A Master Tactician

One night in 1821, in the Nebraska panhandle a meteor left a red streak across the sky. A few days later, an Oglala Sioux woman named Walks-As-She-Thinks, gave birth to a boy. The boy was named Red Cloud. He became a great warrior and political leader who spent his life changing tactics to protect his cultural heritage while adapting to a changing world.

Red Cloud

Red Cloud was about four years old when his father died of alcoholism. Alcohol was pushed on Indians by American and Canadian traders much like modern drug dealers push their contraband. The “water that makes men crazy” allowed white traders to create lopsided trade deals with drunken tribal members, while governments looked the other way. (Alcohol and illicit drugs remain the scourge of Indian Country.)

After his father’s death, Red Cloud and his mother joined an Oglala band led by Old Smoke, who was most likely his mother’s brother. Old Smoke raised Red Cloud, but a fatherless child in patriarchal Sioux society had very low social status. Red Cloud overcame his low social status by becoming the best at everything; the best hunter, rider, and fighter.

Red Cloud was about sixteen years old when he joined a raiding party and made his first kill, a Pawnee warrior. By the 1840’s, Red Cloud’s natural leadership inspired others to follow him, particularly after he developed new fighting tactics. He reduced the size of raiding parties to as few as ten warriors because they moved more quickly and stealthily and it meant more warriors remained in camp to protect their families.

During one raid his warriors recovered Sioux horses stolen by the Crow and repaid the Crow by stealing their horses. While a few warriors escorted the horses back to camp, Red Cloud and the others laid false trails that spooked their enemy into expecting an ambush. The final humiliation for the Crow was looking up at a ridgeline to see Red Cloud’s raiding party mooning them.

Many tribal members believed he had supernatural powers because he was never seriously injured in battle. Red Cloud’s tactics were so successful that warriors from other Sioux bands asked to join him.

Fort Laramie

But their traditional nomadic life of hunting and raiding enemies was under pressure as white settlers spread westward. Many tribes protested the invasion that ruined their hunting grounds and brought deadly diseases like measles and cholera. Their complaints were ignored by Indian agents at Ft. Laramie, Wyoming Territory. The Indian agents connived with the military to induce “Laramie Loafers”, Indians dependent on white trade goods and alcohol, to sign “treaties” that were then forced on the protesting tribes. Conflict was inevitable.

On August 19, 1854, a hungry Indian shot a skinny cow owned by settlers staying near Ft. Laramie. The Indians offered restitution, in accordance with their customs, which should have resolved the matter. But a drunkard named 2nd Lt. John Grattan refused the restitution, loaded up a couple of cannons and marched out to the Indian encampment. As tribal headmen approached, a soldier fired a shot killing one of them.

All hell broke loose. When the smoke cleared away, Grattan and all his troopers were dead. White newspapers falsely claimed the Indians fired first in a 19th century example of alternative facts. Grattan’s superiors kept silent to protect their careers; and white traders stayed mum to keep their government contracts to sell substandard goods to the Indians.

The Grattan Massacre (when the Indians won, it was a massacre; when whites won, it was a battle) illustrates a key policy failure of the U.S. government. Western forts were a dumping ground for incompetent failures. The officer corps consisted of angry, hard drinking idiots full of self-pity at their “demotion” and a belief in their racial superiority. That caused them to consistently underestimate their opponent over the next thirty years of constant war.

Following the Grattan Massacre, Red Cloud recognized that the tribes needed to work together to have any chance of winning. He was already attracting Sioux, Cheyenne, and Arapaho warriors who were willing to try his new tactic of simultaneously hitting small targets with overwhelming superiority. He tested his new tactics against troops from Ft. Bridge Station.

The fort was built to protect traffic on the Bozeman Trail, which sliced through the Powder River Valley, Red Cloud’s favorite hunting grounds. Wagon trains with settlers and freight wagons of supplies for the fort were constantly attacked. To stop the attacks, in July 1865, troops from Ft. Bridge Station sallied forth to teach the Indians a lesson.

In the first phase of the fight, Lt. Caspar Collins commanded 28 troopers who were to escort freight wagons. After they crossed the river and went beyond the firing range of the fort, they were attacked from two sides. A few soldiers tried to gallop back to the fort and ran headlong into Red Cloud’s hand-picked warriors who were concealed along the riverbank.

Thirty minutes into the fight, the second phase began when Cheyenne Dog Soldiers were sent to attack the freight wagons. Four hours later when Red Cloud called off the attack, all the freighters and most of the soldiers were dead. (Ft. Bridge Station was renamed Ft. Caspar; present-day Caspar, Wyoming.)

Bridge Station was the first example of the Indians hitting two targets simultaneously with overwhelming superiority. The Indians had also suffered high losses due to inexperience with Red Cloud’s new tactics. But they adapted quickly to the new tactics to isolate and destroy the enemy.

They perfected their new tactics on December 21, 1866, outside of Ft. Phil Kearny. The battle started when Lt. William J. Fetterman, another drunken, arrogant officer with delusions of racial superiority, led a column of 53 soldiers to save a wood cutting party. They never reached the woodcutters. Instead, they were lured into attacking a handful of warriors led by Crazy Horse who retreated to a pre-arranged spot where 2,000 warriors attacked the soldiers from all sides.

William J. Fetterman

A relief column of 27 soldiers and civilians was also wiped out. A third relief column approached Fetterman’s position but lacked the numbers to attack and could only watch the Indians scalp and mutilate the dead and dying. Mutilation before and after death was a terror tactic used by Indians and whites. The entire battle lasted about 40 minutes and wiped out half the fighting force of Ft. Phil Kearny. The details were so ghastly that the official Army report was suppressed for 20 years.

The Fetterman Massacre was the biggest defeat of the U.S. by an Indian force, until Custer met fame and misfortune at the Little Big Horn River in 1876. Red Cloud’s War to close the Bozeman Trail dragged on for another year and half until a peace commission arrived at Ft. Laramie and agreed to close the forts and the Bozeman Trail. As the soldiers marched away, Red Cloud sent warriors to burn the forts. He is recognized today as the only Indian leader to win his war against the U.S.

