Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T05:27:48.116Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Just Because You're Paranoid Doesn't Mean They Aren't Out to Get You: Rejoinder to Bensel

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 October 2011

Samuel DeCanio
Samuel DeCanio*
Affiliation:
Yale University
*
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Richard Bensel's comment on my article “Populism, Paranoia, and the Politics of Free Silver” is, like all of his writing, thoughtful, careful, detailed, and well written. However, I find that I disagree with a number of Bensel's points. In this response I try to clarify areas of disagreement and point to several cases where I believe my argument has been slightly misconstrued, which is understandable given the length and complexity of the paper.

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in American Political Development , Volume 25 , Issue 2 , October 2011 , pp. 200 - 205
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. There is unfortunately not space for me to address all the points Bensel raises, so I have tried to focus on what I believe are his primary arguments.Google Scholar

2. Knox, J. to Boutwell, G., April 25, 1870, Washington, DC, Records of the Office of the Secretary of the Treasury, Letters Sent, 1836–1878, Record Group 104, Vol. 3 of 4, Entry 21, National Archives College Park, College Park, MD.Google Scholar

3. See Knox, J. to Ralston, W., Washington, DC, November 16, 1869, Ralston MSS.Google Scholar

4. Linderman, H. to Ralston, W., Washington, DC, March 26, 1871, Ralston MSS.Google Scholar

5. Bensel defines bribery as “any gift, advantage, or emolument offered, given, or promised to, or asked or accepted by, any public officer to influence his behavior in his office; also, any such inducement offered to influence a private person corruptly in the discharge of any public duty or franchise.”Google Scholar

6. Bensel, Richard, “Comment on ‘Populism, Paranoia, and the Politics of Free Silver’,” Studies in American Political Development 25 (2011): 195CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7. Ibid., 193.

8. Ibid., 196.

9. Ibid., 197.

10. DeCanio, Samuel, “Populism, Paranoia, and the Politics of Free Silver,” Studies in American Political Development 25 (2011): 12CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11. Casserly, E. to Ralston, W., January 23, 1873, Washington, DC, Ralston MSS.Google Scholar

12. Linderman, H. to Ralston, W., Washington, DC, May 19, 1872, Ralston MSS.Google Scholar

13. Bensel, , “Comment on ‘Populism’,” 198.Google Scholar

14. DeCanio, , “Populism, Paranoia, and the Politics of Free Silver,” 18.Google Scholar

15. Weinstein, Allen, Prelude to Populism: Origins of the Silver Issue, 1867-1878 (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1970)Google Scholar, 62.

16. Linderman, H. to Ralston, W., Washington, DC, March 26, 1871, Ralston MSS.Google Scholar