, both are primary sources that more align with Margaret Mitchell's research and family history than is politically correct and can win acceptance today.

The only test is the thought of that day's thinking in the 19th Century, the test of time, not today. If the present is what is most improtant, than the Taliban and their Ministry of Virtue, or the murder of 2.5 million Congolese will be the focus of today's of problem solving, not that of yesterday in which proof exists in the myriad of court houses in America, both North and South, that a multitude of slaves were cared for as depicted in such un-P.C. films as Gone With The Wind ... whether it is admitted by the intelligentesia or not.

Thus those sociologists or academics who put guilt upon the American public, such as a movie audience, need to do a ton of futher research to dispell their myths. Myths which they think Hollywood is promoting, but which in the case of "Mammy," prove to be the actual case in relation to house servants, and trained carpenters, blacksmiths, etc. Feild hands, though most on the task system, did fair less well than those with trained skills, although rice growing slaves were considered trained. The poll taxes themeselves were expensive enough to make slaves, as the cars we pay taxes for today , cared for.

But the key here is Reconstruction. No American can consider the repercussions of slavery without considering the horrors of Reconstruction upon the freed slaves. 40 acres and a mule were signed off by the X of former slaves to the Carpetbaggers from the North when their former owners were required by law to turn them out on the streets/roads. The advent of Jim Crow can never be understood without the effect of the corruptness of Reconstruction on both Southerner and former slave.

Thus "Armistad," which dealt with the North, partially with Rhode Island which was the largest slave importing state at the time, and "Beloved" in which all the anger was too blatent, did not resonate with the public, because perhaps they somewhere, through genetic recognition, know that all cases were not as these films depict.

And that slavery that exists in present day Africa (or Russia) is where films need to expose the truth so that this horrific problem can be erradicated.

Alan Price
22 August 2001, 12:08 PM

I enjoyed Prof. Kamensky's piece titled, "Talk of the Past." In my experience the healing power of apology is often dismissed or underestimated. I chair the Police Review & Advisory Board in Cambridge, MA. In citizen complaints against the conduct of police officers, the most commonly requested form of redress is an apology. Contrary to popular cynicism, when the officer apologizes the citizen actually drops the complaint. When considering the impact of an apology for historic redress, it is useful to distinguish between two forms of apology. The commonly assumed form of apology assumes responsibility or accountability for certain actions. For example, "I am sorry I owned slaves." While this may be appropriate when the parties had direct participation in the grievance, it is difficult in instances of historic redress. Most people are reluctant to issue this form for fear of unknown liability and/or stigma. And they may genuinely not feel directly responsible for the harm. The other form of apology acknowledges the harm & wrongdoing without assuming responsibility. For example, "I am sorry that our nation ever supported the institution of slavery." This form may not have the same healing power as the direct responsibility form, but it is easier to say, it can be genuine, and it may be accompanied by reparations without incurring liability or stigma. In other words, a government can apologize, set the record straight, save face, and start using resources to construct a better future. Without the apology, attempts to simply move forward add insult to past injury.

Betsy D Youngsma
21 August 2001, 5:04 PM

Your website
Your website is fascinating. Al ong time coming but beautiful to look at and interesting to read. Just a note of thanks to the both of you for creating such a nice piece of history. Thanks.

Janet Lowry
17 August 2001, 9:50 AM

history with children
Corman's article is great. Made me re-think how we speak about history with the kids. Thanks.

