Author: Peter

by

Why Do Republicans Fear “Critical Race Theory”?


Over the last 6-plus years, the Republican Party has attacked this idea. Their political ads make out the idea of teaching this idea in our public schools as something which should horrify the average American.

What is “Critical Race Theory”? It is the idea that there exists structural racism in society, first when it was introduced by 3 Colombia University law professors in the early 1980s, and today. What is “structural racism”? It is the fact of racist tendencies that have been passed down for many generations and is too widely accepted in today’s society. (https://news.columbia.edu/news/what-critical-race-theory-and-why-everyone-talking-about-it-0)

I was getting my master’s degree in U.S. History from Harvard University when this idea was presented, although I did not hear of it at the time. In one course that I took, one of our required readings was a book named A Thick Interpretation of Culture by Clifford Geertz. Geertz explained why using a simple cause/effect idea of telling history to be undesirable. That is, in one of his examples, he used the Battle of Waterloo where Lord Wellington defeated the far superior force of Napolean. He stated that by simply assigning the victory to Wellington’s having gained the literal high ground is far from enough to explain the battle. He showed that Napoleon’s tired troops, who had marched many hundreds of miles, his lack of good logistics, the weather, the temperament of troops, and other things must be brought to light to give a full view of the battle.

In “critical race theory,” we are charged with looking at a broad view of racism, not only as it exists in America today, but its history going all the back to 1865 when the Civil War ended. For nearly a century, Jim Crow laws of the south used the idea of “separate but equal” as being an acceptable response to race. Today we know, or should know, that such laws were used to manage white supremacy as the norm. Northern states were guilty as well but in different ways. In the north, as in the south, people of color were routinely pushed aside in favor of white people, even when the person of color was the better choice. In the area in which I grew up, the Merrimack Valley of Massachusetts, the newest immigrants, who were also people of color, were of Hispanic heritage, particularly of Puerto Rico at first and then from the Dominican Republic. These people were looked upon as being lazy and inherently violent. Of course, these things were not true, then or now. But when that is how you are “educated,” that is what you come to believe.

Critical Race Theory is an attempt to look at the whole person of color, not just his race, but his entire heritage which includes the forces which worked against these people over the decades. It asks the question, “Why is the crime rate higher in neighborhoods of color than in white neighborhoods?” But it would force the question of how such neighborhoods, if the statement is in fact true, came to be that way.

Sadly, the Republican party, these days, is embracing white nationalist ideas and ideals. These are things which can not only be identified as coming part-and-parcel from the Trump administration, but from Republican governors of states bordering Mexico. When Trump decried the refugees from Central America as being “rapists, drug dealers and murderers,” is his simply saying out loud what many of the more conservative Republicans have thought for many decades.

Were the greatest part of the Republican Party to embrace “Critical Race Theory” would mean alienating an unfortunately large portion of voting Americans. They fear losing power more than doing the right thing. They would rather embrace the institutional racism which exits today in America rather than decrying it and working towards a more unified, accepting America.

One last thing, on the current state of immigration. Today, both legal and illegal immigration is about 1 million per year from all countries. Those coming over the border, both legally and illegally, to the states that border Mexico, are about 200,000 per year. In 1910 there were about 1.12 million immigrants to the U.S., most of whom came through the ports of Boston, New York and Baltimore, a large portion of whom settled within 50 miles of those ports. Today this a large part of our present Italian, Polish and Russian Jewish population. Sadly, our national resentment towards new immigrants still exists today towards immigrants, not only from Hispanic regions, but also those coming from India and Asia. In the 1900 to 1920 era, our largely Republican northeastern states acted towards immigrants as our southern Republicans do today. And that, sadly, defines too many Republicans and is why Critical Race Theory is so important.

Teaching critical race theory in our public schools is a necessity if we are ever to ever embrace our entire society with equity and understanding. We are a nation which was founded on the idea of “all men are created equal” and we are now challenged to ensure that. It is only through an honest education, starting in our elementary schools and continuing forward, that we will become closer to a nation of our ideals rather than a nation of shortcomings.

by

New England Passenger Rail Transportation


I recent saw and article exhorting the idea of running an overnight passenger train from Boston to Montreal via Portland Maine and then up through Berlin NH. Nice idea but it will not go anywhere, I believe for two reasons. First, I do not think there is enough enroute population to support such a train and the train itself would rely almost entirely on people from greater Boston and Portland Maine for its passengers to Montreal. Not likely. Next, an overnight train means that it will be traveling between Portland and Montreal between midnight and 6AM, not a good time to gain passengers en-route.

But this idea did prompt me to think about how to go about providing a might higher intercity rail transportation route than now exists. That all starts with Boston, the largest city in New England. At present it sports a large number of trains southbound through Rhode Island and Connecticut to New York City. The route is very popular and, of course, has lots of passengers.

The first problem is with Boston itself. It has two stub-end terminals. That means North and South stations are a terminus with no possibility of through trains. In 1991, prior to the beginning of the “Big Dig,” there was a lot of support for running a tunnel next to the sunken highway to provide a connection between the two stations. For reason, that are purely political and lacking any reasonable thinking, the plan was scuttled with a myriad of illogical explanations. As someone who was working in transportation and had been at a transportation seminar given by the late Paul Tsongas at the University of New Hampshire, civil engineers who were fully involved with the “Big Dig” explained how easy and inexpensive the plan was. And so here we are, 30 years later, and no closer to a solution.

