Post # 4

Interpreting History Through The Trial
Reading

Murder in Tombstone: The Forgotten Trial of Wyatt Earp by Steven Lubet

Over the past week I have been confronted with the trial of interpreting history through the trial on a number of occasions. In this weeks reading Murder in Tombstone by Steven Lubet and a reading for my research seminar, He Shall Go Out Free: The Lives of Denmark Vesey by Douglas Egerton, the specific challenges that a historian faces when analyzing history through a trial deliberation have become very evident to me. It is vital that these challenges are analyzed from a historiographical standpoint.

In He Shall Go Out Free, the historian is presented with a much more daunting challenge than Lubet was faced with. Egerton analyzed the life of Denmark Vesey and the circumstances surrounding the uprising that he was executed for conspiring. The historian is confronted with a clear lack of documentation when looking at the life of Denmark Vesey’s. Furthermore, when looking at the events surrounding the suspected uprising in 1822, the historian if forced to rely almost entirely upon the court records. In this case it proves to be particularly troublesome given the fact that the suspects in this case are free blacks and slaves living in Charleston, South Carolina. One must ask the question, can you rely upon testimonies that were likely coerced under harsh circumstances by a master class? Though this problem does not apply directly to this weeks reading, it does raise questions concerning the interpretation of courtroom testimony in history. How can a historian use an obviously and intentionally biased source?

In Murder in Tombstone, Lubet does a respectable job of analyzing the trial and events surrounding the infamous gunfight at the O.K. Corral. Though Lubet is not confronted with the same challenge as Egerton, as he has a number of sources outside of the trail deliberations themselves, his work does cause one to stop and think about the challenges of using courtroom testimony in historical analysis. Lubet writes, “In fact, a trial (or in this case, and extended hearing) is a contest of ideas in which each side tries to present a comprehensive reconstruction of past events, combining facts and law in a way that leads to a logical result.” (Lubet 189). Given this statement, how must a historian proceed with his or her analysis? If a trial is contest in which the defense and the prosecution are trying to present a “reconstruction of past event” that is logically feasible, a few issues with these sources arise. First, legal deliberations are not only filled with the natural biases that historical sources are inevitably influenced by. By this definition, a historian is analyzing information that is by its nature intended to present a biased argument. A second issue that must be dealt with is that of contradicting testimonies. This is not an uncommon issue for a historian to deal with. However, in a trial, the presence of contradicting accounts is intensified.

I believe that Lubet handles these challenges very appropriately and provides the historian with useful reminders of tools with which to analyze history through the lens of a trial. First, it is very important that Lubet utilizes other sources that are available to him. These sources include a number of print media sources (reports from the Tombstone Epitaph and the Tombstone Nugget) and other personal accounts. Secondly, using these sources, Lubet does an excellent job of providing the political and social context within which the gunfight and the trial took place. This contextual understanding is vital in identifying potential biases and inconsistencies that emerge in courtroom testimony. Finally, Lubet does a very good job of breaking down the trial testimony. The reader gets a sense of the overall argument that both the defense and prosecution are making, however, he is careful to analyze the individual testimonies. In other words, he does not get lost in the story that the lawyers are attempting to weave together, he analyses every strand of testimony.

The historiographical trials of analyzing trials have been challenging me over the past week. Furthermore, with the discussion on the Roy Baker affair coming in the next few weeks, I believe that it is very important to step back and look at how the historian should handle his or her analysis of legal deliberations. These challenges are not new to the historian; however, they are intensified when one is analyzing the intentionally biased information presented in a trial. In Murder in Tombstone, Steven Lubet provides an excellent example of some of the steps that a historian must take in his or her analysis.