Michael Bellesiles

I thought this book was pretty good when I first read it. If you think we've got political and social troubles today, 1877 sounds worse. After I finished the book I learned that Bellesiles wrote a book in 2001 about the growth of the gun culture in the US. He won a prestigious award for that book. Later a group of historians found that Bellesiles was "guilty of unprofessional and misleading work". He had to give back the prize and resign his professorship. "1877" is a come-back book for him which has been well received.… (mere)

This is for those who take all the mythologizing rhetoric literally and fetishize the US Civil War as a unifying recommitment to foundational principles of liberty. Bellesiles’ technique is to take a cross-sectional moment that illuminates time both forward and back. “The war preserved the union”? Only if ‘union’ means ‘territorial integrity’ (and then only for the 36 states that existed at the end of the war). There were Indian Wars and lots of violent nativism yet to come. Outlawing slavery barely put a dent in the pervasive assertion of white supremacy. By the evidence of history, the Civil War did not foster anything resembling union among workers and factory owners, racial and ethnic groups, regional prerogatives, religious denominations, urban centers and the provinces, political parties, etc.… (mere)

Bellesiles' book, "1877: America's Year of Living Violently" chooses one year and one theme and discusses all aspects in a thoroughly readable fashion. He explores the violence in America for Blacks, for Indians, for Immigrants, for Women, and for Labor. In doing so, he demonstrates that 1877 was a seminal year for so much about America.

What was begun in 1877 is still visible today. Thus, this book is strongly recommended for people interested in contemporary American history as much as it is recommended for people in 19th century history.… (mere)