Back in the 1940s, the solution between the Maine Central, the Boston and Maine, and the New Haven railroad was to run trains from Portland and points northward south through Worcester and then to Norwich and onward to New York and Washington.

Today, the state of Massachusetts and the MBTA, are trying to go it alone and increase east-west rail service with no eye towards any north-south service. While that is laudable, it falls far short of what is truly needed.

First, the six New England states needs to come together in a passenger rail consortium. In this manner, plans for passenger rail in all directions and involving all the states could be addressed. For instance, one of the easiest ways to get some much-needed inter-city rail, AMTRAK must be involved. The states themselves are going to have to pick up a large portion of the cost for upgrading the existing rail, and in some cases, relaying rail on long abandoned right-of-way.

First, the MBTA needs to stay out of the intercity rail service save that within Massachusetts and the long-established route to Providence. Most people in southern New Hampshire are looking to the MBTA to provide rail service to Nashua and Manchester with the possibility of Concord being included. The state would be better served by AMTRAK much in the way eastern New Hampshire and the cities of Exeter, Durham and Dover are now. This has become a very popular route. The same should work in going to Manchester. But in the longer term, this could also open up the possibility of rehabilitating the rail route north of Concord all the way to White River Jct. and then provide service to Montreal, a long tried and true route in our now distant past.

At this point, it is proper to suggest that the MBTA be dropped as a provider of much increased service to Springfield and Pittsfield and that AMTRAK be the entity of choice, of course with state assistance. This might also open up the possibility of extending such service to Albany and beyond. Amtrak does provide a number of trains out to Buffalo, in addition the Lake Shore Limited which starts in Boston, there are three other trains passing through Albany on their way to Buffalo.

In the end, the only way any of this happens, or happens to any degree, is if all the New England States take part.

by

Greenville North Carolina


This is a bit of a departure from most of my online rants. If you do not live in North Carolina, the chances of your ever hear of Greenville diminish quickly with distance. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Greenville’s population stands at 88,728. Also, according to thecentersquare.com, Greenville’s poverty level stands at 24.3%, highest in the state. And yet, were you to drive the streets to the south and east of the city’s center, you would be impressed by how new everything is and how vibrant this city is. And so, what is going on?

I live in Ayden NC which sits about 10 miles to the south of Greenville and has a population of about 5200, a farming community to be sure. Other towns surrounding Greenville are Winterville, Farmville and Bethel. With the exception of Winterville, to drive to any of those other communities, you will be driving past corn fields, cotton fields and tobacco fields.

For Greenville itself, the largest employer is Vidant heath which owns the city’s only hospital and many clinics. Next is the Pitt County school system. In other words, there is no industry in this city. At one time, Greenville was a center of the textile industry in North Carolina. Not the largest by any means but easily the area’s largest employer. But in the 1950s and 60s, like most of America, those jobs dried up and the mills closed down as the textile industry shifted to Asia.

But once you leave Greenville you are going to drive at least 1/2 hour before you reach another city of any appreciable size. This part of North Carolina is most definitely rural.

Then why would my wife and I relocate from the Boston environs to this area? Well first, we wanted to get away from New England winters. I am getting up there in years and shoveling snow was becoming too difficult. And I also found that to have my driveway plowed would cost me about $200 per storm! I was not willing to pay that. Also, in the Boston area we were paying $2300 per month for an apartment rental whereas here we own a home with a monthly mortgage payment of $1200. That was a no-brainer! Last winter Greenville received about 4 inches of snow early one Saturday morning and the city quite literally shut down for the next 2 days! We had to laugh.

While we are still trying to find a really good Italian restaurant, we have added a fantastic North Carolina Barbeque restaurant, the Starlight Inn here in Ayden. We like this place not only because it came in 2nd place in an all–North Carolina competition but because we just really like it. We also found a Jamaican restaurant, a hole-in-the-wall place near the town of Snow Hill, about 1/2 hour from us.

Getting the beach from here is about 1-3/4-to-2-hour trip. But once you get there, it is glorious! Not the outer banks, but still a southern continuation of the outer banks which suits us just fine.

One thing you notice in the Greenville area is all the new houses being built. These homes are being bought almost as quickly as they are built. I have known of houses in the process of being built that were already sold! To me, this says that Greenville and its environs, is an area on the rise. The cost of living relative to the northeast is much lower with certain exceptions but those are things like gasoline and other commodities where pricing is on a national level rather than a regional or local one.

Whatever Greenville lacks in urban attraction is made up for by a trip to the Raleigh and Durham area which are about 90 minutes away. Greenville is a very attractive place for young people from an affordability view and the same is true for retirees. The city is also prime for the location of new large industry, something I expect will happen in the near future. Say what you like but Greenville is truly a good place to live.

by

Rise of Fascism in the United States?