Red Cloud eventually realized that fighting a growing tide of white settlers in a war of attrition would end poorly for the Indians. He changed tactics again and negotiated a transition to reservation life. During this final phase of his life, Red Cloud used his political skills to balance partial assimilation while preserving as much of Sioux culture as possible. He remained a leader of the Oglala until his death in 1909 on the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota.

This account of Red Cloud is taken from The Heart of Everything That Is: The Untold Story of Red Cloud, An American Legend, Bob Drury and Tom Clavin (2013)

If you would like Norma’s blog sent to your inbox, we invite you sign up by clicking here! And we will see you next time!

And be sure to follow Norma on LinkedIn

Maurice’s Colt

In the spring of 1943, “Maurice” introduced his “colt”, to the other members of his French Resistance group. His “colt” was a fifty-six-year-old man with rheumatoid arthritis and thick glasses who looked like a provincial small businessman. He was one of the greatest scholars to ever grace a university faculty.

Marc Bloch was born in 1886, in Lyon, France. The Bloch family was originally from Alsace Lorraine, a region claimed by both France and Germany. In 1871, France lost the territory after losing the Franco-Prussian War. (France reclaimed the territory in 1918. Nazi Germany invaded it in 1940. Since WW II, it has been part of France.)

Marc Bloch

The Germans ordered all residents who identified as French to leave the territory. Most of the assimilated Jews, including the Bloch family, considered themselves French and left. Alsatian Jews, like Marc’s father, soon filled the faculties of universities across France. They believed that France was more egalitarian and less antisemitic than Germany.

Those beliefs were shattered by the Dreyfus Affair, which dragged on from 1894 to 1906. Alfred Dreyfus was convicted of selling military secrets to the Germans and sent to Devil’s Island (French Guiana or Guyana). It soon became clear that the military had fabricated evidence against him in order to protect the real traitor who had political connections.

Senior members of the French government joined the military coverup and most of the newspapers chose to tamely reprint government talking points to protect their financial bottom lines. Government ministers encouraged thuggish goons to verbally and physically attack anyone who questioned their lies. Emile Zola received death threats after challenging the coverup and fled to England.

The Dreyfus Affair made a deep impression on Marc. He was eight when Dreyfus was arrested and twenty when Dreyfus’ conviction was finally overturned. The urbane, sophisticated mask of tolerance was ripped off, revealing the depths of antisemitism that permeated all levels of French society. Marc developed a lifelong skepticism of the military’s leadership and of the press who he labeled fomenters of lies.

It affected his scholarship. He was renowned for meticulous research, relying on documentary evidence and copious footnotes to support his analyses. His research methodology was virtually identical to that of lawyers. If Bloch had not become a professional historian, he would have been a brilliant lawyer.

Bloch took time off from his studies to serve as an intelligence officer in World War I. He was impressed by the bravery and camaraderie of the enlisted men and equally unimpressed by the upper echelons of the officer corps. Senior officers tended to stay in chateaus far from the front lines which delayed decisions, a mistake the French made again in 1940.

After his military service, Bloch completed his doctorate. By then he was married with a growing family to support. He was also responsible for his nephews after his brother died and for his widowed mother.

Bloch launched his career as an historian at a time when universities were revising their curricula, particularly in history departments. Traditionally, history meant studying royalty, their political decisions and their wars. Bloch was part of a younger generation of scholars who wanted to expand historical research to encompass other topics.

His specialty was economic history. His seminal work, Feudal Society, studied the transition from a barter system to a monetary system. This transition transformed the medieval world, reducing the power of kings and the aristocracy while increasing the power of cities who operated on a cash economy.

His scholarship had a sharp edge. He was critical of other scholars who he deemed sloppy in their research methodologies and imprecise in their writing. He was capable of harsh treatment for his students when he thought they were sloppy or uncommitted. One former student was so traumatized by being publicly humiliated that fifty years later, he still had nightmares and sent his wife to talk to Bloch’s biographer.

Bloch could also be a warm and supporting mentor or colleague and he had a wide range of friends in France, Germany, England, and the U.S. He developed relationships with scholars outside his field of study who later contributed to a journal he co-founded in 1929 called the Annals of Economic History. (The journal has undergone several name changes but remains in print today.) It was unique for including assessments of contemporary events along with historic analyses.

Bloch’s comfortable life of scholarly research and teaching was interrupted by World War II. As a reserve officer, he returned to active duty and fought across northern France to the beaches at Dunkirk. He was evacuated to England then immediately returned to France to continue fighting for a few more weeks until France surrendered.

The Nazi occupation of northern France caused an exodus of people to Vichy France. Jewish faculty members were abruptly terminated from all government and university positions. Bloch moved his family south and began applying for a university position in research or teaching. His vast professional network enabled him to get a new post.

However, Vichy France soon developed their own antisemitic rules, forcing Jewish citizens to prove their family had been French citizens for at least five generations. Bloch was able to assemble the documentation proving that his family and his wife’s family met that criteria. He could also prove that five generations had fought in France’s wars. The less fortunate Jews were deemed non-citizens, without government protection and subject to deportation. Most became statistics in the Holocaust.

Not trusting the Vichy government, Bloch tried to obtain exit visas for his family, which was difficult due to the severe limits imposed by the U.S. on immigration quotas. Colleagues in New York arranged a teaching post for him and friends in the American embassy moved his family up the waiting list for visas.

Then his mother became ill. While she recovered, his wife almost died from pleurisy. By the time they had recovered, the exit door was closed. The U.S. quotas were full and the waiting list stretched to thousands of desperate people.

His two oldest sons and his nephew joined Combat, a resistance group based in Lyon. In early 1943, Bloch decided to join them. His extensive professional network once again came to his aid and he was eventually introduced to twenty-year-old, “Maurice”, who introduced him to other members of the resistance. Over the following year, Bloch rose steadily through the ranks due to his organizational skills and leadership capabilities. He also wrote articles for Combat’s newspaper.

On March 7, 1944, Marc Bloch was arrested by the Gestapo, which was rolling up most of the leadership of Combat. His interrogators included Klaus Barbie, head of the Gestapo in Lyon. After several rounds of torture, the Gestapo decided to conceal their crimes, realizing that the Nazis were losing the war. Some prisoners were transferred to concentration camps; Bloch’s sister-in-law died at Auschwitz. On June 16, 1944, twenty individuals, including Bloch, were executed in a field outside of Lyon.