Diane Cameron
15 August 2001, 9:00 PM

Sutton article on interpreting slavery
Working at a small Connecticut museum that is beginning to tell the stories of the enslaved people who lived in the museum houses and town, we are facing many the issues Sutton addresses. But if Karen is"still troubled by why a white person was teaching about black history," I am still troubled about HOW I as a white person can effectively convey the experiences of the Africans & African Americans in 18th century Connecticut to all audiences

Antoinette Burrell Roebuck
8 August 2001, 9:04 PM

Representing Slavery
Congratulations to Karen Sutton. I read with pride her a Round Table discussion on Representing Slavery. I recently visited Carter's Grove as part of a family reunion. I was most impressed with the slave quarters as well as the persons relaying the historical perspective of colonial Williamsburg era. Carter's Grove could not have existed with out the slaves. Our history cannot be "sugar coated" to exclude those pages which may be painful or contraversial. Well done, Karen

roger gathman
7 August 2001, 3:08 PM

Walter Johnson
I was impressed with Johnson's re-reading of Roll, Jordon, Roll - very nice. I linked to it (and made a few comments0 from my weblog, www.limitedinc.blogspot.com. Thanks! Roger

Carol Black
7 August 2001, 8:52 AM

Representing Slavery
Bravo to Karen Sutton for a magnificent article and for her daily work at Carter's Grove Plantation in Williamsburg interpreting slavery in Virginia! There are too few living history places (Colonial Williamsburg) or people, like Karen Sutton, bold enough to help America visualize or even think about slavery. As a descendant of slaves who were enslaved in Tidewater Virginia, perhaps at Carter's Grove, I am very proud that our family history is now included as part of American's history, albeit it is a very painful chapter. Hopefully American's history will also one day tell the story of committing a part of the wealth of this country, to compensate for the tremendous damage that was caused to the lives of the slaves and their descendants, many of whom continue to live in poverty and are otherwised deprived of resources to live as most other citizens who enjoy the full benefits of all that Amerca has to offer. I applaud Keren Sutton and many others, black and white, who give their hearts and minds to this important work.

Yuval Taylor
18 July 2001, 11:04 AM

slave sounds and music
To Shane White and Graham White: You might want to read Solomon Northup's _Twelve Years a Slave_ (included in its entirety in vol. 2 of my anthology _I Was Born a Slave_) - Northup was a black New York violinist who was kidnapped and spent twelve years in slavery, mostly in Louisiana; his account of the place of music in slave life is rich. See in particular chapter XV of his narrative, which includes some interesting lyrics not found in other collections.

Edith G. Bailes
15 July 2001, 8:18 PM

1900 House
Can you stand a late comment on the 1900 house? One glaring error in the program is that neither the tradesmen nor the maid would have used the front door. They would have gone to the back door (or "servants' entrance") as a matter of course. From what I recall, this practice continued, in many places, right up until the start of WWII, when servants became nonexistent anyway. In the 1900s, people "knew their place (in society) - and stayed in it"!

Margaret D. Pagan
1 July 2001, 6:41 PM

Karen Sutton's article
What a wonderful article by Karen Sutton...striking the balance between truthfulness and tastefulness. However, for those African Americans who have confronted our history, being black is ok. I enjoyed the variety of responses Ms. Sutton reported and found the a simply put, "very human." I hope to hear more from her on her experiences in Williamsburg. ces

Peter R Christoph
19 June 2001, 2:30 PM

Disarming Early American History
I just became aware of Common-Place, so my comments on an article published in September 2000 are rather late in the day. However, I was struck by both carelessness and misleading statements in the two paragraphs relating to New Netherland and New York.

First, the colony was New Netherland, singular, being only one province. It seems redundant to call it Dutch New Netherland (has anyone ever used the expression, English Virginia?). The conquerer of the colony was Richard Nicolls, not Nicholls, and the implication that he came over because of John Scott is misleading, to say the least. Stuyvesant's surrender was not due to his militia's refusal to fight, but rather to his Council convincing him that the cause was hopeless. The English did not loot the city, the regulars having been informed by Nicolls that the punishment for any looter would be death. Part of the surrender terms was an agreement that the New England militia units would not be included in the occupation forces, since the Dutch had no faith in Yankee morality.

The Dutch in New York in 1669 did not attempt a rebellion. The Swedes and Finns on the Delaware, fueled by an over-supply of brandy, attempted a rebellion which ended when the leaders passed out from over-imbibing and were easily arrested. Finally, the royal navy hardly discouraged the Dutch fleet in 1673, which left Virginia only because it learned that New York was unprotected. They sailed up the coast and captured New York and held it for 15 months.