At first blush the title would seem to greatly overreach the present political status in the United States. It may be a bit but when you look at the definition of fascism certain parts are an undeniable part America’s political makeup today. (Fascism: A philosophy or governmental system marked by stringent socioeconomic control, a strong central government usu. headed by a dictator, and often a belligerently nationalistic policy; Webster’s II New Riverside University Dictionary, 1988, Houghton Mifflin Co., p. 466). With slight modifications of that definition, we can arrive at the far right, and controlling, portion of the Republican Party today. From 2017 to 2020, in Donald Trump, we had a man who acted like a dictator, and, who like true fascists of the 20th Century, tried to invalidate a national election when it did not go his way. Fortunately, men and women of good conscience did not sign on to his rhetoric.

Right now, with a decidedly very conservative U.S. Supreme Court, activist judges are attempting to push their religious views upon the entire population of America. This thinly veiled chicanery has the conservative majority in the USSJC taking the almost unprecedented view of reversing precedent after precedent held in that very court with regard to Roe v. Wade. I, as someone who actually opposes abortion, find that overturning Roe is contrary to the interests of the American population at large. And what is the legal precedent for not overturning Roe? The second part of the First Amendment which states that the government shall make no law with regard to religion. This is a moral issue founded in our religious beliefs and not one based in historical law.

Fascism, at its core, tries to limit and/or restrict individual rights to self-expression and access to good medical care. Roe, quite simply, ordered that the right of a woman to medical care according to her conscience could not be infringed upon. This is the part that the SJC seems to be ignoring in favor of its own religious beliefs which, in the case of the two of the most recent appointees to the SJC are rooted in Roman Catholicism. It might also find its roots in the basic beliefs of Justice Samuel Alito as well, the writer of the likely SJC decision.

From a purely public view, only 35% of Americans are in favor of overturning Roe! And yet, because of this minority’s activism, almost half of all states will make abortion illegal with some making laws to criminalize a citizen of its state from getting an abortion in another state!

Next in line, most certainly, will be birth control, contraception. The line between the legalization of birth control and Roe is a mere 5 years! When I was attending Boston University in 1967, Bill Baird, a birth control activist, started to give a talk at Boston University about birth control. City of Boston police arrested him for just talking about it! That was where we were! Are we now heading back to that? Again, fascism, at its root, restricts free speech. Worse, it also dictates morality, and this is at the heart of what is going on right now in America.

I am someone who is against abortion, even though what I have just written might belie that. But, as a male, it is not a decision I have to make. What I view as morally wrong is not enough for me to visit my views upon those who see it differently. That is why I have always supported a woman’s right to choose. I have never been in favor of legislating morality, and this is most certainly what is happening in America today. It is a sad day for America if this minority opinion is forced upon the majority. It is what makes fascism work!

by

NATO and Ukraine


When last I wrote of this war, I was of the opinion that NATO would be forced to support Ukraine or watch it fall to Russia. I was wrong. And for the small bit, I am grateful. But I am not in the least satisfied with NATO’s response, and, as its leading member, the response of the United States.

What I have seen of Russia’s army is that it is not well trained and lacking in good command and control on the battlefield. Some have suggested that Ukraine could win this war. It cannot. At least not on its own. Russia has been through this before in Chechnya and Afghanistan. They won the former while losing the latter. But in both cases, Russian was willing to take on the battle for years. This we must remember.

I have found President Biden’s response has been slow and lacking. I voted for Biden and considering the state of the world today, it was a good choice. Still, he lacks decisiveness. He has bungled the request of Ukraine to get MIG-29 jets from Poland. Everyone in power was in fear of Putin, and it showed! The simple answer to transferring those jets was to allow Ukrainian pilots to fly them home. There are only a handful and flying below radar should be easy for experienced pilots which Ukraine does have!

In the past, the United States has had no problem with getting military advisors secreted into combat areas. The claim that Ukrainian military lack training in anti-ship weapons is true but getting them trained would have been easily accomplished in the opening days of the war.

That the United States, and President Biden, continues the refrain of not wanting to escalate the war by making Putin angry is beyond the pale. Putin has been increasingly escalating this war without incurring similar response from Ukraine. That he has Sabre rattled about nuclear weapons is something our military is ready with a response, and Putin knows this! He has called our bluff and we have succumbed.

NATO and the United States needs to act boldly. They need to come to terms with adding Ukraine to NATO. Putin knows this is on the agenda but has called the West’s bluff by stating he would consider such an action as an escalation! Really? And most recently he has said that if Ukraine agrees to never join NATO, he might be willing to end the war. Of course, he has also said that Ukraine must cede more territory to Russia.

It is now established that China is unwilling to come to the rescue of Russia with military aid. It does, however, supply humanitarian aid. While in Ukraine, Russia has not allowed for humanitarian aid anywhere in Ukraine.

With things as they are now, President Biden and NATO have allowed things to progress to a point where giving Ukraine proper aid is greatly reduced. But there is a way around this that was employed a long time ago, the United Nations. During the Korean War, the troops fighting North Korea were declared UN troops, though the uniforms were those of the nations involved. Why have we not tried, at least, to use this to combat Putin and put an end to the hostilities?

by

War In Europe?


