of
the country’s most revered experts on the topic, provided generous
quotes explaining why Wilson’s and Wilkins’ “understanding of
slavery is extremely anachronistic.” Drawing on his years of complex
work in the field, the Bancroft Prize winner felt confident enough to
assert that “the slaves were extremely unhappy.” Peter Wood of
Duke
University
claimed that it was “ridiculous to even ask if slavery was a harmful
institution.” He equated Wilson and Wilkins with “holocaust
deniers.” Clayborne Carson of
Stanford
University
also responded to our hardworking Daily
News reporter. “I haven’t heard of this argument,” he
told her over the phone, “since the pre-Civil War period when people
actually believed the slaves were really happy with their lives … why
would anyone want to waste their time with this argument? It’s
incomprehensible.” U.C. Berkley’s Saidiya Hartman, an expert on the
WPA narratives, called Wilson’s and Wilkins’ arguments
“obscene.”
Local responses to
the controversy varied. The majority of the community (overwhelmingly
Christian and Republican) found the Daily
News article and our book review persuasive, and many began
organizing to oppose what they viewed as yet another eruption of white
supremacy in their own backyard. In fact, a number of them were proud
veterans of the battle against the Aryan Nations only two years earlier
in
Coeur D’Alene
. Ira Berlin’s credentials meant little, however, to some Idahoans who
had already written off the last fifty years of historical scholarship
on slavery as “abolitionist propaganda.” Douglas Wilson, one of the
author’s of the now infamous pro-slavery booklet, actually dismissed
Berlin
publicly as an “abolitionist.” Efforts to discuss these differences
only served again and again to clarify the chasm separating the two
camps. Sincere invitations to dialogue and communication succeeded only
in demonstrating that dialogue and communication made the problem worse.
No one could remember anything quite like it.
In addition to
marking out skirmish lines, the controversy made it clear that Douglas
Wilson was more than just a local troublemaker and southern partisan. He
had established two “Reformed” evangelical churches in town whose
congregations, thanks to nationwide recruitment efforts, now represented
10 percent of
Moscow
’s entire population. He had founded a k-12 school called “Logos”
that taught history from a “Biblical Worldview” and an unaccredited
college called “New Saint Andrews,” where he had installed himself
as “Senior Fellow of Theology.” Other faculty members at the college
included
Wilson
’s son Nate, his brother Gordon, and son-in-law Ben.
Wilson
, it turned out, had cultivated an empire of “classical” schools
based on a biblical worldview that included over 165 private academies
around the country, all of which purchased educational materials
published by his personal “Canon Press” in
Moscow
,
Idaho
, or affiliated “Veritas Press” in
Lancaster
,
Pennsylvania
. His empire of private academies paled, however, in comparison to his
real passion for home-schooling.
Wilson
’s view of slavery currently services thousands of home-school
families around the country with materials published by Canon and
Veritas Presses.
Information about
Wilson
’s ninth annual “history conference” in February 2004 turned out
to be the final straw for many residents. Wilson had scheduled himself
as the keynote speaker, praising the southern racist ideologue R.L.
Dabney, but he had also scheduled as co-speakers white supremacist
League of the South co-founder Steve Wilkins and the anti-gay Tennessee
minister George Grant, notorious for advocating the extermination of all
homosexuals in his book Legislating
Immorality..
University
of
Idaho
students were especially outraged that the conference was
surreptitiously scheduled to take place on their own campus in the
Student Union Building.
Wilson
had apparently paid good money for the facility well in advance, and
nobody had balked at taking it. Student anger, however, ultimately
forced the president and provost of the University to issue a joint
disclaimer of the event, which tried retroactively to take the moral
high ground by denouncing efforts to “recast or minimize the evils of
slavery.”
Responding
to the activism of a much larger African American Student Association,
the president of nearby
Washington
State
University
, V. Lane Rawlins, enthusiastically issued a simultaneous statement
assuring Washingtonians that “the planned conference to be held in
February 2004 in rented space on the
University
of
Idaho
campus in
Moscow
has nothing to do with
Washington
State
University
.” In his official statement, Rawlins claimed that he had been
informed “about a booklet that defends slavery as a social
institution.” He made reference to the “article in the Daily
News on the weekend of Nov. 8-9 where historians from the
University of
Idaho
, the University of
Maryland
, and
Duke
University
exposed the |