Finally, the idea that there were few guns in New Netherland or New York is hardly defensible. The Dutch had traded over 400 muskets to the Mohawks by the mid-1640s. Jan Baptist van Rensselaer indicated in the 1650s that Fort Orange (Albany) and vicinity could raise 230 armed men if needed -- virtually the whole adult male population.

I leave it to others to comment upon the colonies with which they are familiar.

Larry Smith
13 June 2001, 12:44 PM

Account Books
Was interested in a piece of Michael Bellesiles' article in vol. 1 no. 1. Is there somewhere an "expert" on account books? I'm particularly interested in Maine in the early 1800s. Thanks.

Geoffrey Webb
11 June 2001, 5:59 PM

Refreshing words.
I would like to see this former professor of mine succeed Al Hunt, as the lone qualifier of the market-driven, myopic reading of American history scorched daily on the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal. Dr.Pasley, you should so aspire.

Jeff Pasley
21 May 2001, 5:43 PM

Publick Occurrences: Losing One to the Gipper
A couple of added notes to my recent column,"Losing One for the Gipper," on the drive to remove Alexander Hamilton from the ten dollar bill:

It has become apparent that at least some conservatives are embarrassed by the Ronald Reagan Legacy Project. George Will and the Weekly Standard have both criticized the project since my piece was written, citing the Hamilton proposal and a threat by Rep. Bob Barr to withhold funding to the Washington area's Metro system if Reagan's name is not added to the train station at National Airport. Even the Legacy Project is embarrassed by what may be Reagan's biggest monument of all, predating the project: the giant new federal office building at Federal Triangle in D.C., reputed to be the largest government building in the country after the Pentagon.

A very belated callback from David Kralik, Executive Director of Legacy Project and Deputy Communications Director of Americans for Tax Reform, provided little insight into the thinking behind the proposed cutting of Hamilton, but many more examples of the talking points with which it is being sold and defended. Any animus against Hamilton was denied. The ten was chosen because simply because it was a high circulation bill, Kralik claimed, and did not contain a completely sacrosanct figure like Washington or Lincoln. At the same time, the ten was politically appropriate because, in the Legacy Project's view, "Reagan's policies were geared toward the middle class." Hence they wanted Reagan on currency that this alleged "middle class" of capital gains tax cut beneficiaries would use, known as they are to shun such high-falutin denominations as the twenty. Asked how the project could justify demoting a Founding Father, Kralik responded by cheerfully inserting Reagan into the pantheon. "Reagan was basically a Founding Father in the 20th century," he said. "He gave America its pride back."And really, you killjoys, what is a Constitution, a national government, an educational system, a labor movement, or environment compared to our pride?

Abraham Hoffman
15 May 2001, 11:40 AM

"Shooting Back"
Eric Strange's article "Shooting Back" well describes the dilemma faced by documentary filmmakers in telling a story that may deal with a a time preceding motion picture footage. I believe that the most recent example of how not to make such a film is the PBS program "Conquistadors." The contrast between the "companion book" and the documentary is noticeable--the film has very few portraits or contemporary drawings, but what it does have is a great deal of Micheal Wood, commenting and intruding upon almost every scene, plus a disconcerting disjunction of narrative about events 500 years ago and modern scenes, as in Wood in a bus on a road "taken by Cortes on his route to Tenochtitlan." Not to seem to cynical about it, but there are some students in my history class who may wonder if Cortes took a bus! One last point: this streamer system of writing an email letter is very awkward as I can't tell if I am making any typographical errors! Wish I knew how to format this in a block version!