I am calling upon my over 25 years of either being in the military and as a Federal Employee who worked closely with the U.S. Air Force. My active military service was entirely with the U.S. Army. When I first saw Russia invading Ukraine, I, like so many others, Putin included, felt this would be a short war with an ultimate Russian victory. It seems we underestimated the resolve of the Ukrainian people. It would also seem the Putin either has no sense of history or is ignorant of it. In 1940, the Soviet Union tried to invade Finland as it felt that country should naturally fall under Soviet control. They were wrong! In what is called “The Winter War,” the Finnish people initially defeated the Russian army which no one had expected. Finland only had what we today call a National Guard, no regular army troops. But as with Ukraine, the Soviet Union entirely underestimated the resolve of the Finns. Later, however, Russia did take over Finland.

I still think it unlikely that Ukraine will ultimately enjoy victory. The Russian army and its resources are just too vast. But one thing I have found surprising is the lack of command and control of the Russian forces. Command and control simply means how an army tactically attacks an enemy, First of all, Russia very poorly set up its logistics. That means how supplies are brought from its rear areas to its forward areas. This is an extremely important part of command and control. But it also shows how Russia has not allowed the ideas of modern warfare to exist within its military. That is, when I was in the military during the Soviet era, we knew that the Russian military was what is called “stove piped,” or that its military is ruled entirely from the very top straight down to its most elemental parts, the foot soldier. Soviet leadership did not allow for much in the way of command decision at the battalion level which in the American army is highly prized. This explains the sort of helter-skelter operation of the Russian military in Ukraine, the air forces do not talk to the army and the infantry does not talk to the artillery, etc.

This leads us to the situation presently in Ukraine. The city of Lviv has just endured its first attack by Russian missiles. Lviv is extremely close to the Polish border which we have all become acquainted with through news reports. But this also brings back the idea of command and control. Will the top Russian militarists know to stop at the Polish border lacking other information? Or will it simply continue onward until told to stop? Or is Putin already scheming to attack Poland and tell his people it was NATO’s aggression that forced his hand? No one knows the mind of Putin which is a scary thought. But our military, since the Korean Conflict, has made it a priority to “war game” with the idea of having a nearly fully formulated idea of how to proceed in the event of any military engagement. Although I have no first-hand knowledge of this, I suspect that NATO has been doing this as well.

That said, we are left with three basic possibilities of the Russian aggression. First, Russia defeats Ukraine and ceases its attacks. Second, Russia either invades Poland, which it dearly desires, or it invades the Baltic Countries, and a conventional war is started. The third, and scariest, is that Russia uses battlefield nuclear arms to succeed. That of course can easily lead to a nuclear war, something no one, including Russia wants. But this is where the sanity of Putin comes into play. Make no doubt about it, Putin’s office which is called a “Presidency,” is a convenient cover for the dictatorship he has evolved. Putin has for a long time acted unilaterally and has never had a fear of cutting off the heads, figuratively, of anyone who opposes him.

It is my belief that Putin is using Ukraine as a testing ground for what he truly wants, a return to the Soviet iron curtain countries of pre-1990. That would include Hungary, Romania, Poland, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia and other countries. Our best hope is that he realizes that his military is hardly prepared to take on such a heady task and will stop with Ukraine. But if he does engage NATO, I have every confidence that NATO will reign supreme in the end and that Putin will be arrested and brought to task, with his sycophants, to answer for the war crimes he has committed. But once again, the face of the world will greatly change.

by

Slavery in Massachusetts


Forward: I wrote this paper almost 40 years ago while I was a graduate student at Harvard. As I reread it, I thought how I could have done a better job. Yet, much, if not most, of the content is unknown to the public at large today. And so, I offer it as a view of Massachusetts, and really all of New England, prior to the Revolutionary war. What follows has been edited from the original where I have left out passages. Also, I have additional sources of my material which I will willingly give to any who ask.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The first positive proof we have of slavery coming to Massachusetts is in the log of the ship Desire. Lt. Davenport reported in a marginal note of the ship’s log that, “disbursed for the slaves, which, when they have earned it, hee is to repay it back againe.” (Williams, George W. History of the Negro Race in America 1619 – 1880, 1st ed., 2nd Vol., (New York: Arno Press and The New York Times, 1968) p. 175) In payment to Lt. Davenport the Colony of Massachusetts, at the charge of the General Court, ordered Lt. Davenport be paid the sum of 3 pounds 8 shillings. It would appear that not only were slaves delivered by Lt. Davenport but that the Government found the practice acceptable.

These slaves, as was true in all the colonies, were first introduced into individual families. From there they found their way into the community. There was never much use for slavery in Massachusetts and from the outset a slave’s chief occupation was more along the lines of a servant or indentured worker. According to Lorenzo Greene in his book, “The Negro in Colonial New England,” there are no records of slavery existing on the farms of Massachusetts. With the black people in the public’s midst, and having a penchant for law making, the famous “Body of Liberties” became the first statute establishing slavery in America. It stated: “It is ordered by this court, and the authority thereof; that there shall never be any bond slavery, villainage or captivity amongst us, unless it be lawful captives taken in just wars, as willingly sell themselves or are sold to us, and such shall have the liberties and Christain usage which the law of God established in Israel concerning such persons doth morally require; provided this exempts none from servitude, who shall be judged thereto by authority.” (Williams, George W., 1: 117) This law, as full of holes as appears, stood for the duration of slavery in the state and was not once changed. The interpretation of the law was, however, challenged.