On June 23, 2026, the remains of Marc Bloch (and his wife) were interred at the Pantheon in Paris, an honor reserved for the most distinguished French citizens.

Marc Bloch: A Life in History, by Carole Fink (1989) explores his influence on the academic disciplines of history, sociology, and economics, as well as his resistance activities.

 If you would like Norma’s blog sent to your inbox, we invite you sign up by clicking here! And we will see you next time!

And be sure to follow Norma on LinkedIn

The Limits of Presidential Power

The U.S. Constitution envisions three co-equal branches of the federal government, the executive (President of the U.S.), the legislature (Congress) and the court (Supreme Court of the U.S. or SCOTUS). The intent was to limit the abuse of power by each branch. The president might control the military, but Congress controls the budget. The president and Congress are restrained by SCOTUS and voters can dump obnoxious, out of touch members of Congress. 

The ugly truth is that it’s never really worked that way. The early presidents feuded with Congress while SCOTUS twiddled its thumbs and met in squalid rooms because Congress wouldn’t approve money for a proper courtroom. Chief Justice John Marshall admitted in 1803 that SCOTUS could not force the president’s administration to comply with the court’s decisions.

The first president to push the limits of presidential power was also the first populist president, Andrew Jackson (President, 1829 – 1837). He fought with everyone. He defied a SCOTUS decision when he removed the Cherokee and four other tribes from the southeastern U.S. He battled Congress over the renewal of the charter for the Bank of the United States. The bank had some of the functions of a central bank, like issuing currency, but also acted like a main street bank lending money and holding deposit accounts. 

President Jackson hated the bank, considering it to be too powerful. Like all plantation owners, he was constantly in debt to New York banks, living under the threat of bankruptcy and foreclosure. Jackson’s hostility was matched by his attorney general, Roger B. Taney.

Roger B. Taney

Taney prepared a legal memorandum stating that the charter for the Bank of the United States was unconstitutional because the bank was no longer “necessary”. But his legal argument went further. He argued that the president had expansive powers under the Constitution that included declaring a law unconstitutional. Jackson vetoed the bill renewing the bank’s charter and rewarded Taney in 1836 by nominating him to be Chief Justice of SCOTUS.

Chief Justice Taney’s view of presidential authority did a U-turn in 1861 after the election of Abraham Lincoln. As Lincoln took office, the south seceded and the Civil War began. Washington, DC was in imminent danger of being cut off from the rest of the Union because all communication lines ran through Maryland.  

Most Marylanders sympathized with the South, particularly in Baltimore. They waged a scorched earth campaign, burning railroad bridges and ripping up railroad tracks in an effort to cut off Washington, DC. To protect the capital, Lincoln declared martial law in Maryland and suspended habeas corpus. This allowed Union troops to arrest any known or suspected saboteur or Southern sympathizer without obtaining a warrant for their arrest.

On May 25, 1861, a wealthy landowner and state legislator named John Merryman was arrested at 2 am and imprisoned at Ft. McHenry. He was accused of burning railroad bridges and tearing down telegraph lines in northern Maryland.

Merryman was given access to his lawyer who filed a writ of habeas corpus in federal court the same day as the arrest. The writ was also delivered to Chief Justice Taney on May 25th. At that time, members of SCOTUS served as circuit court judges and Taney immediately declared he would preside.

Taney, as circuit court judge, ordered the military commander at Ft. McHenry to appear in court with Merryman on May 27th.  The military commander was a lawyer and the brother of a federal judge. He sent an aide to read a written statement declining to bring Merryman to the courthouse. Taney threatened the military commander with contempt of court and issued a second writ, which was also ignored.

At that point, an infuriated Taney issued a written opinion, as a circuit court judge, which he indicated would be sent directly to President Lincoln who would have an opportunity to respond. The gist of the legal opinion was that the right to suspend habeas corpus appeared in Article 1 of the Constitution, which outlines Congressional authority.

Abraham Lincoln

Article 2, which delineates presidential authority, does not mention the specific right to suspend habeas corpus. Taney’s new interpretation would mean that a president had severely limited authority, which was the opposite of what he said when Jackson was president. This new interpretation also conflicted with an earlier SCOTUS opinion in which Taney stated that the governor of Rhode Island could use martial law to put down an armed insurrection.

Taney’s new interpretation has been cited in later cases as a laudable example of defending civil liberties from arbitrary actions by the president and the military. However, in 1861, the opinion was a piece of partisan nonsense. Lincoln was dealing with an armed insurrection (we now call it the Civil War) in which 11 states had seceded, and the national capital was geographically surrounded by enemy combatants.

Taney then committed what can at best be described as an indiscretion. Instead of delivering his opinion to President Lincoln as promised, Taney published it. Like many of today’s SCOTUS leaks, it was an unethical attempt to influence public opinion.

But Lincoln was a top-notch lawyer himself and an even more adroit politician. He bided his time until the next session of Congress in 1863 when his party dominated both houses. Congress promptly voted to authorize the suspension of habeas corpus. Congress also voted to reorganize the federal circuits to create two new “seats” for the new western, and pro-Union, states. Basically, Congress diluted the power southern holdovers like Taney.

Meanwhile, Merryman was released on bail in July 1861, having spent about two months in Ft. McHenry with constant access to his lawyer. Taney insisted that he would preside over Merryman’s trial. He then repeatedly postponed the trial on grounds of poor health while refusing to allow another judge to take over the trial. After a three-year delay, Taney died and Merryman was never prosecuted.

Since the Constitution was written, there have been fears that a president would abuse his authority and use the military to violate civil liberties. In times of war, Congress has usually allowed the president more latitude to conduct warrantless arrests and incarcerate citizens without trial.

But in peace time, even when there is a great deal of social and political upheaval, Congress and the courts have limited the president’s power. In fact, after the Civil War ended, the Supreme Court immediately condemned the suspension of civil liberties.

Today, we again have a populist president whose administration defies court orders it doesn’t like, particularly those related to civil liberties protections. SCOTUS has reversed its own opinions to now allow the Trump administration to take actions that were declared unconstitutional under the Obama and Biden administrations. Congress is too busy bickering to be of use to anyone. The limits of presidential power are being tested in ways that the founders hoped to avoid.

 This account of presidential powers is based on Lincoln and Chief Justice Taney: Slavery, Secession, and the President’s War Powers, by James F. Simon (2006).

If you would like Norma’s blog sent to your inbox, we invite you sign up by clicking here! And we will see you next time!

And be sure to follow Norma on LinkedIn  

Doomed Bravery

Every July 20th, I pause to salute the brave men and women who tried to save their country from a paranoidal megalomaniac. They were doomed, in part because they missed their target, but their story is an inspiration for others resisting an authoritarian government.

On July 20, 1944, Claus Schenk, Graf von Stauffenberg, brought a bomb hidden in a briefcase, to a military briefing at the headquarters of Adolf Hitler. Stauffenberg set down the briefcase and soon excused himself from the meeting to “take a phone call”. The bomb exploded. Unfortunately, Hitler didn’t die.

Graf von Stauffenberg

The man who planned the attack was General Henning von Tresckow, a brilliant organizer and charismatic man. He came from a minor Juncker family in Pomerania and was related to most of the noble and aristocratic families of Prussia and Silesia (now southwest Poland).

He joined the German Army in 1917 and became a lieutenant at the age of 17. After World War I, he left the German Army to attend university and then worked at several banks. He also traveled the world for a few years, which gave him a broader perspective than most of the German officer class.

In 1926, he rejoined the German Army and graduated first in his class from the Kriegsakademie, a staff officer training program similar to the U.S. Army War College, at Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania. Everyone knew he was a golden child, destined for glory and promotions.

Initially, Tresckow was a tepid supporter of Hitler’s policies that restored German national pride and expanded the military, while flouting the Treaty of Versailles. (A friendly suggestion to politicians today: If you “win” a war and insist on gloating by imposing a one-sided treaty that inflicts national humiliation on the loser, start preparing immediately to fight the next war.)

Henning von Tresckow

Tresckow quickly soured on Hitler and the Nazis. His sense of morality and basic decency was appalled by what they did. Hitler ignored the laws he didn’t like, crushed the free press, and sent his hooligans to attack anyone that he considered an enemy. He euthanized citizens with physical or mental disabilities (using methods that were refined later for the mass murder of Jews, Gypsies, and others) and threw his political enemies into proto-type concentration camps at Dachau and Oranienburg.

But the final outrage for Tresckow seems to have been the Commissar Order delivered by Hitler when Russia was invaded in 1941. This Order required the German Army to assist the SS in killing all suspected members of the Communist Party. Other orders from Hitler expanded the killing to include the mass murder of Jews.

Tresckow joined an expanding group of civilians and German Army officers who dreamed of killing Hitler. Dreaming and moaning about how Hitler was ruining Germany was all they did until Stauffenberg and Tresckow showed up.

Tresckow masterminded several plots that failed. On one occasion, wine bottles loaded with explosives failed to blow up due to a defective fuse when Hitler’s plane reached cruising altitude. Tresckow sent a close associate to fast talk his way past security guards to retrieve the “gift” package when the plane landed in Berlin.

Finally, on July 20th, Stauffenberg almost succeeded. (To understand why Hitler wasn’t killed, watch the episode of the Mythbusters television series that recreates the event.)

In an epic fail for the secret police, the Gestapo learned about the July 20th plot after the bomb detonated. Their incompetence is explained by two facts. First, the Gestapo lacked spies in the German Army who could have reported the plot. Second, most of the participants in the plot came from the same families. They had private, family lines of communication that were impenetrable by the Gestapo. (Blood really is thicker than water.)

When Hitler didn’t die, the real bloodbath began. The Gestapo arrested everyone known or suspected of ever disagreeing with Hitler. Innocent family members were arrested. Under torture, some named names, leading to more arrests and torture.

Bogus court martial proceedings presided over by Field Marshal Gerd von Runstedt stripped the military men of their rank and expelled them from the Army. The cashiered officers were immediately arrested by the Gestapo and taken away to stand trial for treason.

Roland Freisler, a rabid Nazi, presided over a kangaroo court that ignored due process niceties, like having defense counsel to represent the accused. He constantly screamed abusively at them before pronouncing death sentences. The proceedings were filmed for Hitler’s later viewing pleasure (as were the executions), which allow us today to see the clown-show put on by Freisler.

The defendants used what little time they were allowed in court to explain why they opposed Hitler. They hoped their aspirational speeches would inspire others to rise up and oppose Hitler.

It didn’t. The plot to kill Hitler was a top-down attempt at regime change, organized by Prussian aristocrats. It never occurred to them to consult the average German, even if they had been able to do so. The average German was either enamored by the cult of Adolf Hitler, believing God had saved him from the assassins, or they were so terrorized by the cruelty and violence of the regime that they believed resistance was futile.

Stauffenberg was shot on the evening of July 20th when he returned to Berlin, by order of his commanding officer, General Fromm, who was trying to cover up his own culpability in the plot. (Fromm failed. He was later arrested and executed.) Tresckow blew himself up with a grenade just before Gestapo agents arrived in Russia to arrest him. In a sense, they were the lucky ones because they escaped torture and death by slow strangulation.

Today, around the globe, right wing “messiahs” are using cults of personality to anchor their authoritarian governments. Authoritarians stay in power by wrecking the democratic institutions that would constrain them. They control the media and propagate “alternative facts” that defy common sense and logic. They govern through violence and intimidation, picking off “enemies” one at a time in trumped up prosecutions. They create fake enemies to unify people in an “us against them” universe.

The conspirators deserve a salute for trying to save their country from the nihilism of Hitler’s authoritarian government. Their biggest mistake was to not seek popular support. Recently, popular support bounced authoritarian, Victor Orban, out of power in Hungary. Fortunately, Orban went quietly. When most dictators realize they are losing power, they try to destroy the country that has rejected them.

Operation Valkyrie: The German Generals’ Plot to Kill Hitler, by Pierre Galante with Eugene Silianoff (1981), tells the July 20th story from the viewpoint of Lt. Gen. General Adolf Heusinger, a conspirator who lived because he was injured in the bomb attack.

Soldier in the Downfall, by Baron Rudolf-Christoph von Gersdorff (2012, English translation), is the memoir of another conspirator who escaped a death sentence when Freisler died in an Allied bombing raid that destroyed the court.

An overview of all German resistance groups is Plotting Hitler’s Death, by Joachim Fest (1996). Courageous Hearts, by Dorothee von Meding, contains interviews with the female relatives of key conspirators.

If you would like Norma’s blog sent to your inbox, we invite you sign up by clicking here! And we will see you next time!

And be sure to follow Norma on LinkedIn  

How to Start a Revolution

The country was a mess. Inflation was rising faster than wages, leaving much of the population hungry and desperate. Adding to the cost was a series of bad harvests, which meant food was scarce, as well as pricey.  Inflation was set to continue rising as the government funded a foreign war.

Everyone knew the country was a mess. But the political and social leaders adamantly refused to allow any reforms that would diminish their privileges. They threw lavish parties, eating and drinking and gambling, and believing that the poor were simply too lazy and stupid to better themselves.

It was 1788 and France was a bonfire waiting for a spark. Of 26 million French citizens, 21 million were farmers, most working fewer than 20 acres. Able-bodied individuals fled to the cities in search of higher wages only to find inflation outpacing their wages. Royal edicts prohibited workers from forming associations for collective bargaining. (Today we call these sorts of bans “right to work” laws that block union activity.)

King Louis XVI

King Louis XVI sat at Versailles, entertaining extravagantly and eating gluttonously. His wife, Marie Antoinette, was unpopular and still considered an immigrant outsider after 20 years of marriage. She was a reckless gambler like the king’s brothers and Louis was constantly required to pay their “debts of honor”. The whole royal family treated the national treasury as their piggy bank to be looted to pay for their corruption.

The corruption and inequities were staggering. Peasants paid the taille, a direct tax and the corvees royale tax to maintain roads and bridges. They were subject to feudal dues assessed by local seigneurs, who often donated the dues to abbeys and senior clergymen. Village curates might be as poor as their parishioners, but the Church was fabulously wealthy.

Marie Antoinette

The Church and nobility were exempt from both the taille and the corvees royale. The nobles were liable for an income tax, but they could usually negotiate or bribe their way into paying a reduced amount or nothing at all.

The Church owned a tenth of all the land in France and controlled all the schools. Senior clergy were drawn exclusively from the aristocracy and royal blood, which gave them access to influence government policy.

Aristocrats and nobility were more despised than the Church. About 400,000 nobles owned 20 percent of the land, usually as huge estates. Their seigneurial privileges allowed them to control the corn and flour mills, wine presses, and bread ovens; the engines of industry in the countryside. They could grab public land for their exclusive use. They actively collaborated with the crown and clergy to ensure most citizens remained poor, oppressed, and over-taxed.

Squeezed in the middle was a growing urban middle class. As their income increased, the nouveau riche bribed the king to ennoble them or appoint them to public office which offered an opportunity to climb the social ladder while also enriching themselves. They cemented their new status by marrying their daughters to impoverished aristocrats and nobles who were overjoyed to acquire huge dowries to underwrite their lifestyles. A hundred years later, wealthy American industrialists would follow the same path into the British nobility and aristocracy.

Each level of society wanted to maintain their own privileges while curtailing the privileges of others. The nobility wanted to get rid of royal absolutism and require the king to consult them. The middle class wanted to replace the hierarchy of birth with a hierarchy based on wealth or profession. Ambitious lawyers were the main proponents of this change. No one cared about what the peasants and urban workers wanted or needed.

All these issues had been bubbling under the surface for decades. The catalyst for the revolution was the king’s foreign war. Louis XVI had been persuaded to support the American colonies in their fight against Britain. The Americans gained independence. France earned insolvency.

Finance Minister Baron de Laune proposed new taxes but his tactlessness annoyed everyone and the king replaced him with Jacques Necker. Necker knew the complicated tax system was the root cause of social unrest. But he also realized that reforming the inequitable tax code would be almost impossible due to all the entrenched interest groups. (For a modern American inequity, research “carried interest” which allows the wealthiest Wall Street investors to pretend that the money they earn is not “income” under the tax code. You’ll feel like a French peasant in 1788.)

Jacques Necker

Necker proposed borrowing money rather than raising taxes based on the dubious argument that a huge national debt wouldn’t be a burden on the government’s finances. Of course, he had to offer an extremely generous interest rate to attract investors.  A few sane government ministers intervened and ensured Necker was shown the door.

His replacement, Charles-Alexandre de Calonne, was shocked at the shaky finances and immediately proposed reforms to the tax system. The most controversial reform was a permanent land tax that would be owed by all landowners. Nobles and the Church fought viciously to preserve their tax-exempt status.  Fearing for his life, Calonne fled to England, becoming the first émigré of the French Revolution.

Charles-Alexandre de Calonne

Calonne’s replacement, Brienne, offered a watered-down version of Calonne’s tax reform. But the debates in regional parlements became so heated that on May 8, 1788, Louis XVI stripped them of their power to oppose the monarchy.  The provincial power brokers promptly joined the peasants in riotous protests.

Brienne then came up with his own brilliant solution. He called for the Estates General to assemble at Versailles in May 1789. The Estates General was a consultative body that hadn’t met since 1613. Its members were split equally among the nobility, clergy, and the Third Estate, meaning commoners. But this arrangement would allow the nobility and clergy to combine their votes to prevent any meaningful changes.

To limit this possibility, the king was persuaded to issue an edict declaring that the Third Estate would have double representation.  Every man (women couldn’t vote in national elections until 1975) over 25 years of age whose name appeared on the tax rolls was eligible to vote.

Months later in May 1789, the delegates assembled at Versailles, consisting of 291 nobles (mostly conservative provincial landowners), 300 clergymen, and 610 members of the Third Estate (many of them lawyers). Each group agreed that they wanted to end royal absolutism, although not necessarily to end the monarchy. They also agreed that the Estates General should meet regularly to vote on taxes and approve new legislation. They all demanded freedom of the press and individual liberty.

Other demands included unification of laws across the country, standardization of weights and measures, an end to government waste and abuse of the public finances, reform of internal customs barriers, and reforms of the Church.  All of these demands were expected to be memorialized in a new constitution.

