Everything you say can and will be used against you.

Monday, May 20, 2019

The Past Is Another Country



I have some history with your [peer reviewed] journal. A good number of years ago, before the Hamilton documents imbroglio, I proposed an article to your then-editor-in-chief outlining how the reproduction of Hamilton’s 1793 financial statement appearing in The Papers of Alexander Hamilton was based on the actual Hamilton-signed original, but that the reproduction of that document appearing in American State Papers was based on a copy made some time later by or for Senate employees and printers.

The editor-in-chief told me, in no uncertain terms, that such an article would not be welcomed by your journal’s busy editors, as the Hamilton documents at issue did not involve any of the great issues of Hamilton’s era, nor was it specifically related to more modern inquiries relating to race, class, gender, identity, etc. As such, there would be no real interest and no real audience in regard to what appeared to be little more than an archivist’s oddity.

In reply, I pointed out how the original Hamilton-signed document had some interesting legal implications in relation to Professor Zephyr Teachout’s First-Amendment-related scholarship. The editor-in-chief told me it was very unlikely that such a tangential line of research (meaning my research, not Teachout’s) could ever come up in actual litigation, and maybe … I ought to look to publish my idea in some student-edited law journal instead. After the Hamilton documents imbroglio, no one at your journal, including your current editor-in-chief, invited me to submit an article discussing how to authenticate eighteenth century American documents.[1] 

Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose

So you see: your journal and I already have a history.

Seth




[1] See Declaration of Seth Barrett Tillman, Lecturer (Exhibit D), in Amicus Curiae Scholar Seth Barrett Tillman’s and Proposed Amicus Curiae Judicial Education Project’s (JEP’s) Response to Amici Curiae by Certain Legal Historians, CREW v. Trump, Civ. A. No. 1:17-cv-00458-GBD (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 19, 2017) (Daniels, J.), ECF No. 85-5, 2017 WL 7795997, <https://ssrn.com/abstract=3037107> (discussing how to authenticate eighteenth century American documents); see also Seth Barrett Tillman, Scholarly Papers & Other Papers, Social Science Research Network (last accessed Jan. 3, 2019), <https://tinyurl.com/hkzwasq> (collecting my papers, briefs, declarations, etc). See generally Declaration of Professor Kenneth R. Bowling, Ph.D. (Exhibit H), in Amicus Curiae Scholar Seth Barrett Tillman’s and Proposed Amicus Curiae JEP’s Response to Amici Curiae by Certain Legal Historians, supra, ECF No. 85-9, 2017 WL 7964211 (discussing how to authenticate eighteenth century American documents); Declarationof John P. Kaminski (Exhibit G), in Amicus Curiae ScholarSeth Barrett Tillman’s and Proposed AmicusCuriae JEP’s Response to Amici Curiaeby Certain Legal Historians, supra, ECF No. 85-8, 2017 WL 7964226 (same); Declaration of Professor Stephen F. Knott (Exhibit I), in Amicus Curiae Scholar Seth Barrett Tillman’s and Proposed Amicus Curiae JEP’s Response to Amici Curiae by Certain Legal Historians, supra, ECF No. 85-10, 2017 WL 7964225 (same); Declaration of Professor Robert W.T. Martin (Exhibit J), in Amicus Curiae Scholar Seth Barrett Tillman’s and Proposed Amicus Curiae JEP’s Response to Amici Curiae by Certain Legal Historians, supra, ECF No. 85-11, 2017 WL 7964229 (same); Declaration of Michael E. Newton (Exhibit E), in Amicus Curiae Scholar Seth Barrett Tillman’s and Proposed Amicus Curiae JEP’s Response to Amici Curiae by Certain Legal Historians, supra,ECF No. 85-6, 2017 WL 7964201 (same); Supplemental Declaration of Michael E. Newton (Exhibit F), in Amicus Curiae Scholar Seth Barrett Tillman’s and Proposed Amicus Curiae JEP’s Response to Amici Curiae by Certain Legal Historians, supra, ECF No. 85-7, 2017 WL 7964223 (same).

Seth Barrett Tillman, The Past Is Another Country, New Reform Club (May 20, 2019, 1:43 AM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2019/05/the-past-is-another-country.html>. 

Seth Barrett Tillman, A Work in Progress: Select Bibliography of Court filings and Other Sources Regarding the Foreign and Domestic Emoluments Clauses Cases, New Reform Club (Feb. 28, 2018, 8:59 AM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2018/02/a-work-in-progress-select-bibliography.html>, <https://tinyurl.com/ybg5dg6u>. 


Welcome Instapundit and ChicagoBoyz readers.


Have a look around New Reform Clubmy co-bloggers do good work!


1 comment:

Tim Kowal said...

The mark of intelligence is to be wrong with great poise and confidence:

"In the second phase of the study, the deception was revealed. The students were told that the real point of the experiment was to gauge their responses to thinking they were right or wrong. (This, it turned out, was also a deception.) Finally, the students were asked to estimate how many suicide notes they had actually categorized correctly, and how many they thought an average student would get right. At this point, something curious happened. The students in the high-score group said that they thought they had, in fact, done quite well—significantly better than the average student—even though, as they’d just been told, they had zero grounds for believing this. Conversely, those who’d been assigned to the low-score group said that they thought they had done significantly worse than the average student—a conclusion that was equally unfounded.

“Once formed,” the researchers observed dryly, “impressions are remarkably perseverant.”"

Elizabeth Kolbert, Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds, The New Yorker, Feb. 27, 2017, https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds