The Flag Burning Amendment and Idolatry

We are getting on to summer,  and summer has always been a whacky season of the year, a time for fun and games, a time where people seem to loose their sense of seriousness and go out of their way to do things that they simply would not consider in other times of the year. Of course, politically, we are also heading for an election month, in November, so the politicians are working extra hard to show the people who they represent that they are working hard.

That is the preface to my discussion of the Constitutional Amendment to ban the burning of the American flag…an amendment that solves nothing, is not at all likely to pass, and is far more for show than it is for accomplishing anything substantive.

Mind you. I am very much against people burning the flag, and very angry at people who do so. For me, the flag is symbolic of many things that I hold rather dear …when I see the flag, I think of all those who came before and fought so that flag can fly. I think of Iwo Jima, of course, and what the raising of that flag on Mount Suribachi must have meant to those thousands of Marines fighting and dying in the heat and dust of a summer day on a volcanic island. I think of Major Arthur MacArthur, Grandfather of General Douglas MacArthur, carrying the Flag to the heights of Missionary Ridge, and waving it for his comrades. I think of the American Revolution, and the suffering of those at Valley Forge, men who persevered, though there was no hope or succor at the time…and I have been known to get very weepy. When someone who deliberately goes out of their way to show disrespect for something that I value is very low on my scale of what constitutes a human being.

However, the flag, itself, is simply a symbol. If I destroy a flag, I have not destroyed what the flag stands for, I have simply demonstrated my contempt for (and, often enough, the lack of knowledge of) what the flag stands for. The flag, itself, is simply an idol, a representation of something, but not that thing itself.

Idolatry is most often thought of in a religious sense. The Ten commandments cautions us against worshipping false idols. The symbol of the man on a Cross is an idol, something which is worshipped in lieu of worshipping the actual figure. Idolatry makes sense in a religious context. We rarely get to see the God we worship, and having a representation of the Gods gives us a focus.

Idolatry, the worship of a representation of an idea or a figure, inhabits the political arena. It serves the same function as it does in a religious context, serving as a focus for our political feelings, but, also, in that way it can become pernicious. We wind up worshipping the idol, itself, forgetting what the idol is supposed to represent and, more often than not, place the idol in a place of importance greater than what the idol does, in fact, represent. We forget that the idol is only a piece of stone or fabric, ultimately, not the thing. We do not have Gods inhabiting those idols; what they represent are ideals, and ideals cannot be destroyed by the destruction of the symbols of those ideals.

This is why I oppose the flag burning amendment, and am not unhappy that it is disappearing. We have a constitutional right, in this country, to be idiots. If we want to show how much we disrespect the nation which supports us, I do not think there is anyone who would argue that you should not have that right. That for which you show disrespect will still be there after you burn your flag, or sing mocking songs, or whatever form you want to demonstrate disrespect. Burning the flag will not destroy of what this country is made, and there are more appropriate responses to someone who does that than calling the cops. Punch the person in the nose, if that is what you want to do, or sing “God Bless America” or hold a pro-flag rally. Just do not ask the government to do your work for you. As an American, it is up to you, not the government, to protect your rights as an American.

Posted in Culture | Tagged | Leave a comment

Jefferson Got It Wrong; The Relationship Between The Majority And The Minority In A Democracy

Harry Jaffa has an interesting discussion in Opinion Journal on the relationship between the majority and minority in a Democracy, especially in relationship to our efforts to help Democracy bloom in Iraq. It raises the question of what rights a minority has in a Democracy? Do the rights of the minority supercede the rights of the majority? If a minority finds certain words, emblems, actions or deeds to be offensive, does the majority have the obligation to cease those words, emblems, actions or deeds? What are the responsibilities of the majority to the minority in a Democracy?

I always thought that Jefferson got it wrong when he wrote America’s Declaration of Independence, prior to the American Revolutionary War. He wrote, “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” Jefferson knew better; he was a slaveholder, and was well aware that all men are not created equal. He probably never entertained the notion at all that women might be equal. I do not know how he felt about Indians, but I am quite sure he did not consider them to be the equal of Europeans.

What he should have written was “we hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equally endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights….” Every man has these rights, even though they are not born equally endowed with skills, intelligence or the access to resources that might help them.

Of course, the problem revolves around who is considered ‘man,’ and what those ‘inherent rights’ are. Certainly, in the 18th century, no African or Indian was considered in that definition of who has inalienable rights; the reason why it was so easy to kill Indians and enslave blacks and women was because they were not considered to be ‘human.’ Their religion was wrong, their technology was lacking and there were serious questions about their level of intelligence…thus, the word ‘man’ was very defined. Only white males, especially landowners, were endowed with unalienable rights; everyone else needed to be taken care of,

Today, we have gone in the opposite direction. Everyone has rights…even illegal aliens have all the rights of the Constitution. Some jurisdictions are considering giving illegals the right to vote and the right to a driver’s license

Along with this has come a regular industry of lawyers and organizations, such as the ACLU, which fight for the rights of the underdog. Well-known is the furor over Indian mascots and names of sports teams, both professional and college, fights for the right to smoke cigarettes in public places, etc, etc.

In the Federalist Papers, no. 51, James Madison suggests that the rights of the minority are not threatened in a democracy. The minority cannot be oppressed in a Democracy, because there are not centers of power to oppress minorities; power is dispersed throughout the electorate. ” In a single republic, all the power surrendered by the people is submitted to the administration of a single government; and the usurpations are guarded against by a division of the government into distinct and separate departments. In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself”

The argument against this, of course, is the situation of Indians, Africans and women at the time of the signing of the Constitution, and decades afterwards. These groups certainly did not have rights, nor did they have protection. In fact, they could not even count on living, as all three groups were subject to be killed at the whim of those who did have rights, more often than not with impunity….and this is the point which relates to Iraq. What guarantees can we give to the Sunnis that they will be protected by the majority, in a Democracy, especially as we have not had such a sterling record ourselves in protecting minorities?

The answer is obvious; the plight of women, Africans and Indians in the United States is FAR better than it was in the 19th century. It took us close to a hundred years, but the situations, which were in existence at the founding of our nation, have been resolved…because a Democracy cannot exist with a totalitarian segment in society. Social status’ have to, eventually, be reconciled. In other words, if the Democracy survives, rights will follow.

This does not happen immediately. Sometimes it takes a generation or ten for the society, as a whole, to adjust to changes that need to be made…which is, of course not at all helpful for the people alive at the time, but change does take time.

The problem with those who want instant solutions to social problems is that they lack faith in people and in Democracy. They are totalitarians, who want totalitarian solutions to problems, in their mold…they do see the long view, but want change made now. Rarely are such instant solutions lasting solutions. One must take a long view of history and, when one does, many of the eternal questions we continuously debate wither away like snow in the spring.

Posted in Jottings | Leave a comment

Preemption vs. Deterence

  In 2003, President Bush, in an address before Congress, stated, “make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them,” a statement which became known as the Bush Doctrine. This statement was later became identified with the policy of preemption, or preventive war against potential aggressors. This was in sharp contrast to the policy of deterrence , the policy of intimidation and power, which had dominated our policies during the cold war. This policy of preemption was justification for our attack on Iraq. It was the right message at the time, for most Americans, because we felt the need to strike back at someone after the attacks of 9/11.

Last week, Condi Rice gave the following speech in Europe:

We are committed to a diplomatic course [to stop Iran’s nuclear program] that should, with enough unity and with enough strength and with enough common purpose, make it possible to convince the Iranian government [to change its course]. . . .

“Let me go right to the crux of the question. The United States of America understands and believes that Iran is not Iraq. The Iraq circumstances had a special character going back for 12 years of suspended hostilities after a war of aggression which Saddam Hussein himself launched. . . .

“It goes without saying that the United States believes and others believe that, in order to be credible, the U.N. Security Council, of course, has to act. . . . The Security Council is the primary and most important institution for the maintenance of peace and stability and security, and it cannot have its word and its will simply ignored by a member state.”

I do understand what she is trying to do; she is trying to assure the Europeans that we will not go off half-cocked, as they think we did do in Iraq, but will expend the appropriate amount of time consulting with them and with the United Nations…and that we shall work with the United Nations in dealing with Iraq. If I were a European leader, I would sigh with relief at the thought that we have, finally, tamed the American President, who they viewed as a cowboy. Perhaps he WILL fit in.

Time will tell if that has, indeed, happened, but the issue of preemption is one that has not sufficiently been debated. What has changed that the previous policy of deterrence, the notion that overwhelming intimidation is sufficient to deter attacks against our country, is no longer feasible under the present circumstances?

In truth, it is questionable if that policy of preemption ever really did exist. Our attack on Iraq was not a preemptive attack; an argument was made to that effect, but it was oversold. The attack on Iraq was an outgrowth of the original Desert Storm War, in which Saddam made specific guarantees in the peace treaty signed at the end of that war that he did not meet. In fact, the evidence was that he was exceeding those guarantees, and our attack was to rectify his breaking of the treaty. The preemptive issue was oversold. Perhaps the administration felt that, without that feeling of urgency, the war could not have been justified to the American public.

Since the war, it has become clear that many of our principle allies in the region , Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc, , while other nations with which we deal on a regular basis, such as China, have been aiding and abetting terrorists. According to the ‘Bush Doctrine,’ we should be dealing with them as enemies, but that is simply not politically feasible, so we continue the fiction and let it pass.

So, the so-called ‘Bush Doctrine’ never really existed…does that mean that preemption, as a policy, has no place?

Iran is a unique situation. While most nations are controlled by leaders who have some sort of survival instinct, for themselves and for their people, Iran’s leaders a apocalyptic fanatics, believers in an end-of-the-world theory of the return of the ‘12th Imam’ It is obvious we can destroy Iran, but that sort of deterrence does not work with a leadership that 1) Believes it has “God on their side, and 2) Actually looks forward to the destruction of their country and the world, as part of their belief in a second coming.

The question then becomes, does Iran pose a threat…and there is virtually no one in the world who thinks that it does not. It is developing the means for creating nuclear bombs and, considering its vision of the future, and its belligerency, it would have no problem using those bombs.

Thus, I see no reason why a rational person would not suggest that this threat needs to be disposed of…and, in fact, the world rather agrees with that notion. The big question is how that threat needs to be disposed of…and here we return to the United Nations.

There is no situation where the intervention of the United Nations resolved a conflict between two nations; at best the United Nations can promise to stand between two warring sides, while tempers cool down, but that is not the type of situation that exists, today, between the world and Iran. Diplomacy is not going to go anywhere…and I doubt if there is anyone who thinks it will.

What is happening is that the world is using the U.N. to dither…hopeing someone will step in and do what everyone knows needs to be done…in fact, hoping that either the United States and/or Israel will preemptively strike Iran. Europe does not have the stomach for that, and it never will. We do…or, at least, until Condi spoke, I thought we did.

The Bush administration is tired…that is obvious. They seem to be avoiding conflict as much as they can, and that is the absolute wrong message to be sending the world. Frankly, I expected Israel to take out Iran’s nuclear capacity in March. It did not do so. It is now going on May, and nothing has changed, except the IAEA has reported to the U.N. what everyone knew six months ago, that Iran is in non-compliance with the resolutions of the United Nations.

The time to act is now. Waiting simply makes everything harder and worse. I think we shall act, within six months…the latest thought is that it will happen in October, ostensibly before the IAEA final report, on October 31 but, more likely, timed for the U.S. election, which is not too late. If so, this will be a preemptive strike, and will not be soon enough for the rest of the world.

Posted in War | Leave a comment

On Being A Man

We have spent more than a few years, over the past few decades, discussing the role of women in society. We have women’s studies departments in the major universities, reams of books on “glass ceilings” and how to “have it all,” i.e. how to be a mother and a corporate executive at the same time, as well as hundreds of self-help books to encourage the self-esteem of young girls. This was quite proper; the role of women has changed, since the 1950’s, and it was needed to spend some time to decide just what that role should be in our modern society. In the process, however, we have neglected the role of men, and that neglect is apparent in the many different forms of identity men seek to prove their manhood, today.

I have a friend who was talking about the latest, most popular sport on American television today, so-called “ultimate fighting.” This is one of those “television sports, where men beat each other into bloody messes, kicking, gouging and bombastically bragging about their ability to do so. It is a cross between circus, wrestling, boxing and what occurs in many schoolyards in the country, activities that are typical of the way young men interact.

It seems that the current champion, a Brazilian, was fighting a Japanese fighter. The Japanese fighter got the Brazilian in a hold, and slowly twisted the arm of the Brazilian until the Brazilian’s arm broke. The Brazilian refused to stop the fight, or even make a sound, suggesting that it was “against his honor” to do so. All the guys listening to this story went “arf, arf,” sounding like Tim Allen, in his popular television show Car Talk, whenever Allen talks about real manly stuff and we all said that THIS was how a REAL man acts, and we didn’t think any of us was up to that level. In fact, we all resonated to that image, as would any young man, I suspect but why was that? That got me thinking about what is a “real man.”

I start off, from the outset, suggesting that I have many of the characteristics that one would call “manly.”I am fairly good looking, in excellent health. I am fairly immune to pain, and once played an entire football game with a broken foot. I am fit, bike for 20 miles a day, during the warm season, and have done 50 miles at a time. I can use an axe and a chain saw, like to hike, and consider myself fairly wilderness savvy. I don’t get lost in the woods, but if I did, I have a pretty good idea what would need to be done to survive.

My downside is that I am fairly intelligent, and intelligence is not one of those ‘manly’ traits; I can write, and I like to write. I love to read, and discuss books and philosophical topics over wine or beer. I have advanced degrees in two different fields, and have a fairly high-end job. I know nothing of NASCAR, don’t drink alcohol to excess, don’t smoke and couldn’t tell you the names of a half dozen major sports teams. My opinion of someone who would sit by and, for entertainment, allow his arm to be broken, so he could preserve his honor has something to do with a head so thick that it took a long time for the pain signals to get to his brain.

In other words, I doubt if I am a “man” to many of those, out there, who think that a man is someone who is ignorant of cooking, sewing or cleaning a house, needs to beat his wife once a week to “keep her in line” and, spends no time taking care of themselves, dies an early age due to smoking and drinking and smells badly, for a wide variety of reasons.

My theory is that men are put on this earth for two reasons; 1) To procreate, 2) To take care of women and children and protect them from other men. Note that, in terms of society and the future of mankind, men are important only with relationship to women and children. Women are needed to produce children, and since most women, in civilized society, have only one or two children in their lifetime, you need far more women in a society for the purposes of procreation than you need men.  However, the smaller the pool of men, in any society, the less chances there are of preventing that society from being overrun by another society’s men so men are needed for their muscle and ability to prosecute war not necessarily for procreation.

With that definition, then, how does one define “manly?” Mind you, I can only give my definition, as a man. I am sure many women, out there, would have a different opinion, and I am not addressing those characteristics which might make a man “sexy” to women. With respect to that, I have found that many women will say one thing about what “attracts” them, but have secret fantasies about being carried off by a brainless, but passionate Scotsman to his gothic castle for pursuits that have nothing to do with civilized behavior, which is why I refuse to get involved in that discussion.

To me, a man is the rock and cement of society, one who can take care of himself, and is more or less capable of taking care of those who depend on him. There is a certain amount of physicality about this, as to me, a man should be able to protect his wife and children, his home, community, State and Country against all enemies, both domestic and foreign. However, that does NOT mean that people need run in fear of the human brute that you have become. Not everyone has a black belt in karate, and not everyone is cut out to be a soldier. Some of us are teachers, lawyers, doctors, legislators and policemen. We all do what we can, but a man takes responsibility for what he can do, and doesn’t pass his responsibilities on to others. Each role in society helps to strengthen that society.

Protecting family and community implies a respect for the law. One is not protecting the community if one is breaking the laws of that community. One is not protecting the family if one is teaching and/or encouraging his family to break the laws of the community. One IS protecting one’s family by living an honorable life by a code of conduct that preserves society. A man without honor diminishes his society. A man is defined by his sense of honor.

We do not hear much about honor today. It is a word from the past, an “old-fogey”word, one that has been replaced by many forms of “realpolitik,”where cynical people suggest that winning is all that matters, and how you get there means little, as long as you do not get caught. Thus, one can run for President, and use methods of personal assassination and lies to win, without anyone considering those tactics in their decision to elect you or, the nation can retreat from Vietnam, leaving many tens of thousands to die, facing an enemy with retribution in their hearts. The fact that these actions are dishonorable is never mentioned, even in the history books, because it is not important. What were important were the results, not the means to those results.

There are many iconic images that represent men to many in our society in contradiction to the values of realpolitik. I think of the American Revolution, and George Washington, losing every battle in the first year of the war against a better trained, better equipped, better lead British army, yet persevering to the end and triumphing. I think of the American Civil War, and the Southern army of Robert E. Lee, winning every battle until the end, when surrender became inevitable, but surrendering with their heads held high at having performed their duty honorably and with pride. I think of Abraham Lincoln, steadfastly sticking to the course he knew was right, despite defeat after defeat.

I think of the settling of the American West, and the many iconographic characters (both real and imaginary) that have become well-known to many Americans, through dime novels, books, movies and television, such as Wyatt Earp, Matt Dillon, of “Gunsmoke”fame, and Ben Cartwright, of “Bonanza”fame, I think of the World War II generation, a generation of heroes who stood together against foreign enemies and triumphed, as a country. I think of all those millions of American soldiers who suffered and died protecting and defending their hearth and home, without questioning their duty, and without expectation of recognition.

There is a common theme, in all of these images. These men, who represent America to me, are not quitters. They achieved their place in history not necessarily by winning or losing, but because they stayed the course, and persevered to the end, despite setbacks and defeat, because they knew, in their heart, that what they were doing was right. They did not expect reward. They simply did their job, and that is all anyone asked of them.

Thus, a man is defined by his code of honor, and by his willingness to stand by that code of honor, despite the consequences. A man is defined by whether he serves as a positive or negative influence on society, as a whole. Above all, a man is strong, and serves as a model for those around him. These are values that were, once, taken for granted in our society, and helped make us the strongest nation in the world. We seem to have lost them, in the shuffle to become great. We need them, now, more than ever.


© 2006 Steve Haas, All Rights Reserved.

Posted in Jottings | Leave a comment

Hubris

I wanted to start this by writing why I love America, and what it is about the nation that gives me hope that we can persevere in this time of war. This turned into a more difficult exercise than I had anticipated…because, while there is much about America that I love, there is much that I admire to a far lesser extent. America is so large, so diverse, in both land form, people and culture, that it is very hard to grasp, and that is always the problem when one writes about America. One cannot generalize. America is just about anything to everyone, whatever you want it to be, and, often, not at all what you would like it to be. It depends on your perspective.  One has to be able to define and understand the basic ‘spirit’ of America before one can understand if America has lost the intestinal fortitude it takes to see this war out.

 When I say that I ‘love America,’ what I am referring to is this image of America in my mind…America’s ‘spirit,’  my idea of what represents ‘good character,’ what I admire in a people and a culture. I admire the ‘focused aggression’ America has shown in achieving its goals. From the beginning, the people of this country have grown up with a sense of ownership of the land, a sense of possession of whatever is over the next hill, that it is ‘ours,’ for the taking, and never mind who was there first. Of course, this had unfortunate consequences for those who actually WERE here before the Europeans….but that is sort of the point.

 Europeans were among the toughest, meanest, probably the cruelest, but also the most competent race this world has ever known. That character is derived, to a very large extent, from the Scandinavian heritage of the Normans who conquered much of Europe, even as far South as Italy, before spreading throughout the world. European culture has dominated the world as soon as the technology to dominate the world was invented, and that is because it was so ruthless and because what it did was so effective. No Mr. Nice Guy, here, Europeans simply have bowled over the competition and, today, it is European technology, culture and even language which are the lingua franca all over the world. Somewhere in the 19th century, this aggression seems to have funneled to the United States, from Europe, as the rise of the United States ties in almost precisely with the decline of Europe.

 There are, of course, many who would find this quality, the ability to ignore the slaughter thousands of others to attain its goals, a less than admirable characteristic for a people, and  there is some truth to that. European history is full of instances of horrific massacre, rape and torture, of millions of people, from its earlier ages, and there are few cultures that can match the Europeans in the numbers who have died for the furtherance of goals. Yet, this is the quality that I think of when I say that I ‘love America,’ this fixity of focus, and straight determination to achieve a goal, no matter what the cost. If less than admirable, in many ways, the horrors were horrors of our national youth, and not considered horrible at the time, while the glories of our national growth were glories of our adolescence. It is the quality which brought the United States through eight years of a hopeless revolutionary war against Britain, to claim our freedom, settled the middle and West of the country within a period of a hundred years, through the horrors and triumphs of WWI and WWII, and took us to the moon. Americans have a feeling we can do anything we set our minds to, and it is hard not to admire that cockiness. History loves a success, and very often ignores the means of that success.

One has to wonder, though, whether that spirit exists today, and there is where I begin to quibble about how far my love for America extends. It would be hard to imagine the people who successfully helped fight off the Germans, and who successfully fought off the Japanese, both to final victory, quibbling over whether or not we have the right to question prisoners caught on a battlefield. While there would have been some, I am sure, who might have questioned whether or not prisoners caught on the battlefield have the right to trial by jury, according to our Constitution, the vast majority of Americans would have looked at a person who suggested such as being a crazy person. The Germans and Japanese were our enemies, they were trying to kill us, and they were lucky that we were so kindhearted as to give them decent food, housing and contact with the Red Cross. It is within our national character to do so, but there are few who objected to the lack of Japanese prisoners, or the summary executions which occurred, on occasion, against Germans. It was a war to the death, and we intended the enemy to be the ones who died. We knew that stark choice. We obviously do not know it today.

The question arises, then, what has changed. I am sure a sociologist can write lengthy papers on the differences between the WWII generation and the generation today, but I do not think that is necessary. There is one salient difference between the populace of the country prior to the end of WWII, and that today; we are far better off, economically, as a people, today, than we were ever before. Prior to the turn of the 20th century, most Americans were rural, involved in agriculture. Prior to the end of WWII, most were factory workers, and much of the Middle Class was building was destroyed by the depression.

 We have not had a bad economic time since the end of WWII. The growth of personal wealth has been steady, and even factory workers earn enough money to live a very middle-class lifestyle. We are prosperous, content, and few of us feel any real danger from outside sources. It is very hard for people to knuckle down and give the kinds of sacrifices necessary to conduct and win a war, when they are living a relatively prosperous life, with no apparent danger in sight. This was bin Laden’s big mistake, with regards to 9/11, as brilliant as it was in execution. If he had continued attacking American interests, abroad, and not attacked the United States, directly, he would still have his training camps in Afghanistan. Instead, he brought Americans face to face with the type of war that needs to be fought, and Americans supported the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Now, we have not had an attack on the Continental United States for five years, and people are forgetting…and support for the war is falling.

 The American People can rise to the challenge necessary to win this war. They need, however, leadership to do so, and we are not getting it from the top. Among the many mistakes the administration has made in this war is its lack of attention to keeping the American people focused on the threats they have to face. As with the Johnson Administration, during the Vietnam War, the Bush administration seems to have felt that maintaining prosperity and not scaring the American public will maintain support for the war. Instead, the American public does not feel connected to the war, except for the growing list of body bags coming home. There is no venue available for people to get involved in helping to win this war. There are no ‘fireside chats’ with the President, explaining what is happening in the war, no recycling drives, no ‘support the troops’ programs, except for those developed ad hoc among the public…the administration has made no effort to rally the public, and get them involved in supporting the war, and it shows. Maybe we do not need the scrap metal, or the recycled goods, but the programs should have been instituted, anyway, so people feel that they are a part of the effort.

 One must look at the spirit of America the same way a mother loves her child. Like a child, Americans can be the best people in the entire world, if they are given a chance. They have the attention span of a gnat, if not reminded, continuously, of what they should be doing…and they can do real harm, if poorly led. Perhaps, that almost childlike ability to be as good as one can be, and also do bad, even for good reasons, if told what one has to do, is a reason to have hope that we shall not only survive, but triumph. To quote Winston Churchill, “Americans always do the right thing…after trying everthing else, first.”

Posted in Politics | Leave a comment

Wild Bill Hickcock

WILD BILL HICKCOK

Joseph G. Rosa

Wild West, February 2003

James Butler Hickok’s reputation as the Old West’s premier gunfighter or “man-killer” made him a legend in his own lifetime-a distinction shared by few of his gunfighting contemporaries. Thanks to an article in Harper’s New Monthly Magazine in February 1867 and some other colorful accounts published in the mid-1860s, Hickok, or rather “Wild Bill,” as he was generally called, was soon elevated from regional to national status. And since his death in 1876, he has achieved worldwide fame.

But even without such publicity, Hickok would have made his mark, for he was a man whose personality, strength of character and single-mindedness set him apart. Lieutenant Colonel George Armstrong Custer described him as a “strange character, just the one which a novelist might gloat over … a Plainsman in every sense of the word … whose skill in the use of the rifle and pistol was unerring.” Many others besides Custer regarded Wild Bill as the best pistol shot on the Plains-a man whose quick-witted reaction to danger enabled him, accord­ ing to one account, to draw and fire his Colt Navy revolvers “before the average man had time to think about it.”

Credited with the deaths of 100 or more badmen, Hickok emerged as perhaps the most prolific man-killer of his generation. But when some of his critics brand­ed him a “red-handed murderer,” his reaction was predictable. Hickok admitted his flaws and vices as do most people, but he reckoned that being called a red-handed murderer was going too far. In February 1873, it was widely reported that he had been shot dead by Texans at Fort Dodge in Kansas. Worse, it was suggested that, like all men of his kind, he had died with his boots on. Wild Bill broke his silence of some years and wrote angrily to several newspapers, declaring, “No Texan has, nor ever will ‘corral William.’ ” He also demanded to know who it was who prophesied that he and others should die with their boots on. “I have never insulted man or woman in my life, but if you knew what a wholesome regard I have for damn liars and rascals they would be liable to keep out of my way.” Two years later, in conversation with Annie Tallant, one of the first white women to enter the Black Hills, Hickok again denied that he was a red-handed murderer, but admitted that he had killed men in self-defense or in the line of duty, adding, “I never allowed a man to get the drop on me.”

Sadly, it is Hickok’s pistol prowess and his image as the slayer of innumerable badmen that is best remembered today. Indeed, many seem unaware of his deserved reputation as a great Civil War scout, detective and spy; Indian scout and courier; U.S. deputy marshal; county sheriff and town mar­shal. Wild Bill himself hated his desperado reputation, and he may well have regretted his famous alias, though it had been fastened upon him during the Civil War and he had no reason to feel ashamed of it. Nevertheless, he must have realized too late that once he pulled the legs of the likes of Colonel George Ward Nichols of Harper’s New Monthly Magazine and Henry M. Stanley of the St. Louis Weekly Missouri Democrat, he became a target for the press, sensationalists and repu­tation seekers.

The real Hickok, however, was in complete contrast to his newspaper-inspired desperado image. Rather, he was gentle­manly, courteous, soft-spoken and graceful in manner, yet left no one in any doubt that he would not “be put upon,” and if threatened would meet violence with violence. Wild Bill could be generous to a fault and, though slow to anger, would wfingly defend a friend or the fearful if they were under threat_ When angered, however, he became an implacable enemy and sought out and faced down those who insulted or challenged him. This man-to-man approach, rather than involving brothers or dose friends in gunfights, feuds or disputes, earned him respect among his peers, especially when it was known that he only became “pistoliferous” as a last resort, and on occasion was known to slug it out with antagonists fist to fist and toe to toe.

It could be argued that Wild Bill Hickok’s alleged exploits as a city marshal or as acting county sheriff inspired the image of the lone man who, thanks to novels and the movies, walked tall and tamed cow towns, mining camps and indeed any other Western habitat where law and order was in short supply. This is nonsense: In reality, it took more than one man to clean up, civilize, or enforce and uphold the law, and city councils hired deputies to assist the marshal.

Colonel Custer’s statement that Hickok was both courageous and able to control others by threatening to settle disputes personally if they refused to back off reflected contemporary opinion. Old-timers in such places as Hays City and Abilene recalled that his pres­ence did much to keep the violence down. In the latter Kansas cow town, the cry “Wild Bill is on the street!” is said to have curtailed many a drunken brawl-or aided a harassed mother anxious to persuade an unruly child to do as he was told! An announcement that appeared in the Coolidge, Kan., Border Ruffian of July 17,1886, is worth repeating because the character sought sums up the legendary Wild Bill’s own alleged attitude toward so-called evil-doers: WANTED.

A man for marshal, with the skin of a rhinoceros, bullet proof head, who can see all around him, run faster than a horse, and is not afraid of any­thing in hades or Coolidge-a man who can shoot like [Captain Adam] Bogardus, and would rather kill four or five whisky-drink­ing, gambling hoodlums before breakfast than to eat without exercise. Such a man can get a job in this town at reasonable wages, and if he put off climbing the golden stair for a few years may get his name in a ten-cent novel.

Despite its humor, the foregoing opinion was shared by citizens in Kansas who were either the victims of, or feared, drunken desperadoes or the murderous Texas cowboys in their midst. For many knew that once Hickok assumed his position of authority, ordinary folk felt a sense of security. He never tried or suc­ceeded in eradicating lawlessness, but he helped control it. Indeed, on November 25,1871, the Topeka Daily Commonwealth, in a feature devoted to Wild Bill’s bloodless head-on clash with some roughs from a train (which was copied verbatim by the Abilene Chronicle on the 30th), stated that the citizens of the state should thank him for “the safety of life and property at Abilene, which has been secured, more through his daring than any other agency.” A Leavenworth paper, following his death, added that his memory would be cherished by those whose peace and security he had sought to preserve.

Hickok did not wear a badge for long in Hays City (chosen Ellis County’s act­ing sheriff in a special August 23, 1869, election, he was defeated in the regular election that November) or in Abilene (city marshal from April 15 to Decem­ber 13, 1871), but it was time enough for him to make his mark. Like most of his contem­poraries, he was not a profes­sional policeman but did what he was paid for. To suggest, as one recent writer has, that today Wild Bill would have difficulty getting a job as a dogcatcher is unfair to Hickok There is no comparison between a 19th-century frontier marshal and one of today’s professionally trained law enforcers. Each must be judged by his own time. Hickok commanded respect and was vilified, based as much on hearsay as on fact. His leg­endary life has long been subject to eulogizing and deflation. But what of the real man?

In appearance at least, Hickok matched his myth. He was a broad-shouldered, deep-chested, narrow-waisted fellow, over 6 feet tall, with broad features, high cheekbones and forehead, firm chin and aquiline nose. His sensuous-looking mouth was surmounted by a straw-colored moustache, and his auburn hair was worn shoulder length, Plains style. But it was his blue­gray eyes that dominated his features. Normally friendly and expressive, his eyes, old-timers recalled, became hypnotically cold and bored into one when he was angry. Around his waist was a belt that held two ivory-handled Colt Navy revolvers, butts forward, in open-top holsters. Worn in this fashion, his six-shooters could be drawn underhand and spun forward for the Plains or reverse draw, or for a cross-body draw. Either way, the weapons were readily and easily available.

An anonymous admirer in the Chicago Tribune of August 25, 1876, wrote that in his rapid and accurate use of his Navy pis­tols, Wild Bill had no equal. He then said: “The secret of Bill’s success was his ability to draw and discharge his pistols, with a rapidity that was truly wonderful, and a peculiarity of his was that the two were presented and discharged simultane­ously, being `out and off”before the average man had time to think about it. He never seemed to take any aim, yet he never missed. Bill never did things by halves. When he drew his pis­tols it was always to shoot, and it was a theory of his that every man did the same.”

Charles Gross, who knew Wild Bill in Abilene, recalled years later that he watched Hickok shoot and was impressed both by his quickness and accuracy. He also said that Hickok told him one should aim for a man’s “guts”-it might not kill him, but it would put him out of action.

Hickok’s reel and imaginary shooting skill had fascinated the public ever since Colonel Nichols in his Harper’s article described howWild Bill pointed to a letter “O” on a signboard some 50 yards away that was “no bigger than a man’s heart,” and “without sighting the pistol with his eye,” fired six times, and each ball hit the center of the “O.” Others later upped the distance to 100 yards, and soon amazing stories of Hickok’s marksmanship circulated that had him hitting dimes at 50 feet, driving corks through whiskey bottle necks 20 feet away, and other near-miraculous feats that are now legion.

Some of those alleged feats have been duplicated by mod­ern gun experts. Although tests carried out during the 1850s had proved that Colt’s Model 1851 Navy revolver was accurate in the hands of an expert at 200 yards, Wild Bill, like most of his contemporaries, was more concerned with its accuracy and reliability at 10 or 20 feet. As the anonymous writer for the Tribune and others have pointed out, Hickok’s ability to get a pistol or pistols into action “as quick as thought” furthers the awe-inspiring image of a pistoleer who had no equal in the Wild West.

Besides Hickok’s obvious liking for Colt Navy revolvers, at various times he was armed with, or proficient in the use of, Colt’s Model 1848 Dragoon. By the early 1870s, however, the introduction of centerfire and rimfire revolvers to replace the still popular percussion, or cap-and-ball, arms was led in the United States by Smith &Wesson. That company’s No. 3 model in .44 rimfire, which broke open to load or eject its cartridges, was superseded by Colt’s New Model Army revolver, the “Peacemaker.” Hickok did not get his hands on the latter, but when, in March 1874, he left Buffalo Bill’s theatrical Combina­tion, William “Buffalo Bill” Cody and Texas Jack Omohundro presented him with a pair of Smith &Wesson No. 3 ‘American’ revolvers. Later that year it was reported from Colorado that Hickok carried them, but by the time he reached Deadwood in Dakota Territory, they had disappeared and he either had the old cap-and-ball Navy revolvers or perhaps a pair of Colt’s transitional rimfire or centerfire revolvers known as “conver­sions” (see “Guns of the West” in the August 2002 Wild West).

Although he never met or fought them, Hickok was well aware that there were better shots, and deadlier men, on the frontier. Nonetheless, he must have realized the potential of his awesome reputation and, understandably, when it suited him, turned it to his own advantage, ever conscious that while drunken bravado rarely matched action, there was always some gunman eager to prove himself superior to Wild Bill. But Hickok’s speedy reaction to danger was backed by the killer instinct. Without it, or the state of mind needed to react instinctively when threatened or under fire, even the best shots could hesitate and go down before a drunken desperado or someone coldbloodedly determined to kill or be killed.

Despite his awesome gunfighter reputation, Wild Bill did not draw his six-shooters in serious confrontations as often as one might think. Certainly his tally was considerably lower than the “hundreds” of badmen he tongue-in-cheek claimed to have laid away. In fact, the authenticated killings number six known victims with a possible seventh-if one accepts that he also killed David C. McCanles at Rock Creek in 1861. However, those six victims do serve to pinpoint the difference between a newspaper reputation and reality.

As we have said, much of Hickok’s real and mythical reputa­tion as a fighting man can be laid at the door of border scriveners who elevated Wild Bill into a kind of demigod. Some were genuine admirers, some tongue-in-cheek and oth­ers malicious, or they thought it was what the public wanted. Whatever the reason, Hickok typified the era of the man-killer or shootist, better known today as the gunfighter-a term in use as early as 1874 but not popularized until post-1900. Back in 1881, however, a Missouri editor was to write that the gentleman who had “killed his man” was quite common, and if “his homicidal talents had been employed in the enforce­ment of law and order, he would be ranked as a `great Western civilizer.”‘ Predictably, some writers have eagerly seized upon the word “civilizer ” to explain Hickok’s role in the control and eradication of the badmen who infested many frontier towns and habitats, ignoring the fact that when acting in an official capacity, every time he drew and fired his pistols and a man was killed, he was answerable to the coroner and not neces­sarily applauded for ridding them of such characters.

We will probably never know how Wild Bill really felt about gunfighting. Old-timers recalled his bravery under fire, or deadly purpose when he drew and fired at another man who was as intent on killing him. Buffalo Bill Cody, in one of his last interviews, said that Hickok cocked his pistols as he drew­which gave him a split-second advantage-and was always “cool, kinda cheerful, almost, about it. And he never killed a man unless that man was trying to kill him. That’s fair.”

The first recorded shootout involving Hickok was the so­called McCanles Massacre at the Rock Creek, Nebraska Terri­tory, station on July 12, 1861, when, according to Harper’s, Wild Bill killed 10 ruffians in a desperate fight that left him with shot and stab wounds. In fact, only three men died, and the fracas has been a controversial issue ever since. The fight occurred following a row between former owner David C. McCanles and Russell, Majors & Waddell, the company that had bought the place from him for use as a Pony Express relay station. After making a down payment and promising to pay the remainder on a regular basis, Russell, Majors & Waddell went bankrupt. McCanles demanded his money or his prop­erty back or he would take it by force.

Hickok, who had turned up at the station in late April or early May 1861 and was employed as a stable hand or handy­man, was not involved when the station keeper, Horace Well­man, who had failed to get money for McCanles or at least a promise to pay, returned empty-handed from the company office at Brownville, Nebraska Territory. McCanles and Well­man then had an argument, which ended with McCanles and two of his men dead and his young son William Monroe escaping to give the alarm. It has been alleged that Hickok shot McCanles, but it could well have been Wellman. However, Hickok, Wellman and one 1.W “Doc ” Brink were arrested and taken before a justice of the peace, who accepted their plea of defense of company property and released them. To date, despite the lurid account in Harper’s and a mass of published material, no one knows for sure who killed McCanles.

If we ignore Hickok’s Civil War service, during which he is reported to have killed a number of bushwhackers and guer­rillas, it was 1865 before he was again involved in a face-to-face shootout. This was between himself and his friend Davis K. Tutt, an ex-Confederate turned Union man who, like Hickok, was an inveterate gambler. The pair played cards on the night of July 20 in Springfield, Mo., and Hickok lost. Tutt claimed he was owed $35, and Hickok said it was $25. Dave took Wild Bill’s

Waltham watch pending payment. The pair then spent most of the 21st arguing over the amount. Hickok stated that Dave had loaned him money many times in the past, but he did not believe that he owed his friend $35 and they should compro­mise. But Tutt stormed off and reappeared on the public square at 6 p.m. sporting the watch. When Hickok told him to stop, Tutt drew his pistol, and Hickok did the same. Seventy­five yards apart, both men opened fire, the shots sounding as one. Tutt had turned sideways (in dueling fashion) and missed, but Hickok’s ball entered Dave’s right side and exited through his left, piercing his heart. Arrested and put on trial for manslaughter, Hickok was found not guilty by a jury influ­enced more by the judge’s remarks on one’s rights of self­defense than by the opinion of the prosecuting counsel. Tragically, neither man had wanted the fight, which is a far cry from the anti-Hickok statements made in the 1920s by men who claimed to have witnessed the shootout, some of whom had not even been born when it took place.

It was to be another four years before Hickok again killed another white man (Indians did not count in those days), dur­ing which time the press had been busy building up his repu­tation both as a man-killer and pistol dead shot. Following his election as acting sheriff of Ellis County in August 1869, Wild Bill shot dead Bill Mulvey, who when drunk had refused Hickok’s order to disarm and continued shooting at anyone who moved. A month later, Wild Bill was called to a saloon where Sam Strawhun and friends were raising a ruckus and threatening to shoot anyone who stopped them. Whether Strawhun threatened to shoot Wild Bill or thrust a broken glass into his face is hotly debated, but Sam was buried the next day, unmourned and Hickok received congratulations for ridding Hays City of such a character. Wild Bill still lost the November election to his deputy, Peter “Rattlesnake Pete” Lanahan.

Almost a year later, in July 1870, when Hickok paid a visit to Hays City, either on personal business or in his guise as a U.S. deputy marshal, he was set upon in a saloon by two troopers of the 7th Cavalry, Jeremiah Lonergan and John Kile. During the scuffle, Lonergan pinned Hickok down and Kile pushed his pistol into Wild Bill’s ear, but it misfired, by which time Hickok had his hands on a six-shooter. Lonergan received a ball in the knee and Kile, who was shot twice, died the next day. Hickok, meanwhile, hid out on boot hill, determined to sell his life dearly if other troopers fancied their chances.

It was more than a year later, on the evening of October 5,1871, when a num­ber of Texans were roaming the streets of Abilene, carousing and drinking, that City Marshal Hickok heard a shot and found himself facing more than 50 armed and drunken Texans led by gam­bler Phil Coe. Coe said that he had fired at a dog, and then fired twice at Hickok, one shot hitting the floor and the other passing through the marshal’s coat. Hickok’s first two shots thudded into

Coe’s stomach, and he may have hit others in the crowd before he shot at another armed man rushing toward him out of the shadows. To his honor, Wild Bill later discovered that the man was a former jailer and now friend, Mike Williams, who, in trying to help Hickok, ran into the line of fire. Williams was the last known man to be killed byWild Bill. Hickok paid for Mike’s funeral and later told his grief-stricken wife what had happened and why. That gunfight brought to an end Hickok’s career as a law officer. When the cattle season ended, the town officials decided to get rid of the cattle trade and had no further use for a highly paid marshal, so on December 13, Wild Bill was fired.

Wild Bill now left it to his reputation to deter most would-be rivals, while the legend builders eagerly spread the word. But it is doubtful even they realized how much Hickok’s murder at the hands of the back­shooting coward Jack McCall in a Deadwood saloon in August 1876 (see “Gunfighters and Lawmen” in this issue) would immortalize Wild Bill Hickok as a Western legend. 

Joseph G. Rosa, who lives in England, is considered the world’s foremost authority on Wild Bill Hickok. For further reading, try his books Wild Bill Hickok: Gunfighter, Wild Bill Hickok: The Man and His Myth; The West of Wild Bill Hickok and They Called Him Wild Bill: The Life and Adventures of James Butler Hickok

Posted in American West | Tagged | 3 Comments

Young Man Afraid Of His Horses

YOUNG MAN AFRAID OF HIS HORSES

G. Sam Garr

Wild West Magazine, February 2003

 

THE HEADLINE IN the Rapid City Daily Journal of July 16, 1893, read: “A Good Indian Gone-The Best Indian Friend to the Whites Goes to Happy Hunting Grounds.” The “good Indian”who died was Oglala Sioux Chief Tasunka Kokipapi, meaning “Man of Whose Horses They are Afraid,” but better known to history as Young Man Afraid of His Horses (obviously something was lost in the translation).

Dr. Valentine T McGillycuddy, former agent of the Pine Ridge Reservation and a warm per­sonal friend of the deceased, furnished the following state­ment to the South Dakota newspaper: “This noted chief was known among the whites as Young Man Afraid, to distin­guish him from his father, Old Man Afraid, who died at Pine Ridge agency in 1889, at the age of seventy-five years, the young man’s’ age being about fifty years. As successor to his father, he was hereditary chief of the [Oglala] Sioux, the Young Man Afraid having held the hereditary chieftainship for many generations. This long line of blue-blooded suc­cession gave him more promi­nence, influence and authority in the Sioux nation than any chief living.”

Exactly when Young Man Afraid of His Horses was born is not known. McGillycuddy suggests it was about 1839; several sources say about 1830. As a young warrior, the son of Old Man Afraid of His Horses took part in raids on emigrants along the Holy Road (the Indian name for the Oregon Trail).

Later, after the Oglalas agreed not to make further raids on the wagon trains, Old Man Afraid took his son and follow­ers to the Smokey Hill River in Kansas. They spent the winter of 1856-57 there with the Cheyennes. An important medicine man named Ice took a liking to Young Man Afraid and taught him the ways of the Cheyenne people.

In the summer of 1865 the Oglalas were camped on a creek about 70 miles northwest of Fort Laramie (in what would become Wyoming) when the tribal leaders decided it was time to revive a custom that had fallen into disuse. Seven older leaders, called “big bel­lies,” selected four strong                                   ,   young men to be “shirt­wearers.” With all the people standing in front of their tepees, elaborately dressed warriors rode around the camp four times. Each time a young man from the crowd was chosen. The first three were Young Man Afraid, Sword. and American Horse, all sons of big bellies. Unexpectedly, the fourth was a commoner named Crazy Horse (see “Warriors and Chiefs” in the December 2002 Wild West). All four men were paraded to the center lodge.

After a huge feast of buffalo and boiled dog, the big bellies told the four young men that their job as shirt-wearers would be to supervise the war­riors and to make sure that order was maintained. All Oglala men, women and chil­dren were to have their rights respected. Shirt-wearers must be wise, kind and firm in all things. If their words were not heard, they could use blows to enforce their orders; in extreme cases, they even had the right to kill. But they were forbidden to ever take up arms against their own people without great thought and council.

Shirts made from two bighorn sheepskins beautifully. quilled and fringed with hair from horses’ manes were handed out. One of the big bellies told the shirt-wearers that they were obliged to look out for the poor, the widows, the orphans and all those of little power, but, if someone harmed the shirt-wearers, they were to pay no more attention to it than if a dog lifted his leg at their tepees. The big belly acknowledged that it would be difficult for the foursome to follow these strong injunc­tions, but said he knew they would do their duty gladly and with good heart.

By the end of 1865, the most powerful of the Oglala leaders were Crazy Horse, Young Man Afraid and Red Cloud. Although not a hereditary chief, Red Cloud seemed to direct the effort to dislodge whites from the Bozeman Trail and the Powder River coun­try in the mid-1860s. Young Man Afraid and Crazy Horse helped all they could. To appease the Indians, the U.S. government in 1868 gave the Black Hills, Dakota Terri­tory, forever to the Indians. Nevertheless, by 1875, white miners were arriving in droves to search for gold.

To ease tensions resulting from the obvi­ous violation of the 1868 treaty, the gov­ernment offered to buy back the Black Hills from the Sioux (or Lakotas). The offer split the Sioux into three groups. The older reservation Indians, led by Red Cloud and Spotted Tail, believed that they’d already lost the Black Hills so they might as well get the best price they could for them. A sec­ond faction led by Crazy Horse and Sitting Bull was determined to fight. Young Man Afraid, who had abandoned the warpath after Red Cloud’s War, led the third group, which hoped to work out some kind of accommodation that would allow the Lakotas to live in peace. In his view, giving up the Black Hills would be a disaster for the Lakota way of life. Although he was unwilling to fight, he was equally unwill­ing to sell those sacred hills.

During the summer of 1875, Red Cloud, Spotted Tail and other reservation chiefs made a trip to Washington, D.C., to discuss the sale. Although invited, Young Man Afraid, steadfast in his opposition, chose not to go. Crazy Horse and Black Twin also refused to make the trip.

In September 1875 a U.S. commission came to the reservation to continue nego­tiating for the Black Hills. Many Sioux (as many as 20,000, according to one esti­mate) assembled on Chadron Creek in Nebraska, 25 miles from Camp Robinson, the nearest military post. Under an Army :ent flap sat a general council of the Sioux with the commissioners sent from Wash­ington-including Brig. Gen. Alfred Terry and Senator William B. Allison of Iowa. The only protection for these officials was pro­vided by Captain James Egan’s troop of the 2nd Cavalry, about 50 men.

On the second day of the council there suddenly appeared from the direction of the Black Hills 300 mounted Indians in full war regalia under the leadership of another Oglala Sioux, Little Big Man. He announced that by any old division of the hunting grounds, the Black Hills had been appor­tioned to the northern Sioux, and that he had been sent down from the north by Sitting Bull not to sell the Black Hills but to kill the white commissioners.

That dramatic announcement caused Captain Egan to quickly place his company to the rear of the commissioners’ tent, with their carbines loaded. In response, Little Big Man stationed his warriors in the rear of Egan’s men, whom they outnum­bered 7 to 1. Egan then ordered his first sergeant to cover Little Big Man with his carbine and to fire at the first hostile signal from, the Indian leader. Into this tense situation came Young Man Afraid, who brought with him many war­riors also in full war rig. After wedging his men between the northern warriors and the cav­alry, Young Man Afraid looked at Little Big Man and reportedly said: “My friend from the northeast look at me, I am Man Afraid, chief of the Oglala. You are now on the hunting grounds of the Oglalas and Brules, those white men come from the great father on a mission of peace, they are under my protection. If you fight them you must also fight me. I have no more to say.”

The fight did not come off. Little Big Man and his followers disappeared as rapidly as they had come. Young Man Afraid had saved the commissioners. And it wasn’t the first or last time he placed himself between two warring factions. On October 22, 1874, 26 bluecoats led by Lieutenant Emmet Crawford had been on their way back to their stockade when a band of hostile young warriors attacked. Young Man Afraid and his followers had appeared on the scene before a drop of blood fell. After breaking through the ring of warriors, he had formed a protective wall around the bluecoats and escorted them on to the stockade. Many years later, a few years after the Wounded Knee fight, he would use the same maneuver to stop a hostile band led by Chief No Water that was attempting to block the arrest of Chief Two Sticks for the murder of five white cowboys (see “Warriors and Chiefs” in the June 2002 Wild West).

The influx of white gold seekers into the Black Hills caused Crazy Horse and his fol­lowers to strike back against intruders there and elsewhere (such as at the Greasy Grass, or Little Bighorn River, in June 1876). While Red Cloud and other agency chiefs were suspected of sending warriors and arms north to aid the resisting Lakotas, Young Man Afraid and his immediate band never wavered in their friendship with the whites.

In May 1877, Crazy Horse accepted an offer by the government to give him his own agency if he surrendered at the Red Cloud Agency near Camp Robinson. How­ever, after turning himself in, he discovered that there were strings attached. Lieutenant William Philo Clark, military head of the Red Cloud Agency, informed Crazy Horse that he could not have his own agency until he made a trip to Washington, D.C., to meet the Great White Father. This was not acceptable to Crazy Horse, and he refused to make the trip. After a July council at the Red Cloud Agency, the customary feast was discussed and Young Man Afraid, try­ing as always to hold the Oglalas together, suggested that it be held at Crazy Horse’s lodge, thus making Crazy Horse the giver of the feast. Red Cloud, who had become very envious of the attention paid to the agency newcomer, walked out in protest. And when Crazy Horse reconsidered going to Washington, Red Cloud told him it was an Army ruse to send him off to prison. Both the Indian establishment and the Army seemed to fear Crazy Horse. The consensus was  it would be better just to kill Crazy Horse but short of that he had to be arrested.

On the morning of September 4, a party consisting of 400 agency warriors and eight full companies of the 3rd Cavalry set out to arrest Crazy Horse, and Young Man Afraid went along to ensure that his friend wasn’t shot while “attempting to escape.” The arresting party reached Crazy Horse’s lodge about six miles from Camp Robinson and discovered that he had fled 40 miles north to the Spotted Tail Agency. The next day, though, he returned to Camp Robinson, hoping to explain why he wanted to leave the Red Cloud Agency. Instead he was arrested and then, while trying to break loose in front of the guardhouse, was bayo­netted to death by a trooper (see “The Last Stand of Crazy Horse” in the December 2002 Wild West).

The next year, when Dr. McGillycuddy was appointed agent for the Pine Ridge Agency, Young Man Afraid of His Horses became his closest Sioux confidant. On the advice of Young Man Afraid, McGillycuddy appointed 27-year-old Miwakan Yuha (Man Who Carries the Sword) to select the 50 members of the tribal police force. From the beginning of the selection process, Red Cloud unsuccessfully applies all his persuasive power, as well as threats, to prevent Sword’s success.

During McGillycuddy’s tenure as agent he was engaged in a never-ending struggle with Red Cloud, who did everything he could to get him fired. While on trial on trumped-up charges, Red Cloud accused the agent of usurping his authority by offering inducements to Young Man Afraid to set himself up as head chief of the Oglalas. Young Man Afraid rose from the floor and drew his blue blanket, embel­lished with beadwork and porcupine quills, more closely about him. A single eagle feather, signifying his chieftainship, stood upright from his sleek, shining hair. “As far as the memory of the Sioux nation reaches, my father and his father and his father before him have been chiefs of the Dglala,” he said. “I was born a chief, no one can make me one. I am Young Man of Whose Horse They are Afraid, rightful chief of the Oglala Sioux Is it not so, Red Cloud?” Red Cloud didn’t say a word. Young Man Afraid resumed his seat on the floor. The trial ended without a decision. McGilly­cuddy remained agent until 1886, during which time he ruled the agency with an iron hand. His stern discipline was felt by all who ventured within its borders, and at all times Young Man Afraid stood ready to come to his assistance. He also continued to oppose further sales of Sioux lands.

In 1889-90, Young Man Afraid opposed the so-called Ghost Dance craze, which to many whites looked like an uprising. He worked to dissuade his people from taking part in the religious movement, making several trips to the Badlands to convince the dancers to return to Pine Ridge. When he saw he was wasting his time, Young Man Afraid went on an extended hunt in Wyoming and did not return until after the Wounded Knee disaster of December 27, 1890. He immediately began to work for a peaceful settlement of the whole affair. He advised the Oglalas not to avenge the deaths at Wounded Knee, for if they did the soldiers would kill them all. Once again he visited Ghost Dance camps, encouraged the people to surrender and assured them that they would be kindly treated if they gave themselves up. He did this knowing that the whites were often fickle in keeping their word, but he also knew that the Lakotas could never again be victorious.

Young Man Afraid’s friendship with the white authorities never made him a traitor to his people. In 1891, when the Army demanded that he turn in some of his warriors for murdering two white men, he replied: “No, I will not surrender them. But if you will bring me the white men who killed Few Tails I will bring the Indians who killed the white soldier and the herder. Right out here, I will have my young men shoot the Indians and you have your sol­diers shoot the white men, and then we will be done with the whole business.” Young Man Afraiddied on July 12,1893, in Newcastle, Wyo. According to the Rapid City journal article, he died from unknown causes on his way back to Pine Ridge after visiting the Crow Indians in Montana. His remains were taken to Pine Ridge for burial. Upon being told of the chief’s death, Dr. McGillycuddy said: “Should trouble again arise with the Sioux nation, Young Man Afraid will be missed. For many years, he has been the firm and unwavering friend of the government and the whites.”

Posted in American West | Leave a comment

Why Did Lincoln Choose War?

Slavery can neither explain nor ultimately justify the American Civil War. This realization is unfortunately obscured because most scholars and buffs alike have usually sought a single cause for these four years of soul wrenching conflict. The early nationalist interpretation, put forward by historian James Ford Rhodes at the turn of the 20th century, blamed one factor and one factor only: slavery. Slavery induced the southern states to secede, and Rhodes unreflectively assumed that the national government had no option but to suppress them.’ Later revisionist historians, such as Avery 0. Craven and James G. Randall, contended that slavery was dying of its own accord and attributed the war instead to a “blundering generation” of politicians, manipulated by irresponsible extremists and fanatics on both sides.’ The progressive perspective of Charles Beard also denied slavery’s role and replaced it with economic considerations.’ Then, beginning in the 1950s, a neo-abolitionist school reaffirmed the centrality of slavery. Yet while these competing interpretations have waxed and waned, the underlying quest for the one, overriding cause remains unabated.

The eminent Princeton professor, James M. McPherson, writing in the November issue of this publication, offers us a neo-abolitionist survey of the Civil War’s origins.’ I have no quarrels with the historical details of his account. Its accuracy is beyond criticism. He simply fails to prove that slavery was the cause of the war. Early in the article, McPherson quotes an unnamed spokesman for the Sons of Confederate Veterans, who declared that “the cause of the war was secession, and the cause of secession could have been any number of things. It turns out that both links in this quoted argument are faulty, McPherson has done an admirable job of exposing the fallacy in the second half. What Southerners Called their peculiar institution was indeed the fundamental cause of secession. That proposition no longer admits of any historical doubt. Historians would be hard pressed to find any causal claim in all human history for which the empirical support is more overwhelming.

When McPherson goes on to endorse the first link in the chain, however, and asserts that “the cause of the war was indeed secession,” he makes a common but logically indefensible leap.’ Other prominent neo-abolitionist historians, from Eric Foner to Kenneth Stampp, have in contrast emphasized that Civil War causation breaks down into at least two questions. Why did the southern states want to leave the Union? And why did the northern states refuse to let them go? Just because slavery is the answer to the first, it does not necessarily follow that it answers the second. These two questions are often muddled together because so many Americans approach the Civil War with an implicit and unchallenged prejudice in favor of national unity. Yet secession and war are distinct issues. In order for secession to lead to war, Northerners had to be determined to use violence to hold the Union together. And the scholarly research of McPherson himself, along with that of many others, has demonstrated that slavery had very little, if anything, to do with that determination, either on the part of President Abraham Lincoln or on the part of the northern public generally.

The sole northern group that had always made opposition to slavery their primary goal was the abolitionists. They burst upon the national landscape in the 1830s, demanding the immediate emancipation of all slaves, without any compensation to slaveholders, and full political rights for all blacks. Less well known is that they were also often advocates of disunion. The most prominent and vitriolic of these abolitionists, William Lloyd Garrison, went so far as to denounce the Constitution for its proslavery clauses as a covenant with death and an agreement with hell.” During one 4th of July celebration, he publicly burned a copy, proclaiming: “So perish all compromises with tyranny!” He believed that, if anything, the North should secede. That way it would get out from under the Constitution’s fugitive slave clause and become a haven for runaway slaves. The slogan, “No Union with Slave-Holders” appeared on The masthead of Garrison’s weekly paper, The Liberator, for years.

Thus, passionately opposing slavery and simultaneously favoring secession arc quite consistent. And Garrison’s strategic vision was hardly unique to him. Nearly all of slavery’s most radical opponents initially shared it, including Frederick Douglass, the free black leader who had escaped in 1838 from slavery in Maryland, and Wendell Phillips, a wealthy lawyer and Boston Brahmin.10 Needless to say this disrespect for the Union did not go over well in the free states. Abolitionist lecturers, presses, and property were frequent targets of hostile mobs throughout the 1830s. But not all abolitionists supported disunion. Many eventually would turn away from Garrison to take up political activity in a quest for respec6bility and success. As the antislavery crusade split into doctrinal factions, the resort to the ballot box resulted in both a broadened appeal and a dilution of purity.

The Republican Party eventually triumphed by reducing political antislavery to its lowest common denominator. The party’s main position, preventing slavery’s extension into new territories, carried no taint of disunion. It allowed Northerners to take steps against slavery in a distant sphere while honoring their constitutional obligation to leave the local institutions of the southern states alone. Here moreover was an antislavery position that could be made consistent with racism. Keeping slaves out of the territories was an excellent way to keep blacks out altogether. Abolitionists had failed to win over the North because they had put their opposition to slavery ahead of the Union. Republicans succeeded because they put the Union ahead of their opposition to slavery.

That Republicans promised not to interfere with the peculiar institution in the existing states to the point of supporting in 1861 a proposed thirteenth amendment that would have explicitly guaranteed slavery and have been unamendable goes without saying. Even the platform of the abolitionist Liberty Party, which conducted presidential campaigns in 1840 and 1844, had respected this constitutional constraint. But there were other, constitutionally permissible steps that the central government could take and yet the Republican platform eschewed, such as abolishing slavery in the District of Columbia and prohibiting the interstate and coastal slave trade. President Lincoln even promised in his first inaugural to enforce the fugitive slave law, so hated among many Northerners.

The plain fact that Lincoln was not an abolitionist is often cited by those who wish to deny that the seceding states were concerned about slavery’s future. McPherson in his article demolishes this claim quite nicely. The observation has become commonplace today that special interests inordinately influence government policy. This has actually always been the case; it is just less noticeable or objectionable when government is small and unobtrusive. One of the most powerful special interests during the pre-Civil War period was what abolitionists and
Republicans referred to as the “Slave Power, ” Despite constituting only one quarter of southern families in 1860,
slaveholders had dominated American politics both in the southern states and at the national level.

Then in 1860 a Northerner who had not carried a single slave state, and in ten of them did not get a single recorded vote, was elected president. Nationwide, Lincoln received only 40 percent of the popular vote. Yet he won with the electoral votes of every free state except New Jersey, where he got four of the state’s seven electoral votes. The contest in the South, mainly between the Southern Democratic and Constitutional Union candidates had proved utterly irrelevant. Even if the votes of all Lincoln’s opponents had been combined, he would still have won. Nothing could make the looming political impotence of the slave states more stark. Almost overnight a special interest that had dictated policy in Congress, to the Executive, on the Supreme Court, and usually in both major parties was politically dispossessed.

Southern fire-eaters recognized that a major faction within the Republican Party did favor further steps to divorce the general government from slavery. Lincoln appointed to has cabinet at least two of these radical Republicans: William Henry Seward of New York as secretary of state and Salmon Portland Chase of Ohio as secretary of the treasury. Even if the radicals did not immediately have their way, the Republican Party now controlled federal patronage, the postal service, military posts, and judicial appointments. Lincoln could put Republicans, abolitionists, and even free blacks into public office all over the South. The fact that a national administration for the first time morally condemned the peculiar institution might, in and of itself, trigger slave resistance. And the Republican commitment to a territorial policy that the Supreme Court had already declared unconstitutional in the infamous Dred Scott decision showed that slaveholders could not rely upon paper guarantees.

The editors of the Richmond Enquirer described how Lincoln’s victory must in the long term destroy slavery. “Upon the accession of Lincoln to power, we would apprehend no direct act of violence against negro property,” the editors conceded. But “the use of federal office, contracts, power and patronage” would result in “the building up in every Southern State of a Black Republican party, the ally and stipendiary of Northern fanaticism, to become in a few short years the open advocate of abolition,” Already a Missouri congressman, Frank Blair, Jr., whose family had long been powerful within Democratic circles, had gone over to the Republicans and delivered ten percent of that border state’s presidential vote to Lincoln.

The Enquirer also understood that the eventual “ruin of every Southern State by the destruction of negro labor” would be accomplished through the increase in fugitive slaves after tampering with the peculiar institution in the upper South. “By gradual and insidious approach, under the fostering hand of federal power, Abolitionism will grow up in every border Southern State, converting them into free States, then into cities of refuge for runaway negroes from the gulf States. No act of violence may ever be committed, no servile war waged, and yet the ruin and degradation of Virginia will be as fully and fatally accomplished, as though bloodshed and rapine, had ravished the land. There are no consequences that can follow, even forcible disunion, more disastrous to the future prosperity of the people of Virginia!

Secession was a risky gamble. By leaving the Union, Southerners were abandoning the Constitution’s protections for slavery and possibly unleashing the very plague of runaways they feared. But with Republicans in control of the national government, many southern whites felt they had nothing to lose. Their peculiar institution was certainly doomed otherwise. Slaveholders could better depend upon an independent central authority to provide those protections and police the new borders. As one Georgian explained in a letter to his senator, Alexander H. Stephens, independence would permit Southerners to erect an impassable wall between the North & the South so that negroes could not pass over to the North or an abolitionist come to the South to annoy us any more

Other Southerners disagreed, including Stephens himself Although he would become the Confederacy’s vice president, he opposed his state’s secession, judging “slavery more secure in the Union than out of it’ ” As Lincoln took the oath of office, the Union still contained eight slave states, more than had left. Secession had so far failed in the up per South, where the black population was less dense. Even in a few states of the lower South, disunion had triumphed by only narrow margins. But southern unionists made clear their conviction that no state should be forced to remain.

Some Northerners were prepared to allow the new Gulf Coast Confederacy to depart in peace. Militant abolitionists such as Garrison, who had been championing separation from the slave states for decades, were mainly concerned that South Carolina’s secession was just a bluff. The withdrawal of the deep South’s representatives from Congress made freestate control over the national government more pronounced than ever. The Republicans would have a free hand in the territories, whereas the economic viability of a small, independent slave republic was in doubt, especially if it could not expand. Even Horace Greeley’s staunchly Republican New York Tribune had briefly come out for letting the cotton states go, hoping “never to live in a_ republic whereof one section is pinned to the residue by bayonets.’

Lincoln, on the other hand, was determined to preserve the Union by force if necessary. Slavery’s abolition did not figure at all in either his avowed justifications or his private motivations. “I hold that … the Union of these States is perpetual,” the president asserted in his first inaugural address, cautiously revealing this unyielding posture. “The Union is unbroken, and to the extent of my ability I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all States. 15

Lincoln’s determination received the hearty applause of powerful northern interests. Westerners feared the closing of the lower Mississippi River, even though the Confederate government promised free navigation. Eastern manufacturers worried that they would lose markets to European competitors because of the Confederacy’s free trade policy. Yankee merchants and ship builders faced an end to monopoly o the South’s coastal trade that the government granted to United States vessels, Holders of government securities were edgy about the Union’s loss of tariff revenue, But m the final analysis, American nationalism proved to be the most compelling opponent of southern independence. Republicans had promised northern voters that they could have both antislavery and Union. Now that the Union was imperiled, the Republican Party had to take decisive action or face political oblivion,

The deep South’s refusal to abide by the outcome of a fair and legal election struck northern voters as a selfish betrayal of the nation’s unique mission, “Plainly the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy,” argued Lincoln. Indeed, his inaugural equated secession with despotism. “A majority held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects it does, of necessity, fly to anarchy or despotism,’ because “unanimity is impossible; the rule of a minority) as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible. ‘ Worse still, the successful breakaway of the lower South raised the possibility of other regions separating,

Yet Lincoln also wished to preserve the loyalty of the upper South. He therefore initially settled upon a defensive strategy to uphold national authority Until the Confederate bombardment of Fort Sumter on April 14, 186 1, the president could not have counted on enthusiastic northern support for an appeal to arms. The attack, however, electrified the free states, as Lincoln issued his proclamation calling up the state militias. The president’s call garnered an opposite reaction in the slave states. It wiped out much of the lingering unionism in those that had already seceded, and still more decisive was its impact on the wavering states of the upper South. Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas all promptly transferred their allegiance to the Confederate States of America. At a single stroke of the pen, Lincoln had more than doubled the Confederacy’s white population and material resources.

Once war got underway, Lincoln continued to insist that he wanted only to preserve the Union, and the newly elected Congress confirmed this war aim shortly after it convened. The Crittenden-Johnson resolutions of July 1861 denied that the government was waging war “in any spirit of oppression, nor for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, nor purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those States” but only “to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and to preserve the Union.”” In other words, the resolutions promised to leave slavery untouched in the seceding states.

It is tribe that northern blacks, abolitionists, and Radical Republicans, from the first salvo, did seek a crusade against the South’s peculiar institution. The prospect of wartime abolition seduced even Garrison and most of his militant followers into abandoning disunion. Only a handful of slavery opponents remained true to their original principles. Among them was Boston freethinker Lysander Spooner, an abolitionist so enthusiastic about John Brown’s raid on Harper’s Ferry that he had earnestly proposed kid napping the governor of Virginia to hold as hostage in exchange for Brown’s life. But although never a pacifist, Spooner saw absolutely no moral analogy between slaves violently rising up to secure their rights and the central government violently crushing aspirations for self-determination on the part of white southerners. After the war, he would write that the North had fought for the principle that “men may rightfully be compelled to submit to, and support a government they do not want; and that resistance, on their part, makes them criminals and traitors. “”Political slavery” had taken the place of “chattel slavery.”‘

Lincoln meanwhile was drifting toward the Radical position. He publicly warned that he would take whatever action he thought necessary to win the war. “My paramount object in this struggle,” the president declared in his oft-quoted reply to Horace Greeley, “is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help save the Union.” Lincoln added, however, that “I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.” ”

When the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation was issued on September 22,1862, it was framed as a war measure. It still gave the seceding states until the end of the year to cease their rebellion and retain their slaves. The proclamation did not emancipate any of the slaves in the four border states that had not seceded. Nor did it emancipate any slaves in those sections of the Confederacy that the Union armies had already reconquered, including all of Tennessee and large portions of Virginia and Louisiana. This anomaly inspired a cynical retort from Secretary of State Seward. “We show our sympathy with slavery,” he stated the day after the final proclamation was issued, “by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them, and holding them in bondage where we can set them free. ‘

Of course, Northerners came around by the war’s end to demanding that slavery’s elimination be complete and permanent. A little more than two months prior to General Robert E. Lee’s surrender at Appomattox, two-thirds of Congress passed an amendment abolishing slavery within the United States forever. Emancipation was therefore a consequence of the Civil War. But it was a consequence unintended at the outset, and played no discernible role in the northern refusal to let the lower South go in peace.

Readers of McPherson’s article will find no major surprises in the above account. But his article fails to display any awareness of how instrumental to bringing on the carnage was the northern belief in the Union as absolute deity. Why was preserving the nation’s existing boundaries such a big deal? Although historians have thoroughly researched southern motives for secession, they have hot motives. Nationalist bias elevates perpetual union to an automatic and unquestioned standard. Exactly how and why Northerners came to embrace this standard has never been satisfactorily answered. Yet somehow the mystical identification of Union with Liberty had evolved into such a cornerstone of the Yankee civil religion that it was impervious to all reason.

Peaceful secession has become a fixture of the modern world. Even prior to America’s war over secession, Belgium in 1830 had consummated a separation from the Netherlands that was almost entirely without bloodshed. Norway seceded from Denmark in 1905 and Singapore from Malaysia in 1965. Since then, we have witnessed, among others, the peaceful separation of the Czech Republic and Slovakia, and the peaceful break up of the totalitarian Soviet Union into Russia, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Ukraine, Belarus, and more than half a dozen other independent nations. So we ought to be able to view Lincoln’s justifications for the Civil War with a healthy dose of skepticism.

As I write this, it is still uncertain whether Quebec will ever vote to secede from Canada. What is certain is that the Canadian central government has disavowed the use of force to prevent the province’s departure. This example contains some striking parallels to southern secession, because the current population of Canada is about 30 million, slightly less the U.S. population in 1860. Quebec has 7 million inhabitants, making it smaller the Confederacy became (about 9 million) after Lincoln’s call for troops but larger than Gulf Coast Confederacy (about 5 million) at the time of Lincoln’s inauguration.

Insofar as the Civil War was fought to preserve the Union, it was an explicit rejection of the American Revolution. As a legal recourse, the legitimacy of secession was admittedly debatable. But as a revolutionary right, the legitimacy of secession is universal and unconditional. That at least is how the Declaration of Independence reads. “Put simply,” agrees New-Left historian William Applernan Williams, “the cause of the Civil War was the refusal of Lincoln and other northerners to honor the revolutionary right of self-determination, the touchstone of the American Revolution .

The southern states had no right to self-determination because of slavery, runs the retort. But black slavery was practiced in every one of Britain’s North American colonies, from New Hampshire to Georgia, at the opening of the War for Independence. Moreover, Virginia’s royal governor issued a proclamation on November 7, 1775, very similar to Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, freeing any slave who would bear arms against the rebellious colonists. At least 18,000 freed blacks accompanied British forces as they evacuated Savannah, Charleston, New York City, and other places at the end of the earlier war. South Carolina, the only colony with a slave majority when independence was declared, lost as much as one third of its black population to flight or migration. In short, most arguments marshaled to deny the legitimacy of southern independence in 1861 apply with almost equal force against American independence in 1776.

One critic of the Lincoln administration’s decision for war called the ensuing conflict “mere manslaughter.”

American nationalists, then and now, automatically assume I that the Union’s break up would have been catastrophic. The historian “is a camp follower of the successful army,” to quote Lincoln biographer David Donald, and often treats the nation’s current boundaries as etched in stone.21 But doing so reveals lack of historical imagination.Consider again Canada. The United States twice mounted military expeditions to conquer its neighbor, first during the American Revolution and again during the War of 1812. At other times, including after the Civil War, annexation was under consideration, sometimes to the point of private support for insurgencies similar to those that had helped swallow up Florida and Texas. If any of these ventures had succeeded, historians’ accounts would read as if the unification of Canada and the United States was fated, and any other outcome inconceivable. In our world, of course, Canada and the United States have endured as separate sovereignties with hardly any untoward consequences.

North America has managed to get along fine with two, permanent, independent Anglo republics. If there had been three as there temporarily was when Texas was a separate nation or more, the history of the world would have been different, but not catastrophically different. “Suppose Lincoln did save the American Union, did his success in keeping one strong nation where there might have been two weaker ones really entitle him to a claim to greatness?” asked historian David M. Potter. “Did it really contribute any constructive values for the modern world?

The common refrain, voiced by Lincoln himself, that peaceful secession would have constituted a failure for the great American experiment in liberty~ was just plain nonsense. “If Northerners had peaceably allowed the seceders to depart:’ the London Times cogently replied in September 1862, “the result might fairly have been quoted as illustrating the advantages of Democracy; but when Republicans put empire above liberty, and resorted to political oppression and war rather than suffer any abatement of national power, it was clear that nature at Washington was precisely the same as nature at St. Petersburg…. Democracy broke down, not when the Union ceased to be agreeable to all its constituent States, but when it was upheld, like any other Empire, by force of arms. ‘

As an excuse for civil war, maintaining the State’s territorial integrity is bankrupt and reprehensible. Yet that is the only excuse that Lincoln and the Republican Party put forward. Slavery, to repeat, neither explains nor justifies northern suppression of secession. In the final analysis, we must accept the verdict of Moncure Daniel Conway, another abolitionist, self-exiled from his home in Virginia. The Union war effort, he sadly concluded, reduces to “mere manslaughter.1125

JEFFREY ROGERS HUMMEL is Adjunct Associate Professor, Departments of Economics and History, Golden Gate University, and author of Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men: A History of the American Civil War (Chicago: Open

NORTH & SOUTH SEPTEMBER 2001

Posted in Civil War | Leave a comment

History of Livingston Manor, New York

THE HISTORY OF LIVINGSTON MANOR

 The first settler in the Town of Rockland found Iroquois Indians to the north. Algonquin Indians to the South  and the Lenni Lenapes located here.

The pioneers had trails instead of roads. The biggest trail was the Sun Trail. It ran from the  Hudson River to the East Branch of the Delaware River.

In 1815, John Hunter hired Abel Sprague (born in Lew Beach in 1766 and died in 1842 at Lew Beach) to cut the trail out and build a road. Other trails were: Berry Brook Trail, Beaverkill Trail, Mary Smith Trail, and Cross Mountain Trail. These trails enabled the settlers to develop areas of Beaverkill. Lew Beach. Shin Creek and Turnwood. The first school was established in the Town of Hardenburgh. A meeting was held February 21. 1857, at Christopher Singer’s residence. Elected to the first school board were: Christopher Singer. chairman: John Banks. clerk of the board, Christopher Singer, trustee, 3 years; Edward Carroll, 2 years: Hooper Tripp. 1 year: Benjamin Fling, clerk; Christopher Blumberg, collector. John Calvin Vankeren signed a contract to furnish the school with 10 chords split, hard wood. A chord was 25 cents $2.50 to be delivered and piled at the school yard.

Stoddard Hammond and James Benedict had the largest tannery in DeBruce. Medad Morse owned a tannery at Morsston and Henry W. Ellsworth had a tannery at Beaverkill. It was located where the Beaverkill Campsite is now situated

PH. Woolsey had a large mill at DeBruce and ràfted his logs to Philadelphia. Cribs were used for shipping from Livingston Manor. The cribs were rformed into poneys. down river, then large rafts were used in the bigger rivers. The last rafting to the Delaware River was in 1888. Cribs were made from logs at Livingston Manor, Morsston Flats, River Street and Deckers Flat.

The first acid factory in the Town of Rockland was located at Emmonsville, now Grooville. in 1880. This factory lasted until 1898.

A man named Emmons owned the mill. Emmonsville was named after Mr. Emmons. In the early I 900s a Dr. L. Groo moved into the area from Middletown. He later went from house to house and had the name of Emmonville changed to Grooville.

Before the settlers came to the Town of Rockland, the Indians had their own method of tanning hides. The Indians would scrape off all the flesh from the hide and then bury the hide in the ground. This method was used to take off all the hair. After this process the hide was sprinkled with rotten wood and left to cure.

Livingston Manor was established in 1879. The section north of Livingston Manor was called Purvis and the section to the south was called Morsston. The first railroad station was called Morsston.

The first electric plant was owned by P.H. Woolsey in Livingston Manor. The plant was situated at the bottom of Shandelee Hill at the upper part of Main Street. This plant was powered from a dam on the Cattail Stream with D.C. current. The power to the plant was run from a leather belt 16” x 30′. Ed Yorks, who resided in Livingston Manor near the Presbyterian Church, was the maintenance man at the plant, and held this job for many years.

Mr. Woolsey owned the first water works in the town. He also had a sash and blind factory and a sawmill.

The first telephone service was owned by J.C. Stevens. There was a switchboard and an operator. The building was located over the driveway to Will Bros. Store. Mr. Stevens owned the hardware store and also had a horse livery store in the back of the building. John Rose (Ray Rose’s father) was the livery man.

Dalton T. Eastman had a farm located on the Shandelee Road and raised strawberries and vege tables. He peddled his goods from a horsedrawn cart. He would drive his horse and cart through town calling: rhubarb, rhubarb, rhubarb. This yelling would alert all the women who would then purchase fresh vegetables. Mr. Eastman always supplied the church with fresh strawberries for their strawberry festival.

William Johnston drove the horse and delivery wagon for Johnston Store. Homer Bennett drove A.P. DuBois Co. horse and wagon. Both gentlemen were very accommodating. They delivered thread in an emergency at not extra charge to ladies who often ran out of thread or material. Thread cost 5 cents a spool.

The first roads that were constructed were built from dirt and filled in with rocks and stones. These roads were very dusty. A big wooden tank to hold water was mounted on a wagon and water was sprayed on various streets to keep the dust down. Milt Ward drove the team of horses that pulled the huge wagon.

Sullivan County has four covered bridges, three being located in the Town of Rockland.

The Town of Neversink has a covered bridge called Hall’s Mills. This bridge was built in 1912 and was 119 feet long. It was built by David Benton and John Knight.

The Town of Rockland was very fortunate because in the township lived a man named John Davidson, a very talented builder.

Mr. Davidson built the VanTran covered bridge that is 98 feet long and is located over the

Willowemoc. It was constructed in 1860.

The Bend of the River Bridge west of Willowemoc was built by Mr. Davidson in 1860 and is 43 feet long. It is interesting to note that Joseph Sherwood saved this particular bridge in 1913. When the state highway was put through Livingston Manor. Mr. Sherwood dismantled the covered bridge at the Manor. and moved half its length to a new site upstream. That was all he required to cross the narrow Willowemoc Creek beyond DeBruce. The bridge still stands.

The Beaverkill Campsite has situated over its body of water the most photographed bridge in New York State. This bridge has been in many magazines and thousands of pamphlets. The bridge was built in 1865 by Mr. Davidson and is 98 feet in length. This bridge is presently being repaired.

At one time another covered bridge crossed the Little Beaverkill River which is now the Rotary Park. It was located directly across from the Livingston Manor Methodist Church. It was used by the people from Pleasant Street and Church Street to reach the churches and the Union School. The bridge was washed away in a heavy flood and was never replaced.

Robert J. Hoag owned a huge farm that overlooked the Willowemoc River and the Hamlet of the Manor. He sold his milk from house to house from a horse and wagon or in the winter by a sleigh. When he delivered your milk the empty bottles were replaced with new at the steps of your porch. The people who paid cash would leave the money in the empty bottle. People who charged always paid on pay day. He never had to collect from house to house as his system worked. If there was a change in your milk order a note was left in the empty bottle.

Ernest Hoos delivered bread from the Liberty Bakery to Livingston Manor to sell. In 1903 he started his own bakery in the Manor. In later years his sons Fred and Eddie took over the business. Fred Hoos passed away and Eddie ran the business until his retirement in 1990.

D.T. Eastman owned a shetland pony named ‘Peggy”. All the kids in town loved the pony and all the kids got to ride her. Mr. Eastman would deliver the pony to a child’s home and leave the pony for several days and would return to pick her up. He loved kids and never charged for the pony rides. After D.T. Eastman died his wife passed away 2 days later. It was a double funeral.

When there was too much snow and walking on the Town streets became difficult, R.J. Hoag would hitch up his horse to a homemade “V” plow and plow the streets. He did this as a favor for the people and never charged the town.

Before the welfare system was adopted, the smaller towns had to help take care of the needy. A‘Poor Master” name for town agent taking care of the needy was established. Doug Collins was the man appointed by the Livingston Manor area. Every two weeks a system was arranged to have people receive their allotment of potatoes. sugar. canned goods. etc. The people met in front of Johnston Store and Mr. Collins would read out the names of the people. Similar to a roll call. It seemed to be a better system of government than we have today. It wasn’t necessary to have to go to church on Sundays as Adam and Elmer Young designated themselves preachers and preached on the street in front of the Johnston Store. You found out what kind of sinner you were.

John Daniel Waniel Moore Decker was the great grandfather of Elinor Decker and Jean Smith. He lived in Purvis near Livingston Manor. He was at the Ford’s Theater the night that President Lincoln was shot. Mr. Decker was a messenger for the White House in Washington. Quotes taken from the Ensign. a Livingston Manor Paper (1877) – “J.D.W.M. Decker. living near the village, caught a California trout in the Willowemoc stream near his home last Friday fore noon. which tipped the scales at six pounds and 12 ounces and was over 24” long. This is without doubt. the largest trout of that species ever caught in Sullivan County. This beautiful marked trout was over 2 foot long in length. six inches deep and 3 inches wide on the back. It had been seen in the deep pool under the small bridge that spans a small stream near Mr. Decker’s house for 2 or 3 years and a number of fishermen had made unsuccessful attempts to take it. Mr. Decker’s mode of capture is known only to himself.”

“On Tuesday. August 7th, 1877, E. Trimp caught a trout at Beaverkill. 20 1/2 inches long which weighed 5 lbs. 3 oz. and the following day Joseph Kelly got one at Beaverkill 23 3/4” in length and weighing just 6 pounds.

Israel Barnhart of Beaverkill caught 32 lbs. of trout in one week in 1877. “Also in 1877, Webster Sherwood in five weeks time sold forty yoke of oxen in Livingston Manor.”

In 1877 the Town Board met in the Hotel Davis at Livingston Manor to re-organize the Board of Health. The board members were Jay Davidson, Supervisor: Charles Fallon, Town Clker: George H. Hawkins and Enoch A. Ellis, Councilmen: William H. McGrath and Ira Martin, Justices; Dr. R.A. DeKay, physician: J.W. Davis. a citizen attending the meeting and W.H. Martin and Edgar Cammer. constables.

Philip W. Woolsey was a student of Theology and very interested in the church and religious movements. He would preach the gospel and was engaged in the largest lumber business. In 1880. he donated the land to build the Livingston Manor Presbyterian Church. He built the church. When he was in the lumber business in DeBruce, his partner was Wm. H. Vail. Mr. Woolsey patented and invented a shingle machine that was very successful in the mills. He had 30 to 40 men are employed in his mill. The mill produced over twenty thousand feet of lumber a day. He built the first road that led from Livingston Manor to DeBruce so he could ship his lumber to market in Philadelphia.

Every home had one. ‘the old two and three hole privy.” Just imagine having to go outside at 30 below and only a kerosene lantern for heat and light. It was too cold to look at the Sears Roebuck catalog. There was a red ring on your bottom when you got off that frosty seat. Then they tell you that was the good old days?

 In the good old days there was the 3 and 4 party telephone lines and sometimes there were 8 on a line.

That was a good source of gossip.

During the fall butchering. Vick Weeks was the town pig killer. He did all the butchering in the fall. traveling from house to house. He would tie a rope around the pigs’ foot. throw the pig on its back and stick a long knife in its throat. The awful squealing of the pig would make all the kids run for the house. The pig was then placed into a 55 gallon drum of hot water and the hair was scraped from the pig.

In the spring of the year around May. George Bennett, a sheep shearer, would come to town and shear all the sheep. He was a big, friendly man whose face was covered with a white beard. He carried a watch made from animals’ teeth. He had no home and slept in empty barns or sheds. During his lifetime he escaped from two fires, the Woolsey barn fire, and the Woolsey shed on Main Street. He died as a result of a fire in a shed at Benton’s property. The property was next to the present Post Office.

Every year a man would come to town to sharpen scissors for the people of the Town. Women made all the clothing for themselves and their families and mending had to be done. It was a big event when the scissor man arrived. Today the kids wear clothes with big holes and are in style and the scissor man is a thing of the past.

The organ grinder and his monkey came to Town every year. The man would crank the organ which was strapped to his body and lovely music would be heard. His monkey was dressed in a pretty red vest and hat. The monkey would pass around a can and collect money. He was trained to take only silver or bills. He would pick out the pennies and throw them on the ground.

The peddlers were always in Town and the housewife depended upon them for many items:

caning material for replacing worn out chairs, eggs, milk, grapes. in the summer bananas, during the fall fresh peaches, and heads of cabbage to make the annual fall sauerkraut.

During the summer months, the townspeople looked forward to the Fourth of July. This was the biggest event, the Livingston Manor Brass Band led the parade. there were horse drawn floats, kids riding decorated bicycles, there were the Campfire Girls, Cadets, Livingston Manor Home Guard, and the Fire Department. The parade would always end up at the Sherwood Island for a big celebration. There was horse racing. baseball games and lots of food. All the stores were allowed to sell fireworks, thunder bolts, dago bombs, rocket Roman candles and chase the spiders.

The Klu Klux Klan was very active in the Manor. The meetings were held on Round Top in the middle of the night. It wasn’t unusual to hear at twelve o’clock a large explosion (dynamite) and see at the top fo the mountain a big cross on fire, with white figures moving around the cross. No one in town dared to venture near the place. Back then Round Top was completely bare with no trees growing. The Klan had a big parade in Livingston Manor. They all wore their white robes and the event took place on Sherwoods Island Park. Sharkey McAdam. a big robust man, rode his bay mare, bare back, from his farm “Herm Grey Farm” on the DeBruce Road, to the Manor with his Klan robe and carrying a rifle. The parade wasn’t very colorful as all the people wore white robes.

Fred Hoos had the first radio in Town, he displayed the radio in the bakery window. Doc Brandt was one of the first people to own a TV set. He had a big aerial set up near his house, he always had lots of company to watch the wrestling matches.

Years ago there was a tradition that took place after a couple had been married and were settling in after the honeymoon. It was called the “skimmelton.” If you have never been a witness to such an event. here is how it worked. There wasn’t any preparation necessary to have a skimmelton party. Word of mouth was all that was needed. A night that was convenient for the party was set. The married couple were not aware of the date. In the middle of the night the party givers would arrive at the couples home, surround the house, a signal was given and guns were fired, pots and pans were pounded upon and all hell let loose. The couple had to get out of bed and make and serve the refreshments.

  In 1871 the New York Oswego and Midland Railroad came to Livingston Manor. The first passenger train went through the Bloomingburg Tunnel on February 1, 1872. The last of the spikes. to be driven into the ground took place north of Roscoe, July 9. 1873. There was a large railroad yard at Livingston Manor. A pusher crew pushed the trains up the hill to Liberty and Youngs Gap. The crew carried coal and helped freight. During World War 1, trains of oil tankers were shipped. There was a big passenger service at that time. During World Wars I & II. troop trains were used to transport the men and fighting equipment. Many prisoners of war trains passed through carrying the prisoners to various Army camps.

In 1917, during one day, 61 trains passed through the Manor. Livingston Manor was one of the few terminals to have a “Y” to turn the trains around. All trains stopped at the Manor so the engineer and conductors could check their watches. By law the recorded time 12:00 Noon. The signal came from Naval Observation in Washington, D.C. G.C.T. (Greenwich Civil Time) flashed over the telegraph and “synchronized” all time.

With the coming of the railroad came the problem of the “Hobo’s”. These men hitched rides on the trains, they had no homes. There was one particular area at the “Y” (now Rotary Park) where the men set up camp. with fires, they cooked meals and made coffee and drank from tin cans. It was named the ‘Jundle” by the townspeople. The hobos would go from house to house looking for handouts of food. Some of the men offered to cut or pile wood.

The Campfire Girls were started by Mrs. John Morris, who lived on Mussman’s Flat. The girls were involved in the war effort during WWI. Some of the troops traveled through the Manor to go overseas. The girls met the train and handed out magazines, cookies and home made candy. The girls sometimes wrote their addresses on the magazines. Many letters were exchanged this way. The girls had their meetings at Mrs. Charles Woolsey’s home. The house is now owned by Mr. & Mrs. Mack Weiner. The girls had refreshments, and they also learned to sew. Mrs. Woolsey was called “Auntie Lii.”

The Cadets were formed in 191 7 by Paul Johnston: John M. Paris. Principal of LMCS. and Tm. Harold Forbes. They learned the rudiments of military training, to respect the flag. the importance of patriotism and discipline. The boys helped decorate the graves on Decoration Day. They had Army uniforms and their own drummers and bugle boys. They marched in full dress uniform on the Fourth of July.

William Sprague and Hezikiah Loveland had the first general store in 1820.

Israel Dodge was the first Supervisor in the Town of Rockland.

Samuel Darbee was the first Post Master.

The Methodist Church had the first Preacher in the Town of Rockland. He was a circuit rider, the Reverend Alexander Morton. it was in the early 1800’s.

The father of historian James Quinlan. a circuit rider, preached at the Brown Settlement Church.

Reverend James Beecher, who lived at Beecher Lake preached in the Lew Beach Schoolhouse on Shin Creek. He was a brother of Henry Ward Beecher and his sister was Harriet Beecher Stowe. author of “Uncle Tom’s Cabin.”

The first Methodist Church in Purvis (now Livingston Manor) came about through the efforts of Miss Jane Purvis (a young woman scarcely twenty-five years of age). She and her father lived in the Manor House. owned by Dr. Edward Livingston. Mr. Purvis was the caretaker for the property. Miss Purvis was discussing with Dr. Edward Livingston the need for a church in the community. The local people of the community had been having church services at the school. The year was 1855.

Dr. Livingston advised that he would donate $500.00 toward the erecting of a church and would also donate the land. He made one condition. that enough money be raised by the people to make it a community project.

Dr. Livingston estimated that the church would cost $1000.00. A list of names was completed by Miss Purvis and she went to work. To reach the remote sections of the area, she traveled on horseback. Dr. Livingston was reputed to have been an excellent horseman, and it was very probable that Miss Purvis used his horse. Miss Purvis doubled the pledges in money, material and labor. Dr. Livingston hired a New York City architect to draw up plans for the church.

The building was built from local lumber, cut in local sawmills, being mostly of hemlock. The flooring. siding. and shingles, etc.. were cut at the mills of John S. and Joseph Mott near the Mott Cemetery. and the mills of James E. and Erastus Sprague near the J.D.W.M. Decker home. The new church was dedicated in October of 1857. and the first sermon was preached by Reverend John Knight Wardel of Ellenville. New York. Reverend Patterson was the first minister and his successor was the Reverend Mattie.

The first parsonage was located on River Street (where the former Meyerson Bakery was located). The Reverend William Green was the Pastor. The parsonage was burned down in 1865. The successor to Reverend Green was Reverend Travis. who lived in Wm. Reeds house near Hoag’s Hill.

The Brown Settlement Church was built in 1800.

One of the first churches built in the Township was the Presbyterian Church built in Lew Beach in 1851.

In 1883 the Beaverkill Church was built and in that same year the Lew Beach Methodist Church was built.

St. Aloysius Church in Livingston Manor was built in 1896. the Sacred Heart Church in DeBruce was built in 1906, the All Souls Church in Shandelee was built in 1917.

A.P. DuBois donated the land for the St. Aloysius Church site.

The Livingston Manor Synagogue was built in 1922.

The old school house in Grooville was the site for services for the Free Methodist Church. In 1987 the members of the church built their new church at the corner of Grooville Road and the DeBruce Road.

In the late 1800’s Bob Ward lived in DeBruce. He imported from Silver City, New Mexico, 3,000 goats. The goats arrived in cattle cars on the O&W Railroad. They were driven in a big herd through the hamlet. The streets were filled with goats. They had to be taken up through town to get to the DeBruce Road. Back in those days this was quite an adventure. (Information taken from the books of Bob Ward) It proved to be a very expensive undertaking. Working with Mr. Ward, was a man named Charlie Lyman, who owned some of the goats. In July of 1902. Bob Ward had 2.2 19 goats. Charlie Lyman had 200 nannies, 67 nannie kids, 50 mutton kids, 5 muttons and 2 kids, for a total of 350 goats. Expenses for keeping the goats were many. listed in 1905 as follows: A railroad box car of corn, $1 .036.7 5: the herding by team from Livingston Manor to DeBruce, $52.00: tanning 12 skins. $12.00: purchase of 8 cars of hay in March, $1 .133.1 2: a new shearing machine, $37.50: fence. $98.06: a bill for alfalfa seed, $21.18: rent for land from Hammond, $325.00. Poachers killed many of the goats. When it was cold and snowing the goats died from eating hemlock bark.

Bob Ward also had the first fish hatchery in DeBruce. He later sold to the State of New York,

Bob Ward had a brother, Charles B. Ward, who was a Congressman. Congressman Ward and his family resided in DeBruce. “In November of 1917. the Congressman and his family left in their private railroad car. “Mayflower” for Washington. D.C. The car was attached to Train 6 on the O&W Railroad. At that time Mr. Ward was considered to be one of the richest men in Congress.

Lester White, of Livingston Manor, was killed in France on March 28, 1918. The Livingston Manor Legion was named after Mr. White. He was the only person from Livingston Manor killed in WWI.

John C. Smith was the town veterinarian. He had a fancy horse and buggy, and carried the mail from Parksville to the Manor on horseback.

Dr. William G. Davis, a physician, made his house calls by horse and buggy.

The Brown Settlement was the home of John Karst, noted school engraver. The Karst home was the former meeting place of the Sheep Skin Indians of the Anti Rent days.