At that point, the delegates began bickering over the details. Their only notable decision was to rename themselves the National Assembly, which remains the name of the French parliament. While they bickered, a food shortage caused a sharp increase in the price of bread. Hungry peasants rioted in Paris and Versailles.

The king was alarmed and called up troops to protect government buildings. In Paris, citizens decided to protect themselves from the king and his troops and they looted military armories. On July 14, 1789, they stormed the Bastille.  The revolution had begun.

The U.S. is entering a long, hot summer with rising inflation, a national election, and a foreign war that is bankrupting the country. Years of inequitable taxation, income inequality, and entrenched special interests have undermined social welfare programs, all of which is exacerbated by an unpopular head of state who yearns for presidential absolutism. Like France in 1789, it only takes a spark to start a revolution.

This account is based on The Days of The French Revolution, by Christopher Hibbert (1980), an enjoyable, fast-paced account of a complex story.

If you would like Norma’s blog sent to your inbox, we invite you sign up by clicking here! And we will see you next time!

And be sure to follow Norma on LinkedIn  

Who Is a Citizen?

Dred Scott was an ordinary man of his day. The color of his skin and his place of birth, Virginia, dictated that he was a slave. In 1830, his then-owner, Peter Blow, moved his family to St. Louis, Missouri, bringing along Dred Scott. Peter Blow was a lousy businessman and when he died in 1832, Dred was sold to help pay off his debts.

Dred Scott

Dred was sold to Dr. John Emerson, an Army surgeon. In 1833, Dr. Emerson was posted to Rock Island, Illinois and he took Dred along to this free state. A few years later, Dr. Emerson was transferred to a fort near present-day St. Paul, Minnesota, also free territory. Eventually, they returned to Missouri, a slave state.

In 1843, Dr. Emerson died and Dred tried to purchase freedom for himself, his wife, and their children. Emerson’s widow rejected his offer. Dred Scott then filed suit in Missouri arguing that when Dr. Emerson took him to live in a free state, he was emancipated. His argument followed a long line of Missouri Supreme Court decisions from the 1840’s holding that once a slave left Missouri to live in a free state, he became free.

He lost his first case on a technicality but won in a second suit. But widow Emerson wasn’t giving up. She filed an appeal to the Missouri Supreme Court in 1852. By the 1850’s, attitudes had hardened. Slave states, like Missouri, were angry at the growing political power of the northern states.

Missouri Supreme Court

Southern slave states had significantly smaller populations than northern free states. They knew it was only a matter of time before northern abolitionists succeeded in passing a federal law banning slavery. Their bid for demographic parity and control of Congress was to expand slavery into the western territories soon to become states. Sidestepping the political mess, Congress created a fudge called the Missouri Compromise of 1850.

This law admitted California as a free state but allowed other western territories to decide by popular vote if they would be slave or free when they voted on statehood. Like all compromises that are fudges, everyone hated it. For abolitionists, it didn’t go far enough because it didn’t prohibit slavery. Southerners hated it because they believed most westerners were recent immigrants who were unlikely to vote for slavery having just fled oppression in their countries of origin.

With this hostile background, the Missouri Supreme Court chucked the line of cases that favored Dred Scott. The court decided they did not need to defer to the laws of Illinois, a free state. They also ignored the Missouri Compromise. Looking solely at Missouri’s laws, they reversed the trial court ruling in Scott’s favor, leaving him a slave.

Dred Scott’s lawyer decided to roll the dice on a new and risky legal strategy. He filed a federal lawsuit in 1853 in St. Louis arguing that Dred Scott was a free man because he had lived in a free state. As a free man, he was a citizen of Missouri and as a citizen, he could sue in federal court.

The defendant in this new suit was John Sanford (a Supreme Court clerk later misspelled his name as Sandford), the brother of widow Emerson and the executor of Dr. Emerson’s estate. Since Sanford was a citizen of New York, there was diversity of jurisdiction, providing the procedural grounds for filing in federal court.

Scott claimed that Sanford committed trespass by holding him (Dred) as a slave against his will. For the next few months, a flurry of motions piled up on the court’s docket. Finally, in 1854, the judge ruled that Scott could file suit in federal court and set the case for trial. But at trial, the judge instructed the jury to rule in favor of Sanford. The judge stated that since Scott had voluntarily returned from a free state to the slave state of Missouri, he must be considered a slave under Missouri state law.

Onward and upward went the case, on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court where oral argument was set for 1856. Three issues were presented to the court. Was Scott a citizen of Missouri entitled to sue in federal court? Was the Missouri Compromise constitutional? Was Scott still the slave property of Sanford?

If the Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s ruling that Scott could sue in federal court, then they wouldn’t have to rule on the merits of the case. To decide the merits meant they would be deciding whether the Missouri Compromise was constitutional. That would mean wading into the hottest political and social issue of the day.

In 1856, the court was dominated by appointees from southern slave states, including Chief Justice Roger B. Taney (Chief Justice, 1836 – 1864). When the court met for their initial deliberations, they quickly realized that they couldn’t reach a consensus on the issues presented.

Their confidential deliberations were leaked to the abolitionist New York Tribune newspaper by Justice John McLean. Justice Benjamin Curtis blabbed details in a letter to his uncle. (Today’s Roberts court also leaks like a sieve.) Reports stated that the majority wanted to issue a narrow ruling on the jurisdictional issue of whether Scott could sue in federal court and so avoid the whole ugly mess of deciding whether the Missouri Compromise was Constitutional.

Finally, in May 1856, the Supreme Court put the Dred Scott case back on their docket to be reargued in December. As a result, the justices avoided making a decision that could have influenced the presidential election in November 1856, when James Buchanan was elected.

After the rehearing, Taney wrote the court’s majority opinion, and it was truly awful. It reeked of racial bigotry and southern anger at the self-righteous abolitionists. Taney declared that under Missouri state law, Scott was a slave, not a citizen, and so he had no right to sue in federal court. He added that blacks were inferior to and not fit to associate with white people, a generalization he claimed was supported by the Constitution, although he failed to cite any proof for this assertion.

After trashing Dred Scott’s humanity, Taney went on to declare the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional on the grounds that Congress had no authority to prohibit slavery in new western territories. He again failed to cite any legal precedent to support his ruling.

