History Research does not stop with reading past records!  American Colonial History gives us many facts that can be assembled to help us understand our past and the people who played substantial roles in the events of their day.

Historians are fond of saying that we cannot know exactly everything that happened in the Gaspee Affair.  While it is true that we cannot know exactly everything that happened, historians generally agree with certainty on some events.  There are historians who then go on to state that we should reject any other additional detail that is not recorded in an unblemished manner.  They do a disservice to our present day understanding of the American Revolution.

Other eminent historians believe in using the existing evidence to the fullest, to help our present understanding of past events. This is rather like the work of a cultural anthropologist.  I hold to this view.  Every piece of historical research is an undertaking partly of cataloging items and partly of analysis.  In dealing with the Gaspee Affair, we find only limited data (perhaps because from 1772 until the end of the Revolution almost ten years later the utmost skill and caution was used by the Americans in hiding the true actors and events).  Thus, I find it good to adopt the statement of Marcus J. Borg, in his historical reconstruction of Jesus, as being appropriate to investigations of the Gaspee Affair.

• "Answering this question involves us in the task of historical reconstruction, which may be understood as generating an image or gestalt that draws together into a cohesive whole the various elements of the tradition judged to be historical.  The process is very much like a particular stage of detective work: after the evidence has been gathered, analyzed and weighted, it has to be integrated into an overall hypothesis."
• "Doing this...produces a sketch...or image...I prefer these terms to picture or portrait, both of which suggest too much fullness of detail. A sketch on the other hand suggests broad strokes --- a clear outline without much precision of detail."   [Borg, Meeting Jesus Again, at 28.]

Mark Twain expressed the same thought, although in his usual style.

"One of the most admirable things about history is, that almost as a rule we get as much information out of what it does not say as we get out of what it does say. And so, one may truly and axiomatically aver this, to-wit: that history consists of two equal parts; one of these halves is statements of fact, the other half is inference, drawn from the facts. . . . . . . When the practiced eye of the simple peasant sees the half of a frog projecting above the water, he unerringly infers the half of the frog which he does not see. To the expert student in our great science, history is a frog; half of it is submerged, but he knows it is there, and he knows the shape of it." --- Mark Twain, "The Secret History of Eddypus"

Mark Twain is right on target when he refers to history as a science. When drawing historical conclusions from records, it's important that you approach it in scientific way, considering all the possibilities and variables, and cite the reasons for your conclusion. By making sure your research is sound, you can be reasonably sure you're tracing a past event's frog.

Anthropology, history, and the trial of a civil lawsuit have one thing in common -- each involves the process of deciding historical facts based on often inadequate information.   Therefore, I would add my own viewpoint, that of a civil trial advocate.  The process of historical reconstruction is much like a civil trial in the English or American tradition: after the evidence has been viewed, the judge or jury has to determine whether the evidence taken as a whole makes it more likely than not that a particular event occurred.  Our English and American societies have said that in general it is sufficient that men's lives and fortunes depend upon the jury's historical reconstruction of events, even if all the jury can say is that it is "more probable than not" that an event happened in a particular way.  We as a culture think it proper that the property and livelihood of individuals and the very existences of businesses can be determined on such a basis, because the alternative is lack of forward movement.  In like manner, to move forward where it seems reasonable to do so, it is reasonable and sufficient to use forensic recreation as a part of historical investigation.  The results of such a method helps us make sense of past events in history.  Those judgments become useful theses for later investigators --  it helps us define and perhaps narrow the field of theses for future investigation. (See footnote, below.)

And so in the process of historical reconstruction of events, I believe it proper and useful to our understanding of history to use the question: Does the evidence taken as a whole makes it more likely than not that a particular event occurred?  This question method is a forensic reconstruction of history.

The important point in the use of forensic reconstruction of history is that those events which are not taken from primary sources (but rather have  been "judged" more likely to have occurred than not), must be labeled as judgments on facts.  

The dangers of using careful forensic evidence-based evaluations in writing an historical narrative are:

• the improper use of such evaluations to stop further research, and
• labeling the evaluations as facts.

Those dangers are far outweighed by the benefits in using the evaluations for our understanding of history.

Therefore, in my discussions of the events in the Gaspee Affair, I will be using the method of gathering evidence, and then determining whether the evidence taken as a whole makes it more likely than not that a particular event occurred.

I should note that working historians are fond of working with the larger units of social action -- a class, a religion, or an ethnic group.   My particular fondness is working with the most intimate of groups, the family.  Therefore in my forensic reconstruction of events,  my analysis of the Gaspee Affair often is influenced by my research that begins with the family and interfamily relationships that shaped events.

Leonard Bucklin

Footnote: Occam's Razor is some help in choosing among the explanations for differing or inadequate data. It helps us define and perhaps narrow the field of theses for future investigation. (