Until the year 1644 slaves arrived in Massachusetts at a very slow pace and always from the West Indies, Barbados in particular. It was in that year that New England traders attempted a direct trade from Africa using Barbados as a weigh station. The Boston ships sailed directly to Africa to purchase slaves. From there they took the slaves to Barbados and exchanged them for sugar, salt, wine and tobacco. This practice, however, was short lived. Fearing confiscation of their cargo by the powerful Dutch and Royal English Trading Companies, the Massachusetts shippers were quick to abandon this particular form of trade. There were a few who continued but chose to get slaves from the eastern coast of Africa and Madagascar.

The “Body of Liberties” law was actually put to test when in 1678 a Sandwich man was brought to trial for attempting to sell 3 Pequod Indians. The court decided that since the Indians had done harm to the3 man’s property and the Pequods could not repay him, he had the right to sell them into slavery. (Washburn, Emory, Slavery As it Once Existed in Massachusetts, diss., The Lowell Institute, 1869, Boston: Press of John Wilson and Son, p. 15)

But an even more interesting case happened some ninety years later. In the case of James v. Lechmere involving the right of a master to hold slaves, Dr. Belknap, prosecutor for the colony, cited English law which stated, “. . . all persons born or residing in the Province to be as free as the King’s subjects in Great Britain; that by the laws of England, no man can be deprived of his liberty, but by the judgment of his peers;” (Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society, The Extinction of Slavery in Massachusetts, Boston: Little, Brown, and Co., 1858, p. 335)

The decision of the court went in favor of the Negro. This seems to have set a precedent; the government of Massachusetts would no longer tolerate slavery, even though a law protecting it still existed. The judgment spelled the beginning of the end of slavery in Massachusetts.

Although the Puritans of Massachusetts were able to accept the existence of slavery within their colony, it was never very popular. In 1680, slaves accounted for less than 200 of the total population and by 1700 there were but 400.

It is likely that economics played a large role in keeping down the total number of slaves. Massachusetts was by and large a colony of relatively small farms. There were no plantations as existed in the middle and southern colonies. Massachusetts was founded by merchants who fully expected to set up a lucrative trade with England. Massachusetts always prided itself on self-reliance since the two largest industries of the colony were fishing and ship building. It is easy to see how there was little use for slavery.

The slave in Massachusetts, and in most of Northern New England, enjoyed a dual status. He was subject to what few slave laws there were but was also accorded the rights to all the laws afforded free men. The slave law, of course, always took precedent.

In 1681 a Mr. Saffin was brought to court for smuggling slaves out of Rhode Island and into Massachusetts. He was found guilty and fined accordingly. Although slavery was legal, the courts looked upon this as a clear case of abduction of one man by another. The fine, however, was minimal in this case. Saffin openly continued in his occupation. Many of his letters to potential customers in the towns surrounding Boston still exist which attest to this fact.

Interestingly, many of the people who bought the slaves from Saffin in turn sold them to people in New Hampshire. Also, and curiously, Saffin was a judge in the Massachusetts colony.

There exists little information on what slaves did exist in the colony up to 1700. First consider the number of slaves present was always fewer than 400. Also, the fact that there were truly no unusual incidents, that we know of, surrounding any slave or the slave trade. This lack of facts can now be put in perspective. Consider for a minute how much trouble historians have gone through to gather technically correct information about the infamous witch trials of 1692. We still are admittedly missing many important features of this most famous event. Boyer and Nissenbaum in their book, Salem Possessed, attest to the great difficulty in gathering information on an event one would expect the be well-documented. Yet such is not the case. The effort to gather information about slavery, which is quite obscure for Massachusetts, is ever so much more difficult.

One fact which may help to explain this is that the Puritans were quick to accept the Negro into their churches without any special rules. In fact, in 1693, Cotton Mather wrote a paper called, Rules For the Society of Negroes. Of the nine rules he lays out in only one, rule number VII, does he even mention the Negro. In it he states that the Puritan community shall do good towards “Negro Servants.” He advised the black person that should he run away, he shall be punished but admonished the master not to be found at fault at the pain of being driven from the fold. The remaining eight rules could be easily applied to any Puritan, and probably were.

The slave always maintained the status of a second-class citizen. He was really never fully accepted as an equal, even by the righteous Puritans. He was never to be trusted and was frequently feared. Except that this fear was transmitted by some early documents, it is not clear why the Massachusetts colonists would fear the black man. Clearly there was little reason to be concerned about an insurrection.