The Brown Settlement Church was also known as a meeting p!ace for the Sheep Skin Indians. A

tombstone in the grave yard there reads, “Kip Whipple. Here lies a mountain man.”

In the Methodist Cemetery, Purvis (Livingston Manor). the first grave and headstone was that of Jane Purvis. The headstone read, “born 1825, died December 2. 1902,” and continues. “Asleep in Jesus. Blessed Sleep.” Another stone in the Methodist Cemetery is that of “Samuel Purvis. father of Jane Purvis.” and Dr. Edward Livingston’s caretaker. Mr. Purvis name appeared in the deed to the church. Mr. Purvis died July 24, 1876. There is a stone for Satilla Purvis who died on March 16, 1 870. In the center of the graveyard at the Methodist Cemetery, under a huge pine tree, is the headstone of Dr. Edward Livingston. The stone says, “Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God.”

The Methodist Church in Lew Beach at one time had a cemetery. During a terrible flood on September 18, 1863, the waters of the Shin Creek washed away forty graves.

The Turnwood Store and Post Office was owned by Amos Wamsley. Mr. Wamsley had a shingle machine. In the early days shingles for roofs were made by hand by many farmers. Upon Mr. Walmsley’s death he left the store and the shingle machine to Casper Edwards. George Van Steenburgh also owned a shingle machine and lived on the Upper Beaverkill.

Quilting was done by the ladies throughout the Town. Nellie Devoe lived on the Mary Smith Road, Lew Beach, and has made hundreds of pretty quilts. Nellie still makes quilts today.

Perry Conklin of Turnwood made fancy home made fiddles.

In Parkston, Eva Van Aiken had a weaving machine and made rugs for the local people.

Home made wooden scoops were made by Frank Conklin. William Booth. both of Willowemoc; Cornelius Ward, Aaron Ackerley and Floyd Soules from the Manor.

Jim Yorks, the father of Mrs. Burr Sherwood, made kitchen chairs and rocking chairs. The chairs were made from hard maple and sometimes birdseye maple. Mr. Yorks caned some of the bottoms of the chairs and other seats he made from elm bark. The bark was stripped from young trees when the sap was running. The strips were used to weave the bottom.

The Seeley family, who lived in Turnwood, also made chairs.

Charlie Davenport of Emmonsville made home made shingles and hoops for butter tubs. He would cut a birch pole 2” by 2 1/2” length ways to make wooden straps that went around the butter tub.

Charles Booth of Willowemoc always smoked a pipe and he saved all of the empty tobacco cans. When he roofed his house he used the empty cans for the shingles. The smoking didn’t kill, but the roof job almost did him in

.

Buildings On Main Street

Barney Harvey owned a little general store. He handled tin products and small items. The store was located where the Country Peddler and Central Pharmacy are at present.

Orlando Brown owned a grocery store (Curry insurance). About 1800, a group of men were sitting around a pot belly stove in Brown’s Store discussing the happenings of the day. The discussing became heated. Barney Harvey got in a fight with Bill Cutler (lived on River Street). Barney left and went to his store to get a pistol, returned and shot Bill Cutler in the leg.

The Town celebrated the end of World War 1 with a big parade down Main Street. The Fire Department. Town Band, Cadets and the Home Guard were in the line of march. Some people grabbed Bill Mosher, who had celebrated too much. and put Mr. Mosher into a cage drawn by a horse and wagon. A sign read “Captured Kasser Bill.” The parade was scheduled by mistake as the war ended two days later.

Sharkey McAdams always paraded with the Firemen. He was always dressed as Uncle Sam with the big hat. etc.

Harrison Tombley. from Grooville, always traveled to town with his dog and a sheep. They even went into the stores with him.

Campbonel Borinel, a real mountain man, lived on the Hunter Road. behind DeBruce. He trapped and hunted, living on the game he caught. He even made his clothes from the skins he tanned. He would come into town wearing a muskrat hat, coonskin jacket and leggings of fur.

Dr. Calvin Cobb from Grooville was the local witch doctor. He would gather herbs, ginseng, and roots. He then boiled the herbs on a wood stove, the medicine would be used to help cure those in need.

Livingston Manor could boast of some pretty good fly fishermen. Among these men were: Burt Misner. Pete Rose, Lou Kannegiser. Eli Disbrow, Wiley Lacey, and Art and Wilson Jennings. There was excellent trout fishing. The art of fly tying came from

•            Harry and Elsie Darbee, Elle Newman and Pete Rose.

In the early 1800’s there was plenty of fish and game. Deer, bear, wolves. panthers. turkeys and small game were in abundance. The wild pigeon was very plentiful. and when the pigeons took flight, they would darken the sky.

Horse racing was held during the winter on Shandelee Lake and Tennanah Lake as the ice was 24” thick.

A story teller, famous in the Catskills, resided in Shandelee. Johnny Darling was famous for his country tales. M. Jogendorf wrote a book about Mr. Darling.

The first fire truck that the Livingston Manor taxpayers purchased was the 1924 Larabee. it was shipped on a flat car by the O&W Railroad. Loul DuBois owned a railroad siding. and permission was given to unload the truck. Alva Swarthout drove the truck off the flat car. It was a special event and the townspeople all turned out to see the new, “red” truck.

Harry Sturdevant owned and operated a service station on Main Street. He sold Buick cars. The cars were shipped here in box cars on the railroad.

Johnston’s Store received their feed in box cars. Bill Johnston would take his horse and high wagon to haul the feed. He would then shovel the feed into the wagon, transport it to the feed store and unshovel the load. The store didn’t need an auditor to check the books to see what was selling.

Johnston’s Store had a big wooden counter where all transactions took place. On the counter was a big book. Attached to the book was a pencil where all the entries for the day were made. There was no cash register. a drawer under the counter pulled out and had wooden compartments for the change and bills. In the office attached to the wall was an old brass filing cabinet. The file contained the names of customers that charged.

The railroad company. sawmills, and acid factory people were paid every two weeks. Between pay checks the families would charge at the Johnston Store, and they would wait until pay day to pay up. In some cases. another two weeks of supplies would be ordered. Bill Johnston would deliver the supplies by horse and wagon. The groceries were placed in a large wicker basket. The children of the house would scramble to search the basket. Bill always managed to have a small brown bag. tied with a strip, containing candy hidden in the basket.

The first golf course built in Sullivan County was at Jay Davidson’s on the Beaverkill (later the house was the boarding house of Fred Banks). It was a five hole course and was to be a special attraction for the men. The business was a boarding house for fishermen. The place was near the Beaverkili Covered Bridge. In later years the State of New York purchased the property and had most of the buildings removed, and trees were planted on the golf course.

The Little Beaverkill River has also been noted for its trout fishing. Charlie Barber lived near the river and caught a trout that measured 26” and weighed 6 lbs.

Once a week J.P. Knapp had a large wood box (2’ x 4’ x 6”) shipped to him. In the box was liver that he used for food for his trout. The liver would stay at the depot on a push wagon (no refrigeration) waiting for the driver to pick it up.

  Another famous boarding place for trout fishermen was the “Wright Farm.” There was always a good meal served and trout would always be on themenu.

Fremont Smith. from Pleasant Street, would peddle from a horse drawn wagon “Grand Union” products. He would drive from house to house.

Fred Marks often remarked that Louis DuBois bragged how Ben Sarles would play baseball with the local team, catching the ball bare-handed.

The New York State woodcutting championship was won by Archie Lobdell two years in a row. He lived in DeBruce.

The Black Smith Shop was owned by a big man, Lon Ostrum. The entrance to the shop was on the side of the building as the Street was muddy. He shod horses and oCen, repaired wagons and made the wheels for wagons. (On his days off he was always wearing a fancy ladies hat?) The Siegel building was the first store on Main Street. It replaced the Black Smith Shop.

There were several Black Smith Shops: Chris Schmidt owned a shop on River Street; Jason Cammer and Fred Schleiermacher owned a shop on Rock Avenue:            Joe Herbert was the smithy for the Treyz Acid Factory on Upper Main Street.

At one time Pearl Street was so muddy that logs were placed to make a chord way road. Logs were cut and placed side by side to get the wagons through.

J.D.W.M. Decker’s Store and the Purvis Post Office received a large amount of traffic. The men who hunted wer allowed to hang their bear or deer at the store or front window for everyone to check out. At one showing there were 8 bears hanging.

River Street News

The busiest Street in Livingston Manor was River Street. It boasted having three butcher shops: Max Schwartz. Sam Resnick  and Meyer Newman. Sam Fox also lived on River Street. He was a butcher but he peddled his meat throughout the community from house to house.

Sam Cohen owned a general store on the corner of River Street and Main Street. Max Pass owned a novelty store on the other corner of the street. The biggest distribution of fresh fruit and vegetables was Sam Kahn. His business was later run by Sacks Bros.. Liberty.

  One of the first riding academies was owned and operated by Posy Rosenthal. He supplied all the hotels in the area with riding horses. The horses were shipped from the West by the O&W Railroad. Mr. Rosenthal also sold and traded horses. Frank Galvinsky was the hired man, he broke the horses for riding and he also drove the two-wheeled cart. The horses were an aggravation to many of the neighbors on River Street. The horses often broke loose and trampled gardens. flowers and hedges. The kids were kept alert to watch for the horses breaking loose.

Local privately owned butcher shops kept the hotel business’s in poultry and meat. They also hired their own rabbis and chicken pickers. The Poultry Plant was non-existent then.

The street was so busy that there was a red light to take care of the traffic.

Poop Newman and Sam Kahen also dealt in buying hides and wool.

 

This and That

1877 Purvis Acid Factory had nearly 8,000 chords of wood piled, with more wood coming in.

1878 – Hammond & Co. in DeBruce had 3,000 chords of bark during the last three weeks.

1879 – Ezra Sarles of Cleveland. Ohio, visited his brother Edward Saries, whom he hadn’t seen in 44 years.

1895 – The telephone lines from Liberty to Livingston Manor were nearly completed. The line was also extended from Monticello to Woodbourne.

1900 – Bowman Owen, residing at Balsam Lake, Turnwood, invented a machine that would notify the owner of an approaching wagon. By placing a wire across the road when the horse and wagon rode over the wire it rang a bell in the house. The machine really worked as one morning at 5 a.m. a man arrived unannounced and was surprised to see Mr. Owen. It was several years later that the garage applied this system in their garages.

Mr. Owen was born at Balsam Lake. He later learned to cut ice by hand with a long hand saw. He invented a gasoline powered ice saw. He removed the rear wheel from a Harley Davidson motorcycle and put a big circle saw there. He made a guide to regulate the depth of the cut and he had guards for the width of the cut. Neither the road bell nor the gasoline powered ice saw were ever patented. They are at the museum in Sussex. New Jersey.

Mr. Owen also invented a motor powered sled. It had 3 runners with a small motor in it and a propeller. It was used to ride on the frozen lakes. Later on, the snowmobile was invented, built from the same idea.

1904 – One hundred and fifty goats have died since they were brought from Silver City, New Mexico. They were brought to Mr. Ward’s ranch.

1908 – Representatives of the Western Sullivan Telephone Co. were in Livingston Manor to run a phone line from Youngsville to Manor by way of Sand Pond and Shandelee.

1908 – A total of $42.00 was paid to 14 different people who provided water through the Town of Rockland.

1909 – Eugene Bouton was named Truant Officer. The salary of the town board members was fixed in October 1912 at $2.00 per day for each day of service.

  Intensive cold was reported. temperatures of minus 30 degrees gripped the area for 2 nights. William Donaghy. the camp ranger, reported that some of the campers were taken to the Willowemoc Motel. Both men and boys suffered from frost bite.

1984 There was an article written in the Middletown Record about Salle Elias Billings Rogers. Mr. Rogers was an old hermit. He lived on Grant Mountain (5 miles from Livingston Manor) for 2 1 years. Mr. Rogers was a tough-skinned, tobacco chewing. grizzled bearded. wirey man. He lived alone in a one room hut. There was kerosene lights, a wood burning stove used for cooking and heating. The floor in the hut was made of dirt. There were two dogs and two cats. The cats wore bibs when they were fed. Mr. Rogers had a garden and raised chickens for eggs. Every week someone would bring him supplies. There was never a lack of meat as he ate his chickens, possum, ground hogs. skunk, squirrels, rabbit, deer. and other wild animals. He enjoyed hunting. fishing. and trapping. Mr. Rogers hadn’t traveled to Livingston Manor in 30 years.

What’s In A Name

Early settlement at the Beaverkill Valley began at Hardenburgh. Turnwood and Shin Creek.

The name Hardenburgh was named after Johan nes Hardenburgh.

Turnwood derived its name, from a small hand turning mill situated near the Covered Bridge.

Shin Creek on the Beaverkill was later called Lew Beach to avoid confusion with another community with the same name.

Beaverkill was named after the beavers that were in abundance there.

DeBruce is named after an early land owner, Elias Desbroses, who also had a street in New York City named after him.

Morsston was named after Medad T. Morss who had a large tannery there.

Livingston Manor, Roscoe and Parksville were isolated communities from the rest of the County until the O&W Railroad arrived.

Parksville at one time was part of the Town of Rockland and was settled by the families of

Sherwoods, Stewarts and Spragues. Parksville was later annexed to the Town of Liberty. Article taken from July 29, 1939 edition of the Livingston Manor Times.

On October 5. 1916. the Town of Rockland went dry for the first time, due to the prohibition. Hotels in the area affected were: Arlington Hotel, Sherwood House, Baldwin Hotel, West End Hotel and the Livingston House. This information taken from the Ensign newspaper of October, 1916.

Residents of Note

Irving Berlin, the famous songwriter, had an estate

July 4, 1910 John Tempel and Eric Schleiermacher were building hotels in the area.

1911 A petition was circulated to have a Sunday train on the O&W.

Oct. 13, 1910 A.P. DuBois offered an $8.00 fountain pen for free if someone could answer the following question: Why is the Crocker Self-Filling Fountain Pen more desirable than the old style pen that fills with a medicine dropper?

1914 A franchise was granted to the Livingston Manor Electric Co. to install and operate an electric light plant.

1913 S.C. Litts sold his bottling works in Livingston Manor, Jacktown Hill. to Rartley Florschitz.

1917 The Manor basketball team defeated Liberty 18-14. The players were L. Fitzgerald. I. Davidson. E. Hawver, E. Homer and H. Friedman.

1919 The Livingston Manor Light Co. has purchased the right to use the lines of the Callicoon Independent Electric Co. It will operate the Callicoon plant until a line is built from Callicoon through the Beechwoods and Jeffersonville during the spring. After the line is built to connect Jeffersonville with the Manor lines, all power will be supplied from the Manor.

In the early days, Mrs. Diefernbach and Daisy Sprague took care of all babies that were delivered at home.

Before the electric light, there wasn’t much to do in the line of entertainment. Families made fudge, popcorn and ate apples. Many of the children learned to play the fiddle, organ and guitar. There was a family closeness being together all the time.

1920 Mabel Voorhess was the Town Clerk. She was authorized to pay a $2.00 bounty to anyone bringing in a dead fox. She couldn’t stand the sight of those poor dead animals. It was arranged that the fox  was left outside. A punch was given to the person who brought in the fox to put a hole in the animals ear. It was the law and the only way the enforcer had of  showing payment. The kids made a “racket” from the fox and the hole punch. They would pat the fox, return the punch, collect the money and the fox would be passed on to another kid.

1928 The Sullivan Telephone Co. has an option to buy the Livingston Manor Telephone Co. and will add to its already valuable telephone system. The Manor Co. has 500 miles of wire and 350 telephone stations and a central office.

July 1939 Archie Lodbell of Livingston Manor has retained the New York State Wood Chopping Championship at a competition in Ithaca. He set a new record of 37.4 seconds in sawing a 10 inch beech log.

