By Brian Carnell

Wednesday, January 30, 2002

Every time it seems like Michael Bellesiles is going to dig himself out of his academic fraud scandal, he just keeps making the situation worse. Bellesiles, of course, wrote Arming America which was praised when it was published for its bold thesis that the American gun culture was a product of post-Civil War America, and that prior to that time few Americans owned weapons.

This claim started to unravel thanks to efforts by gun rights activists as well as academics who were paying attention and decided to see whether or not there were serious problems with Bellesiles' book.

One of the most contentious claims in this debate revolves around San Francisco probate records from the late 19th century. In his book, Bellesiles claimed that he reviewed probate records from this period and reports on his findings. The problem is that almost all of these records were lost in a fire in 1906.

Bellesiles recently claimed that he had, in fact, located the missing probate records. In a recent reply to his critics, Bellesiles wrote,

I was not hallucinating when I read the San Francisco probate files. They are housed in the California History Center. (Complicating matters is the fact that the center, where I read these files in 1993, moved last year, and it does not have a web site.)

. . .

I have sent photocopies (just the first few pages of three files, each of which contained dozens of pages) to several people, including a reporter for the Chronicle of Higher Education, who is working on an article, and the New York Times, the Boston Globe, and the Organization of American Historians newsletter. I also plan to scan a few pages onto my web site (www.emory.edu/HISTORY/BELLESILES/index.html).

The California History Center, like many other archives, is oriented toward genealogy. Most of the material is therefore organized alphabetically, making it difficult to locate records from specific years. Additionally, the staff appeared unaware that they had any probate materials in their collection, though they actually have a great deal. But then my contention, like that of every historian I know, is that one must actually go to the archives in order to properly discover and examine historical documents. Historical research cannot be conducted from an office easy chair via the telephone and web.

Unfortunately for him, almost everything in these three paragraphs appears to be yet more dissembling by Bellesiles.

First, Bellesiles did not visit the California History Center. What Bellesiles visited was, in fact, the Contra Costa Country Historical Society, and it most certainly does have a web site.

The CCCHS was surprised when it started fielding calls from reporters about the controversy, and even more surprised that Bellesiles was spinning a fairy tale involving their center.

The most damning part of the CCCHS rebuttal to Bellesiles is that the documents that he photocopied and faxed to journalists are not San Francisco probate files. According to the CCCHS,

1. Every identifiable estate in the 26 pages was a Contra Costa County estate, not a San Francisco County estate.

2. Every identifiable decedent in the 26 pages was a Contra Costa County resident, not a San Francisco County resident.

3. Every judge who signed orders in the 26 pages was a Contra Costa County judge, not a San Francisco County judge.

4. The only clerk who signed an order in the 26 pages signed as "Clerk" of the "Probate Court Contra Costa County."

...

5. Bellesiles makes reference to 1872 tax assessment records and includes a copy of one in the 26 pages. Its heading is: "Assessment List, County of Contra Costa, 1872-73." This is from a Contra Costa County taxpayer and taxing authority, not from San Francisco.

Examining the 26 pages of Bellesiles' probate records that were supplied to us, it appears that Professor Bellesiles merely photocopied estate documents that contained the word "San Francisco" somewhere in them. For example, one of his documents was an affidavit from a San Francisco newspaper that ran an advertisement for a Contra Costa County estate sale: "Pursuant to an order of the Hon. the Probate Court of the county of Contra Costa . . . in the town of Martinez." This affidavit, signed by a San Francisco notary public, states that it is a Contra Costa County estate. There was no newspaper in Contra Costa County until 1858, therefore it was common practice to publish legal notices in the San Francisco newspaper.

It is really difficult to imagine the thought process going on in Bellisles' head. Certainly he had to know he would be called to the carpet for such shoddy research methods. Either he is intentionally deceitful or he's one of the worst scholars working in academia.

Source:

Notes on Supposed San Francisco Records in the Contra Costa County Historical Society History Center. Contra Costa County Historical Society, January 2002.

Discuss (0 Replies) | Printer Friendly