The early 1700s brought on a radical change. The merchants of Massachusetts had had a long time to set up the triangle trade involving slaves. It was about this time that Massachusetts slavers started taking their cargo to the Southern Colonies. This could have been caused by the fact that the colony’s fathers put a 4-pound tariff, a considerable sum, on each slave coming into the port of Boston. Still, many slavers must have found a great profit in the trade as the slave population grew to 4,500 in 1755. (Green, Lorenzo Johnston, The Negro in Colonial New England, New York: Atheneum, 1968, p. 81)

By 1705, slave trade was so open in Boston that slave traders were not afraid to publish upcoming sales of slaves in the local newspapers. Gov. Dudley pointed out the reason slave prices were so reduced was that the slaves were the worst of the lot for Virginians and were not able to be sold there. But Dudley’s assertion was incorrect. The reason they were so much cheaper was because many of them had become fluent in English, were quick docile, and to some extent, well educated. Those facts were unacceptable to the Virginia plantation owner. But this was quite favorable to the New England buyer who went to a lady who needed a companion, a blacksmith who needed a helper, the shopkeeper who needed someone to cleanup and tend to his store while he was at lunch or other engagement. They were also more than adequate coachmen, maids, and other domestics which the wealthy of Boston needed.

A curiosity was that Massachusetts Puritan Law required that slaves be married in the usual manner referring to the white population. This is just one more example of the contradiction of Northern slavery to that of the South. The Puritan code and Massachusetts laws further required masters to apply all laws to his slaves once married as were applicable to himself. All slave marriages were duly recorded alongside white marriages. There was one oddity to this law, however. When a free “Negro” man married a slave, the master gained the services of the free man and all his children. Conversely, when a free woman married a black man, she served her husband’s master, and her children were born free. This law infuriated the slave owner who happened to have a free woman married to his male slave. He was required by law to care for her children but could not retain them for servitude once they reached the age of 14.

Once free, however, many former slaves found themselves in lucrative positions. Many former slaves had worked them same position as an apprentice. These former slaves continued their work, now as free men, as ship carpenters, anchor makers, rope makers, coopers, blacksmiths, printers, tailors, sawyers and house carpenters. (Green, Lorenzo, p. 113) These former slaves, unfit for southern slavery, did quite well in the north. In the long run they outstripped their southern counterparts by aiding a labor short market and bringing wealth into the community.

By the time of the Revolution, slavery, as it existed in al New England, was of the token variety, not hard to live under and easily gotten out of. To wit, it was not unusual for a slave to simply walk away from his master forever. He had little fear of being chased down. Even once discovered, a runaway slave had an excellent chance of being protected by the community in which he was living than being returned to his master. New Englanders carried this to an extreme, as infrequently a slave from a southern state made his way to Massachusetts. Once there, the citizens did all they could within their power to keep him. He was protected by English and Colony Law.

For the most part, slaves, once freed, were just as mistrusted and hated as their southern brethren. They were required to become members of the church and baptized.

The beginning of the end of slavery in Massachusetts happened when Elihu Coleman of Nantucket wrote a book against slavery. By 1765, the anti-slavery movement in Massachusetts had caught on. Pamphlets and newspapers were increasingly discussing the subject. In March 13, 1767, a bill was presented to the house of representatives of Massachusetts demanding that slavery as a practice was “unwarrantable and unlawful.” The bill was ultimately defeated but a compromise was agreed upon which stated that slavery had to be abolished. In 1773 another bill to abolish slavery was introduced but this time, passed.

By the time of the Revolution, few slaves still existed, and slave ships were no longer welcomed in Boston. Other New England colonies quickly followed suit.

by

Are We Headed For War?


George Santayana, “Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” This haunting quote should be front and center in the United States today. But is it? I fear it is not, and that may exist at the highest part of our government.

As someone who is trained in U.S. History, I have in my knowledge the events which lead up to the U.S. involvement in World War 2. At that time the U.S. was very much of an isolationist stance among the general public. Those wars already in progress were so far away that there was no way we could, or should, have gotten involved. And yet we did!

Now I am not predicting a Pearl Harbor type situation arising. Fortunately, at the Pentagon level of current situations, the generals and admirals are always plotting a response to all perceived threats to the United States’ security. Europe, of course, is a high priority in that. But only 10 years ago, Russia was already starting a warlike stance. Our complete failure to realize Russia’s imperialistic adventurism allow Russia almost unfettered access to the Crimea which today is under Russian occupation. Former President Obama has admitted to that.

But first I need to go back over 30 years of military history. As was the case after the end of World War 1, the U.S. has steadily decreased it numbers of military servicemen. At first this was a good move. There were many no longer necessary military bases. The Vietnam War had ended, and our troop strength was greater than deemed necessary. I was still a part of the military at that time and saw this firsthand. In the early 1980s, the U.S. Army National Guard was in horrible shape. Many units were still using Korean War equipment. But a plan was afoot in our government to change that. In the ensuing years, the national guard was modernized and brought up to active military standards. But then the politicians turned on the military and started reducing the number and size of military units. For example, the 26th Infantry Division was decommissioned and changed to a brigade strength. That sort of action happened across the U.S. The entire Army National Guard has 336,000 troops today, along with 189,000 reservists backing up 481,000 active-duty personnel. With the exception of the Marine Corps, there has been a decline of about 40% troops strength since 1990! This should be alarming to all.

President Biden has repeated stated that the United States will not send in any troops to help defend the Ukraine. Is this the truth or just political speak? I think it is political speak because as I mentioned before, the Pentagon has for decades formed plans for all possible events.

