I Need Your Help With the DC Suit

Fifteen historians, some of them nationally prominent, have filed an amicus curiae brief arguing that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right. Their names are: Jack N. Rakove, Saul Cornell, David T. Konig, William J. Novak, Lois G. Schwoerer, Fred Anderson, Carol Berkin, Paul Finkelman, R. Don Higginbotham, Stanley N. Katz, Pauline R. Maier, Peter S. Onuf, Robert E. Shalhope, John Shy, Alan Taylor. Their brief makes the claim:

Amici Curiae, listed in the Appendix, are professional historians. They have all earned PhD. degrees in history, hold academic appointments in university departments of history, and specialize in the American Revolution, the Early Republic, American Legal History, American Constitutional History, Anglo-American Legal History, or related areas.

For all their expertise, Rakove, Finkelman, Higginbotham, and Onuf were taken in by one of the grossest frauds in recent American history: Michael Bellesiles' Arming America, which set a new first: the first book to receive the Bancroft Prize--and then have it revoked. Robert F. Worth, "Prize for Book Is Taken Back From Historian", New York Times, December 14, 2002. The publisher, Alfred A. Knopf, subsequently withdrew the book from sale and pulped it (instead of remaindering it). Hillel Italie, Associated Press, “Publisher Stops History Book Publication,” January 7, 2003.

Now, I ordinarily wouldn't see much point to embarrassing these people by pointing out that they were taken in by this tenured conman--after all, many professional historians were. But when you tell the Supreme Court, "Trust us! We're experts on this subject of the Second Amendment and guns in early America," it doesn't say much when it turns out that they were snookered by one of the grossest, most obviously fraudulent history books that I have ever seen--and this is a topic on which they are claiming to be experts! (And a law professor, James Lindgren, and myself, who is nobody, ended up spotting and exposing the fraud.) So here's what you can do: find any published reviews by any of the fifteen historians above of Arming America and send them to me, pronto. Here's what I have so far:

From the dust jacket of Arming America: "We can hardly understand the context for the Second Amendment without first reading Arming America. No one previously has given us such an authoritative account of firearms in our history from the Colonial period through the Civil War." -- Don Higginbotham

From the yellow wraparound band on review copies of Arming America: "Arming America is a myth-busting tour de force. Michael Bellesiles moves to the front rank of American historians with this deeply researched, brilliantly argued, energetically written, and timely book. It is an instant classic, one of the very most important works of historical scholarship published in recent years. In future years it will be impossible to talk about the role of guns in our civic culture without coming to terms with this superb study." Peter S. Onuf

Highly favorable reviews of Arming America by Bogus appeared in Texas Law Review 79, no. 6 (May 2001): 1641-55; by Finkelman in Michigan Law Review 99, no. 6 (May 2001): 1500-19; by Anderson,“Guns, Rights and People,” Los Angeles Times Book Review, 17 September 2000, pp. 1-2.

Jack Rakove has an especially embarrassing part in the Arming America scandal. Bellesiles thanked him: "Jack Rakove kindly went through the second draft with a keen eye and improved every page he read." Michael A. Bellesiles, Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2000), 583. When William & Mary Quarterly asked four prominent historians to review the controversy (which historians had ignored, until the concerns of Lindgren and myself received significant popular press attention), Jack Rakove wrote the only one of the four articles reviewing the book that chose not to say anything particularly negative about it, while the other three historians politely observed that it Arming America was severely flawed. Jack N. Rakove, "Words, Deeds and Guns: Arming America and the Second Amendment" [Forum: Historians and Guns], William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd Series, 59, 2002, p. 205-10; Randolph Roth, “Guns, Gun Culture, and Homicide: The Relationship Between Firearms, the Uses of Firearms, and Interpersonal Violence,” William & Mary Quarterly, 3rd ser., 59(1):224-7; Gloria L. Main, “Many Things Forgotten: The Use of Probate Records in Arming America,” William & Mary Quarterly, 3rd ser., 59(1):205-16; Ira D. Gruber, “Of Arms and Men: Arming America and Military History,” William & Mary Quarterly, 3rd ser., 59(1):217-22. Subsequent investigation--after the full extent of the scandal had been widely publicized among non-historians--led to Bellesiles resigning a tenured position at Emory University. Stanley N. Katz, Hanna H. Gray, Laurel Thatcher Ulrich, “Report of the Investigative Committee in the matter of Professor Michael Bellesiles,” July 10, 2002.

So do your part: help me find every review these fifteen historians wrote of Arming America!

UPDATE: Let me clarify that I can't hold Shalhope Constitutional Commentary (1999) paper against him. He operated based on what Bellesiles's 1996 Journal of American History paper claimed. While that paper, like Arming America, turned out to be fraudulent, it wasn't obviously and grossly so.