Joshua M. Smith
5 April 2001, 7:40 AM

Thankstaking
In response to Dave Peterson's comment that Columbus Day and Thanksgiving are "CELEBRATIONS OF GENOCIDE," I must point out that many holdays "celebrate" brutality in our past. Does one think vindictively of Egyptians at Passover? Rail against state murder at Easter? Ponder the injustices that caused millions to throw away their lives on in the trenches during Worls War I on Veterans Day/Remembrance Day on November 11? Memorial Day? The list could go on and on. IN fact, some groups might remember those holidays in that light, and that is okay, especially if you believe in any form of multiculturalism. Different groups have different holidays, many of which are reduced to the most vapid state possible to make them palatable. For the vast majority of Americans,holidays are merely days off(if they are even that) during which they can sleep late. And sure, their are cultural artifacts still dominant in our government from less happy times, such as not getting mail on Sundays. But who would be so cruel to suggest that postal employees must work on Sundays in order to prove that the U.S. government is committed to multiculturalism? Mr. Peterson's viewpoint is deeply troubling to me, because it 1. suggests an intolerance of anyone with a viewpoint differing from his own; 2. seems to suggest an inevitability to Native American genocide; and 3. seems to paint Native Americans as victims without agency or will; and 4. overlooks the point that the bumbling Europea were greatly aided by microbes, of which they themselves had little or no understanding. THat is not to say that Europeans acted in an enlightened manner, they were brutal; but how many human societies have not acted in a vicious and brutal manner at some time?

Jim Mackay
4 April 2001, 1:48 PM

Shooting Back
Eric Stange's article reminded me of the often frustrating, frequently rewarding world of the public historian, where we constantly are dealing with issues of education and entertainment. It seems to me that historians and filmmakers are often at cross purposes. Historians seek to assemble facts with which they can make an argument and, hopefully, tell a good story in the process. Filmmakers seek out good stories and then assemble just enough facts to make it seem more plausible, realistic and entertaining. Public historians try to bridge this gap on a daily basis, putting together exhibitions and public programs that are based on carefully researched material, and yet hopefully are presented in a creative, colorful and entertaining way. You certainly can not knock the power of visuals. Documentary films that rely on very few images or "people scenes" can be as ineffective as an exhibit with few objects or interactive components---flat, boring and text-heavy. As Mr. Stange advocates, film works for certain subjects because of the visuals, and this is why it will always work for many historical topics, particularly as technology advances and it becomes easier for filmmakers to recreate ancient Rome or Omaha Beach on D-Day. Film has such a powerful ability to put the moving, breathing, wind-blown, crying, laughing, bleeding color and life back on to the index cards, documents and artifacts of history.

Marcos A. Paiva
21 March 2001, 12:29 PM

I applaud Ann Fabian's "Bones of Contention." She has digested the complex case of Kennewick Man and presented a clear, concise, and neutral account of the battle for its control. She rightly claims, in the words of David Hurst Thomas, that this is a battle over control and ownership of the past. It is also a battle over identity and what it means to be American. American Indians, once relegated to the fringes of American society, are now being solicited as part of a common heritage to which we are all a part and to which we all share, in order that the "knowledge" which the Ancient One contains may be extracted. There are many ironies to this case, yet Fabian contends that for once, the Indians are on the side of the law and supported by the Government. This should be a comforting thought for supporters of repatriation; however, the past sometimes has a way of rearing its ugly head in the present.

Michele Clark
16 March 2001, 9:01 AM

I heard about you through the alumni news from Brandeis. This is just a message to say it's a lovely, interesting, lively site and I'll tell some of my friends about it. Most of the people I know who are historians deal with more recent periods. However - I think anyone would enjoy it. I read the article about teaching at Horace Mann with much pleasure.

William Kraybill
10 March 2001, 10:24 PM

Abe by Richard Slotkin
I enjoyed this book a great deal. I have read a fair amount concerning Lincoln and found that this lent considerable texture to the life, self and times of Abe Lincoln. Although, Dr. Slotkin describes to a limited extent the degree of research supporting some of the episodes occuring in the "novel", I would have appreciated a more extensive discussion and sourses of this work, either in or with the book or in another work. Anyone is aware of such resourses I would appreciate information concerning this. Bill Kraybill

Read older messages

Index | Read messages | Post a message