It has been suggested by analysts that this Wednesday, February 16, 2022, Russia will invade the Ukraine! Is that a foregone conclusion? No! But it would be foolish to not prepare for such an eventuality. And if Russia does indeed invade, what will the U.S. due other than its threatened economic threats? All told, the Russian military has over 2.9 million troops while the Ukraine has 1.1 million. But Russia spends far more per soldier than does the Ukraine. That quite simply explains the U.S. sending military supplies to the Ukraine. In the eventuality that Russia does indeed invade the Ukraine at any date, what will the U.S. response be when the Ukraine asks NATO countries for troops? Can the U.S. and its allies simply say “no”? I do not think so but if we do, both sides are open to “unintended consequences.”

One possible unintended consequence is for Russia to use its nuclear capability on Eastern Europe. Russia fully understands the possible result of this and that is something called “MAD,” or Mutually Assured Destruction. A very appropriate acronym. I seriously doubt in that unintended consequence but the next is very much more likely and that is NATO powers and Russia and its allies being drawn into a full-scale war. Russia’s most important ally is China. China has 2.8 million troops! As much as I think it unlikely that China would respond to a Russian request for troops, it is certain not out of the realm of possibilities. And to put that into perspective, all of NATO has 2.2 million troops. The U.S. Army has 10 active military divisions which totals about 200,000 troops. But the U.S. has only once sent in all of its divisions, World War 2.

The point of all this is how tenuous our military strength is and how we have planned our defensive posture in Europe. Without U.S. and NATO intervention, Russia could easily overwhelm the Ukraine. And if that happens, what of the other Eastern European Countries, former Soviet Satellites? Even though we have some troops in each of these countries, we are hardly in a condition to properly respond militarily to any Russian provocation.

Finally, in addition to reconsidering the size of our military, the U.S. public needs to consider the possibility that Russia, under Putin’s dictatorship, is considering regaining control of Eastern Europe. The Ukraine may be nothing more than a ploy to test NATO’s response to its adventurism.

by

Black History: Some Hidden Figures


This is black history month and we hear a lot about famous figures from our more recent past. Martin Luther King, of course, leads that, as he should. But what about others? Others from our more distant past. Some are people of whom you may have heard. Others, probably not. Still, they deserve the light of day on their achievements. Some were witness to history, others made history in passing, and still others, by their contributions. In an era of continued ignorance about this history, I thought I would bring some of those forgotten figures forward.

This first person is Phyllis Wheatley, shown below.

She was born about 1753 in West Africa before being brought to Massachusetts as a slave. The Wheatley family, however, and unlike in the south, saw to it that Phyllis was taught to read and write. By the age of 12 she was reading Greek and Latin classics in their native language. This was an accomplishment for those Harvard students but almost unheard for someone like Phyllis. Later, she wrote both prose and poetry with equal ease. Her poetry was published in 1773, Poems On Various Subjects. She was emancipated in 1773 and died December 5, 1784.

Crispus Attucks was born 1723 and died March 5, 1770. His death is most noteworthy.

Crispus Attucks

Very little is known about Attucks except that he was born into slavery in the town of Framingham, MA. to an African father and a native American mother from whom he got his name. Attucks was an escaped slave when he was in the town of Boston in 1770. On March 5, 1770, a squad of British soldiers fired upon a group of American civilians, a group that was unruly and throwing ice at the soldiers. When they opened fire, killing 7 Americans, Attucks was among those who fell.

Salem Poor

Portrait of Salem Poor

Salem Poor was born into slavery in Andover, MA in 1747 to John and Rebecca Poor, not his parents but his owners. In 1769 he had saved enough money to buy his freedom. In 1775, Poor enlisted in the 1st Andover Company of Minutemen and was only a few months later took part in the Battle of Bunker Hill. He became famous for his heroism at that battle and the fact that he killed the British Lieutenant Colonel James Abercrombie. The assembly to the Massachusetts General Court petitioned, “To the Honorable General Court of the Massachusetts Bay: The subscribers beg leave to report to your Honorable House (which we do in justice to the character of so brave a man), that, under our own observation, we declare that a negro man, called Salem Poor, of Col. Frye’s regiment, Capt. Ames’ company, in the late battle at Charlestown [Massachusetts, where the Battle of Bunker Hill took place], behaved like an experienced officer, as well as an excellent soldier. To set forth particulars of his conduct would be tedious. We would beg leave to say, in the person of this said negro, centers a brave and gallant soldier. The reward due to so great and distinguished a character, we submit to the Congress.”

Simply put, Poor was the first hero of the American Revolution.

The 54th Massachusetts Regiment

54th Massachusetts | Zinn Education Project

This is the one variation I make from individual because this was a group of individual black soldier who each in his own way was a hero of the Civil War.

On Jan. 26, 1863, the U.S. War Department authorized the governor of Massachusetts to recruit Black troops to the Union Army in the Civil War.

Photograph of Colonel Robert Gould Shaw

Robert Gould Shaw, shown above, at the tender age of 23 was named the regiment’s first commander. Shaw, chosen by Massachusetts Governor Andrew, was a Harvard Graduate and had experience in the Civil way, not the least of which came at the Battle of Antietam.

Once fully trained, the regiment was sent south and fought valiantly in numerous skirmishes until it was assigned as the lead regiment in the attack on Fort Wagner where half those soldiers, including Shaw, were killed.