The decision outraged abolitionists and galvanized their efforts to ban slavery in the U.S. Pro-slavery, or “states’ rights” as they preferred, southerners openly talked of secession. The decision contributed to the hysteria surrounding the 1860 presidential election during which the pro-slavery vote split, throwing the election to Abraham Lincoln.

The Dred Scott decision was everything the slave states desired, but it was a pyrrhic victory. The slave states seceded and then lost the Civil War. Before they were readmitted to the Union, they were required to ratify the 14th Amendment.

The 14th Amendment, Section 1 states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Today’s U.S. Supreme Court is pondering whether Section 1 means what it says. During the recent oral arguments, the Solicitor General referred to the Dred Scott decision to support his revisionist argument that Section 1 applies only to former slaves of the 1860’s and not to today’s children born to undocumented immigrants.

If the conservatives on the current Supreme Court decide to toss aside over 100 years of established interpretations of Section 1, it will be another pyrrhic victory that hastens the political and social changes they dislike. It will also leave them as reviled as Taney’s court.

After losing his case, Dred Scott was deeded to an abolitionist who immediately freed him. He returned to St. Louis where he died of tuberculosis in September 1858.

This account of the Dred Scott case is taken from Lincoln and Chief Justice Taney: Slavery, Secession, and the President’s War Powers, by James F. Simon (2006).

If you would like Norma’s blog sent to your inbox, we invite you sign up by clicking here! And we will see you next time!

And be sure to follow Norma on LinkedIn  

The Lucky One

In April 1942, U-333 was stalking a British tanker in the mid-Atlantic, lining up for a torpedo attack. The crew had chased the tanker all afternoon and as the sun went down, they finally had a clear torpedo shot. The first torpedo launched. Nothing happened. A second torpedo missed the target.

The perplexed crew of U-333 submerged to reload the torpedo bays. As the U-boat reached periscope depth, the tanker was perfectly visible in bright moonlight. U-Boat Captain Peter Cremer squinted through the periscope to estimate the range for another torpedo attack. Suddenly the periscope went black.

Peter-Erich Cremer

A hideous screeching of grinding metal filled the air. The collision shook the tanker violently and the U-boat pitched around like a toy. Water flooded into the control room. It was clear that the U-boat’s pressure hull had been ripped open. The U-boat had to surface to avoid flooding and sinking with all hands.

Upon surfacing, Cremer discovered that the conning tower hatch wouldn’t open. Crew members climbed out the galley hatch to assess the damage. They were horrified by what they saw. The British tanker had hit the bow of the U-boat, twisting the nose to port. The tanker’s propellers chopped into the U-boat’s bridge, ripping it off. The steel casing of the conning tower was dented, the periscope had snapped off, and the torpedo aiming sights were gone. The bow torpedo bays were jammed shut.

The British tanker had also been ripped open, as if a can opener had cut down the entire side of the vessel. However, the British tanker was double-hulled (as all tankers are today) and it continued its journey to Britain, where it was greeted with acclaim.

The U-boat crew, meanwhile, made sufficient repairs to remain seaworthy, and continued their patrol to the Florida coast. U-333 arrived off Florida on May 3, 1942, joining other U-boats attacking U.S. shipping routes along the Atlantic coast and into the Caribbean.

It was a great time to serve on a U-boat because the U.S. had not imposed a blackout after declaring war on Germany in December 1941. For the next six months, coastal cities remained brightly lit at night. Florida businesses claimed they needed to keep the lights on to avoid losses during the tourism season. But the coastal lights illuminated ships along the coastal shipping lanes. For the U-boats, it was like shooting fish in a barrel. Most of the tonnage sunk by U-boats occurred during this time. The U-boat crews called it “the happy time”.

Cremer after a patrol

The happy time didn’t last. By the end of 1942, coastal defenses were sinking U-boats and Atlantic convoys were escorted by British and American aircraft carriers, destroyers and corvettes. New high frequency radio signals were able to pinpoint the location of U-boats and more effective depth charges meant fewer U-boats survived.

Peter Cremer survived. He ascribed his survival to experience, learning from his mistakes, and luck. In October 1942, U-333 was attacked by a corvette. There was no time to dive, so Cremer ordered a hard turn to starboard and full speed ahead. The maneuver saved the boat but exposed everyone on the bridge to machine gun fire. Cremer was the last man to leave the bridge after helping his wounded crew members to get below. One crewman slipped overboard and was never recovered.

Cremer had shell splinters in his arm, his breastbone and his left eye was gummed shut with blood from a head wound. But he continued giving orders, changing direction to try to escape. The corvette and the U-boat circled each other, getting closer and closer until the corvette rammed the U-boat. With the U-boat leaking at the stern where it had been rammed, Cremer decided to surface to save the crew. He was able to escape in the dark because the corvette had also received extensive damage.

Cremer received the Knight’s Cross for his bravery and spent months in the hospital recuperating from his extensive injuries. During his recovery, he was assigned to desk duty on Admiral Donitz’s staff. From his desk, he tracked the U-boat losses of friends and colleagues. In April 1943, he returned to command of U-333.

Karl Donitz

Cremer’s experience and luck became legendary in the U-boat fleet and crewmen wanted to join him. Cremer chose candidates based on their peacetime skills, such as electricians, plumbers, and mechanics because a U-boat crew needed to be able to repair damage caused by depth charges and airplane strafing attacks. If a prospective crew member had also played football (i.e., soccer), they were likely to be picked by the Old Man, because Cremer believed that individuals who played team sports would find it easier to develop team spirit.

Team spirit was critical on the Type VII U-boat which was cramped. The crew was divided into watches (shifts) with part of the crew on duty and part of the crew sleeping, since there weren’t enough bunks for everyone. The boat had one toilet which had to be emptied by a hand pump, a difficult feat given the outside pressure on the hull. The toilet also doubled as storage space for canned food. There were no showers because fresh water had to be saved for cooking and drinking.

Cremer left U-333 on July 10, 1944 (it sank with no survivors on July 31st) to take command of U-2519, a new Type XXI electro-boat. It was luxurious compared to the Type VII, having two toilets, a shower, and a bunk for each crewman. It was fast, difficult to detect when submerged, and could dive deeper than any depth charges. Cremer and others believed these boats could have made a difference to the naval war if they had been developed earlier in the war.