Feb. 28, 1963 Over 1200 Explorer Scouts and their leaders from Nassau County spent three days (Washington’s Birthday) at Onteora Boy Scout Camp.

in Lew Beach located on Shin Creek. This had been the former Wilbur Voorhees home. At some point Mr. Voorhees had a grist mill on this property. The Berlin cottage sits on the former site of the grist mill. The mill had been powered by water. The mill also had a saw mill attached and butter tubs and butter trays were made. Shin Creek was known as tray valley because of the many mills there.

Harry and Dot Ackerley were caretakers for the Berlin Family for 42 years. Mr. Ackerley was also the chauffer for Mr. Berlin.

Lazare and Charlotte Kaplan lived in Lew Beach. They maintained a large herd of Holsteins. Mr. Kaplan was a diamond cutter by trade and he was world famous for cutting the “Jonker Dia mond.”

When Mrs. Kaplan died in 1973, the Kaplan Foundation was established by Mr. Kaplan and sons. Leo and George. to honor their mother and wife. The first award from the fund totaled $13,000.00 and was given to the graduates of the Livingston Manor Central School, 1973-74.

The fund now includes the following schools:

Roscoe, Callicoon. Liberty. and Jeffersonville-Youngsville Central School. Capital today is ($1,600,000). The graduating class of 1990-91 will receive 100 grants to students of the 4 schools.

The first newspaper of record was the Willowemoc Valley Times. The editors of the papers could have been Eli Starr or Dewey Boise. William E. Ensign from Hancock bought the paper in 1893 and changed the name to “The Ensign”. In 1906 the name of the paper was changed to the Livingston Manor Times. In 1916 the paper was sold to T. Harold Forbes. The paper again exchanged owners in 1919 when William J. White purchased same. In 1937 the paper was called “Manor Publishing Co.”, 1932-37 it was under the guidance of Mabel Voorhees.

On July 4, 1939. Milton M. Kutcher was the editor and he produced an eight page newspaper. typed in red and blue colors to advertise the big 4th of July doings. This was the first time in the County that colors were used in a newspaper. This was a supplement to the original 8 pages, making the paper 16 pages in all. Over 7.000 copies were mailed out to the surrounding areas.

  Excursion trains ran to the Manor. Hancock defeated the Manor team 2-0 in baseball. The Manor people rejoiced to see a local horse named “Cricket” win the horse race. The horse was owned by Wall Davis and beat Elmer Winner of Liberty. A carnival. dance and fireworks made the event a huge success.

In later years. the paper was owned by H. Battey.

Buildings of the Late 1800’s

In the period of 1880-1890, William H. McGrath and Monroe Wright were active in local and county affairs. They both were former teachers who turned to politics. It was due to their public appearances throughout the County that Livingston Manor became known in the political circles.

On the north easterly side of Main Street, Dawson Foundry was first built in 1893. It was later the location for the Sturdevant’s Garage.

West of Dawsons was a small building housing the Town Clerk’s Office. The office was held by “Pussey” Terwilliger. Eugene H. Bouton had his law office on the other side of the building. They were both business partners.

Between Bouton and the Theater Building there were no buildings until the early 1900’s.

Near the iron bridge. Daniel Radigan built the “Brick Hotel” in 1902. Later a large addition was added along side the hotel. It contained a dance hall upstairs and a bowling alley downstairs. This hotel was situated at what is now the entrance to Fulton’s Pavilion.

The Fontana House and the Opera House was next to the bowling alley building. The new theater was built in 1920.

Across the street was the Hoos Corner. Johnston and Johnston Store was formerly Fitzgerald. The building was added to in 1920, and a meat market ran by Ohlker and Johnston.

A general store was located where James Curry has his insurance office. The building was vacant in 1904.

Yonker and the harness and leather shop was built in 1894.

The Siegel’s building. the oldest building on Main Street, was alongside Ostrum’s blacksmith shop. The Ostrom home was located where Egan’s Bar is now.

In 1896, Tom and Jess Nield built their home. It was at the site of the present Farrell Insurance office (now Misner Agency).

The Baird property is now the location for the Norstar Bank. David T. Fitzgerald’s home is the site of Peck’s parking lot. The Cyrus Grey home had a pretty iron fence built around it. It is now the Post Office building.

Samuel Spriggs (the grandfather of Harold Spriggs) owned the next home. Eli Starr, then later Boom Schwartz’ home. is now the location for the Wildlife Gift Shop. At one time the West End Hotel was at this site.

The present Ultra Mart Station was built in 1924 by Sherwood and Dehoim.

From the iron bridge going towards Shandelee the first building was owned by Sam Cohn in 1889. The Arlington Hotel was built around 1889. The Louis DuBois House (now the 1886 Manor House) was built in 1887. The Sherwood Hotel was erected in 1887. It was built by J.W. Davis, later to be sold to Cyrus Mott and Then to S.H. Sherwood.

On the corner was the Reynolds building (now the Library) constructed in 191 2. by G.F. Newman. Mr. Reynolds purchased the building in 1914.

The old fire house was ‘built in 1889. It was previously the law office of J.M. Maybe who vacated the building upon the purchase by the firemen.

The Masonic Hall building was built in the late 1880’s. It was the office for the Ensign newspaper.

The remaining buildings were owned by P.H. Woolsey. for their sash and blind factory and lumber mill.

The Lawrence McGrath residence was the last house by the little bridge over the Cattail Brook.

The first house across the street from the bridge coming back down Main Street was owned by J.G. Stevens. It was a hardware store and livery stable in the back. The old telephone office was upstairs. A huge building belonged to A.P. Dubois. It was a general store. Anyone wishing to could purchase a spool of thread, furniture and wood to build your home. The next building was owned by Al Mauers and was a butcher shop. There was a residence next with a large yard in the back. It was on the corner of Pleasant St. and Main Street.

People and Places

In the early 1900’s, Livingston Manor’s Main Street was nothing but a large mud puddle.

When the telephone was first started, it would take two hours to place a call.

There were no banks in town and all the merchants charged 10 cents to cash a check.

Dr. DeKay passed away in 1911. Dr. Davis replaced the doctor.

Charles Newman was an active fireman, and later became chief of the Fire Department. He and his father ran the “Brick Hotel”, and later he established the Antlers.

P.  Johnston came here in 1914 from Pittsburgh, Pa. He owned a large tract of timber land in Turnwood and he had a sawmill. He formed the Livingston Manor Cadets.

William Hartig had a farm. He had a son, Fred Hartig. who later founded the H.L. Sprague Co. and later established the F.W. Hartig Fuel and Material Co.

The Leonard Quinn home was built by a young widow named Mary Bardenstein. She had three daughters.

Alex Voorhees was Superintendent of Highways for forty years. Later he became the Supervisor of the Town of Rockland from 1919-1921.

William Smith came to Livingston Manor (Purvis) in 1879. He worked for A.P. Dubois Co. The president appointed him Post Master; the first appointment in the area (1898-1914). Later he was cashier for the Livingston Manor Bank. He died in 1920.

Livingston Manor was known for its “bluestone.” There were many quarries in the area. The stone was sent to New York City and many other cities.

The first sign of spring was the running of the sap. Many area farmers had their own sap houses where maple syrup and sugar candy was made. The hard maple trees were tapped in the early spring.

Burr Sherwood, son of John Fanton Sherwood. built a factory that manufactured bowling pins. This was another large business on River Street. The business was managed by Leonard “Pete” Sherwood.

They made bowling pins from hard maple trees. The company would purchase large tracts of timber lots and hire their own log cutters. The timber was cut and then drawn to the mill. Farmers and other loggers also supplied the mill with logs. Many times the logs were shipped by flat cars on the O&W for the mill. Tom Quick and Mr. Sherwood had an arrangement whereas all the hard maple he cut would go to Sherwood’s Mill and he would keep the other timber. Mr. Quick owned the mill which is now the Rocky Vitale sawmill.

In later years. Sherwood’s built a dry kiln to dry the green blocks of bowling pins. After the pins were dried they were sent to the finishing room. They were sanded. graded and finish was put on them. The mill would produce 2.100 bowling pins per day. After the paint was dried, the pins were weighed and placed in cardboard boxes for shipment to the many bowling alleys. Brunswick Co. had a contract with Sherwood’s Mill. The factory closed when plastic coated pins were placed in bowling alleys.

In the early 1900’s “Koons Brothers” had a sawmill at Grooville. The mill sawed lumber and made long squares for the manufacturing of table legs. The square blocks of wood were turned and then sanded, put into bundles of four. They were then made into different patterns and graded at the mill. The particular mill made 1,200 table legs a day. With the loggers, mill workers and people drawing the wood, these companies employed 40 to 50 people. The mill burned October 12, 1916.

Rocky Vitale’s mill produces 15,000 board feet of lumber per day. The hardwood logs are purchased  from local independent loggers and an average of 60.000 board feet is bought.

The logs are debarked prior to being processed into lumber. It is shipped to furniture manufacturers and exporters all over the northeast. The mill employs 12 people and is managed by Rocky Sr. and Jr. The compnay has three tractor trailers used to deliver the rough cut, green lumber. The bark is ground into landscaping mulch and shipped all over New York State, New Jersey and Connecticut. The wood chips are sent to Proctor and Gamble, to be used in various paper products. The saw dust is used by local farmers.

Posted in History | Tagged | 37 Comments

SOCKDOLAGER – A Tale of Davey Crockett

———————————————————————–

     A “sockdolager” is a knock-down blow. This is a newspaper reporter’s captivating story of his unforgettable encounter with the old “Bear Hunter” from Tennessee.

     From The Life of Colonel David Crockett, by Edward S. Ellis  (Philadelphia: Porter & Coates, 1884)

 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

         CROCKETT was then the lion of Washington. I was a great admirer of his character, and, having several friends who were intimate with him, I found no difficulty in making his acquaintance. I was fascinated with him, and he seemed to take a fancy to me.

      I was one day in the lobby of the House of Representatives when a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support — rather, as I thought, because it afforded the speakers a fine opportunity for display than from the necessity of convincing anybody, for it seemed to me that everybody favored it. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose. Everybody expected, of course, that he was going to make one of his characteristic speeches in support of the bill. He commenced:

      “Mr. Speaker — I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him. This government can owe no debts but for services rendered, and at a stipulated price. If it is a debt, how much is it? Has it been audited, and the amount due ascertained? If it is a debt, this is not the place to present it for payment, or to have its merits examined. If it is a debt, we owe more than we can ever hope to pay, for we owe the widow of every soldier who fought in the War of 1812 precisely the same amount. There is a woman in my neighborhood, the widow of as gallant a man as ever shouldered a musket. He fell in battle. She is as good in every respect as this lady, and is as poor. She is earning her daily bread by her daily labor; but if I were to introduce a bill to appropriate five or ten thousand dollars for her benefit, I should be laughed at, and my bill would not get five votes in this House. There are thousands of widows in the country just such as the one I have spoken of, but we never hear of any of these large debts to them. Sir, this is no debt. The government did not owe it to the deceased when he was alive; it could not contract it after he died. I do not wish to be rude, but I must be plain. Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much of our own money as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week’s pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks.”

      He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.

      Like many other young men, and old ones, too, for that matter, who had not thought upon the subject, I desired the passage of the bill, and felt outraged at its defeat. I determined that I would persuade my friend Crockett to move a reconsideration the next day.

      Previous engagements preventing me from seeing Crockett that night, I went early to his room the next morning and found him engaged in addressing and franking letters, a large pile of which lay upon his table.

      I broke in upon him rather abruptly, by asking him what devil had possessed him to make that speech and defeat that bill yesterday. Without turning his head or looking up from his work, he replied:

      “You see that I am very busy now; take a seat and cool yourself. I will be through in a few minutes, and then I will tell you all about it.”

      He continued his employment for about ten minutes, and when he had finished he turned to me and said:

      “Now, sir, I will answer your question. But thereby hangs a tale, and one of considerable length, to which you will have to listen.”

      I listened, and this is the tale which I heard:

 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

      SEVERAL YEARS AGO I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was

attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large

fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. When we got there, I went to work, and I never worked as hard in my life as I did there for several hours. But, in spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made homeless, and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them, and everybody else seemed to feel the same way.

      The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done. I said everybody felt as I did. That was not quite so; for, though they perhaps sympathized as deeply with the sufferers as I did, there were a few of the members who did not think we had the right to indulge our sympathy or excite our charity at the expense of anybody but ourselves. They opposed the bill, and upon its passage demanded the yeas and nays. There were not enough of them to sustain the call, but many of us wanted our names to appear in favor of what we considered a praiseworthy measure, and we voted with them to sustain it. So the yeas and nays were recorded, and my name appeared on the journals in favor of the bill.

      The next summer, when it began to be time to think about the election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up, and I thought it was best to let the boys know that I had not forgot them, and that going to Congress had not made me too proud to go to see them.

      So I put a couple of shirts and a few twists of tobacco into my saddlebags, and put out. I had been out about a week and had found things going very smoothly, when, riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly, and was about turning his horse for another furrow when I said to him: “Don’t be in such a hurry, my friend; I want to have a little talk with you, and get better acquainted.”

      He replied: “I am very busy, and have but little time to talk, but if it does not take too long, I will listen to what you have to say.”

      I began: “Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and –”

      “‘Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.’

      This was a sockdolager… I begged him to tell me what was the matter.

      “Well, Colonel, it is hardly worthwhile to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the Constitution to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest. But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot verlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is.”

      “I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional question.”

      “No, Colonel, there’s no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?”

      “Certainly it is, and I thought that was the last vote which anybody in the world would have found fault with.”

      “Well, Colonel, where do you find in the Constitution any authority to give away the public money in charity?”

      Here was another sockdolager; for, when I began to think about it, I could not remember a thing in the Constitution that authorized it. I found I must take another tack, so I said:

      “Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did.”

      “It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the onstitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week’s pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. The Congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution.”

      I have given you an imperfect account of what he said. Long before he was through, I was convinced that I had done wrong. He wound up by saying:

      “So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you.”

      I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go talking, he would set others to talking, and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:

      “Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it full. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said there at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot.”

      He laughingly replied:

      “Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You say that you are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and, perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way.”

      “If I don’t,” said I, “I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say, I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of the people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it.”

      “No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have

plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. This is Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you.”

      “Well, I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-bye. I must know your name.”

      “My name is Bunce.”

      “Not Horatio Bunce?”

      “Yes.”

      “Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you have seen me; but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend. You must let me shake your hand before I go.”

      We shook hands and parted.

      It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence and incorruptible integrity, and for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.

      At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before.

      Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight, talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before.

      I have told you Mr. Bunce converted me politically. He came nearer converting me religiously than I had ever been before. He did not make a very good Christian of me, as you know; but he has wrought upon my mind a conviction of the truth of Christianity, and upon my feelings a reverence for its purifying and elevating power such as I had never felt before.

      I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him — no, that is not the word — I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if everyone who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.

      But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue, and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted — at least, they all knew me.

      In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying:

      “Fellow citizens — I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice, or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only.”

      I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation as I have told it to you, and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:

      “And now, fellow citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.

      “It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit of it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so.”

      He came upon the stand and said:

      “Fellow citizens — It affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today.”

      He went down, and there went up from the crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.

      I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the honors I have received and all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress.

            “NOW, SIR,” concluded Crockett, “you know why I made that speech yesterday. I have had several thousand copies of it printed and was directing them to my constituents when you came in.

      “There is one thing now to which I will call your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a week’s pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men — men who think nothing of spending a week’s pay, or a dozen of them for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased – – a debt which could not be paid by money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $10,000, when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it.”

  ———————————————————————–

The above story in the public domain can be further referenced through

Ordway Press Limited ordway@ionet.net

Copyright 1996 Ordway Press Limited

Posted in Politics | Leave a comment