Sergeant William H. Carney

Carney gained his fame as a member of the Massachusetts 54th.

Photograph of William Carney with Medal of Honor

Carney was a slave in Virginia before escaping via the Underground Railroad, to New Bedford Massachusetts. During the charge on Fort Wagner, Carney dropped his weapon and grabbed the colers during the charge and is reputed to have said, “Boys, I did but my duty; the dear old flag never touched the ground.” On May 23, 1900 President Theodore Roosevelt awarded Carney the Congressional Medal of Honor for his valor 37 years earlier, becoming the first African American to receive the honor.

Sojourner Truth

Sojourner Truth

Sojourner Truth was born in New York in 1797. She became as outspoken critic of slavery during the early 1800s. William Lloyd Garrison, the better-known abolitionist, along with Frederick Douglass, became a voice lost behind those of the men working the same cause. Truth, however, differentiated herself by not just talking about abolishing slavery but also about women’s rights, another cause she is seldom remembered for. She died November 1883.

Nannie Helen Burroughs

Nannie Helen Burroughs was born in Orange, Virginia May 2, 1879 to parents John and Jennie Burroughs. In 1907 Burroughs, supported by the National Baptist Convention, began planning the National Trade and Professional School for Women and Girls in Washington, D.C.  The school opened in 1909 with 26-year-old Burroughs as its first president.  Burroughs adopted the motto “We specialize in the wholly impossible” for the school, which taught courses on the high school and junior college level.  She led her small faculty in training students through a curriculum that emphasized both vocational and professional skills.  Her students were to become self-sufficient wage earners and “expert homemakers.” (blackpast.org) She is known for her early advancement of the idea of Black History. She was also an extremely effective teacher and then principal in an era where black teachers were few. She was an early and outspoken advocate of black women’s suffrage and education. She additionally was a suffragette in gaining the right to vote with the 19th Amendment.

The Tuskegee Airmen

My final addition is also a group of black American war heroes.

The Tuskegee Airmen

These men were a group of African Americans who learned to fly, became officers, and were assign to the 332 fighter group in Italy. Over the objection of the white bomber pilots, they were assigned escort duty. This meant that they flew with the bombers to protect them against marauding German fighters trying to shoot down the bombers. The though among the white pilots that the black pilots would not be up to the job and would lead to many deaths.

 The Tuskegee pilots shot down 409 German aircraft, destroyed 950 units of ground transportation and sank a destroyer with machine guns alone — a unique accomplishment. However, their most distinctive achievement was that not one friendly bomber was lost to enemy aircraft during 2000 escort missions. No other fighter group with nearly as many missions can make the same claim. Reflecting their superior performance, they were called “Black Birdmen” by the Germans, and given the nickname of “Black Redtail Angels” by the Americans because of the vivid red markings on their aircraft tails. (military.com)

Finally, although there is no actual record, there is a story that there was at least one African person on the Mayflower.

by

A Ukrainian / U.S. Involvement


At this writing, the Russian aggression along the Ukrainian border and its occupation of the Crimea poses a serious threat to world peace. What we have heard the most is about the United Nations and its responsibility to this situation. As we know, at present, the Ukraine is not a part of NATO. What does that mean? It means that the U.N. is relatively powerless to take action in the event of a Russian invasion, which, is probably imminent. But that does not mean countries cannot send troops in to help.

In the case of the United States, we need only to look at our wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria to see that. Each country involved in those efforts did so on an individual basis rather than part of a coalition such as NATO. Putin has put NATO front and center as being a “threat” to his national security. That is pure hogwash and the world knows that. Why does he do that then? Because he does not want the Ukraine to become a part of it and enjoy the benefit of a united security effort.

The U.S., contrary to anything Pres. Biden has said, can act unilaterally, as it did in Iraq, and send in ground troops. And there are two reasons we would do that. First, it is unlikely that Putin wants to war against U.S. troops. Despot that he is, he probably understands that long-term negative effects on Russia. And second, the U.S. can provide the personnel support of having troops trained in various defense systems that the Ukrainians presently lack.

The 8500 troops Biden has already alerted fall far short of the number needs for a strong show of force. Of the continental U.S. Army divisions are at least 6 which could supply men and arms to the Ukraine. The 8500 coming from the 82nd Air Borne can be bolsters by the 1st, 4th, 5th, 101st among others. Each division has a size of about 15,000 personnel. And additional support troops for many places in the U.S. could also be deployed, such as Army Engineers, ordinance specialists, air attack helicopter groups, etc.

But an even more importantly, the U.S. could then use airpower against the Russian invasion without ever sending a single Air Force unit into the Ukraine. We likely enjoy air superiority to Russia in this area as well. But the most important part of that superiority is the ability of our Air Force units to make strategic decisions at a much lower level than Russia. Russian military beaurocracy has always pushed decision making upwards where the U.S. has pushed in downward.

I do hope that the joint chiefs and their advisors have advised the President of their various scenarios, not doubt long formulated, for entering the Ukraine. And these would doubtless be many and varied responses to Russian aggression. We cannot at this juncture show any weakness when dealing with them and a strong show of force to Russia may well pre-empt an invasion idea they have, hopefully.