Type XXI u-boats under construction

Cremer ended the war commanding the naval guard protecting Admiral Donitz, the final leader of the Third Reich. He was the only U-boat commander to survive more than 2 years in the Atlantic and was the longest serving U-boat commander when the war ended in May 1945. Approximately 39,000 men served on U-boats and only about 10,000 survived the war.

With such a high casualty rate, it seems surprising that the U-boat service always had plenty of volunteers. Cremer and other survivors never had a satisfactory answer to why they volunteered for the U-boats. Among the reasons given were that they wanted to do their patriotic duty and the U-boat service was an elite branch of the German navy.

Peter Cremer was never supposed to be a naval officer. He was expected to become a lawyer like his father. When he applied at the age of 18, the German navy rejected him because of his background. His father was German, but his paternal grandmother was English. His mother’s family was French from Alsace Lorraine. (In today’s EU, a multinational background like his is common.) He was accepted in 1932 after the German navy suffered catastrophic losses when a training ship sank. In 1938, he was commissioned as an officer.

Peter Cremer had many more adventures with depth charges and ramming which are covered in his memoir, U-boat Commander, which was translated into English in 1984. Cremer died in 1992, aged 81.

To experience life on U-boat, visit the U-505 (Type IX-C) exhibit at the Griffin Museum of Science + Industry in Chicago. The Type IX-C was roomier than the Type VII.

If you would like Norma’s blog sent to your inbox, we invite you sign up by clicking here! And we will see you next time!

And be sure to follow Norma on LinkedIn  

People Management, Commando Style

In mid-June 1940, John Durnford-Slater was a career officer in the British Army who was bored with staff duty and wanted adventure. His big break came that summer when the British high command requested volunteers who would raid the enemy coast. Slater volunteered immediately and became the first British (Army) Commando.

John Durnford-Slater

On June 28th, he was appointed to lead No. 3 Commando. He was free to organize, recruit and train the unit as he liked since they were experimenting with a new type of warfare. Recruiting a new type of soldier for a new type of warfare presented some of the same challenges that any business faces when recruiting employees. Slater decided that the ideal commando would be confident, self-reliant, reticent, and willing to push his physical and mental limits in support of the mission.

Slater began as any human resources manager would, doing background checks on each of his officer candidates, talking to former civilian employers and reviewing military service records. After selecting his officers, Slater sent them out in groups of three to choose the enlisted men. The officers had four days to make their selections. By July 5th, the unit officially existed. Initially, No. 3 Commando consisted of ten troops, each with three officers and 47 men. With Slater’s headquarters staff, the full complement was 500 men. Later, the unit reorganized so that each troop could fit within their assigned landing craft.

Although each man was a volunteer, each troop leader had authority to remove any officer or trooper deemed unsuitable. Unsuitable sorts included braggarts, indiscreet talkers, and tough-guy criminal types who Slater thought would be cowards in combat conditions. The process was called “return to unit” or RTU and remained the ultimate disciplinary threat throughout the war.

To save time, each commando was given a subsistence allowance (i.e., per diem) and required to find their own housing and food. Slater believed this enhanced each soldier’s self-reliance and initiative. It also meant that with no barracks to maintain, the men were available to train day and night.

The training was so brutal that the Medical Officer examined each man after a training exercise. A few men were RTU’d after being injured during training. But the training was also remarkably flexible. Any man could suggest a new training exercise or technique and suggestions that increased efficiency or reduced mistakes were adopted. (Today, business leaders call this approach to process improvement Six Sigma.)

On July 14 - 15, less than three weeks after its creation, No. 3 Commando carried out their first raid on the island of Guernsey. Guernsey lies closer to the French coast than the English coast but has been part of England since medieval times. The mission was to knock out the communications network of the German occupation soldiers. The operation was a flop and resulted in three commandos sitting out the war as prisoners.

The Guernsey fiasco provided ammunition to the Army command in southern England who referred to the commandos as Winston Churchill’s private army and wanted to abolish the unit. The Army command hated losing some of their best men to the commandos and worse, having the commandos operating outside of the Army’s chain of command.

Slater had little patience with the Army leaders, dismissing them as stuck in the past and focused on 19th century battle tactics. His battles with the Army command will be familiar to every manager who has tried to introduce new processes which have not yet proven their value.

Like every creative business leader, Slater found a way to succeed. He bypassed the sclerotic Army command and invited the Royal Navy to train the commandos, which made sense since commando operations usually started with a sea landing. Slater was also helped by the fact that he had the support of the Prime Minister and the top brass. The commandos reported directly to the Chief of Combined Operations, Lord Roger Keyes and later, Lord Louis Mountbatten.

Lord Roger Keyes

In December 1940, Lord Keyes invited a bevy of politicians and senior military men to witness a full-scale rehearsal of a sea landing. Unfortunately, No 3. Commando had trained all day and missed their 1 am wakeup call. Slater awoke at 1:45 am and immediately began roaring at his officers to wake their men. However, only a third of the commandos made it into the landing craft for the exercise.

Lord Keyes was embarrassed in front of his guests. Slater apologized profusely saying, “I’ve let you down horribly”. Lord Keyes responded, “Yes, you have, but you’ve had your lesson. Now this will never happen to you operationally where it could truly mean disaster”. (If only every C-suite leader was this forgiving!) Lord Keyes was right; it never happened again. The commandos practiced obsessively to ensure their operations stayed on task and on time.

No. 3 Commando’s first successful raid was in February 1941 when they attacked the Lofoten Islands in northern Norway.  The commandos blew up fish oil factories, knocked out communications and collected German soldiers and Norwegian collaborators as prisoners. It was the first of many successful raids lasting until the war ended.

However, their training methods and missions meant they had a high attrition rate. Recruitment continued non-stop as injured or unsuitable men were dismissed from the commandos. Competition for new recruits was as brutal as the training. On one occasion, Slater heard that his friends at No. 4 Commando were scouting a new batch of recruits.

Slater hot-footed to the Commando Replacement Depot for a chat with the drill instructor. Slater suggested having half the replacements fall in for formation in their best battledress while the other half should wear old clothes. When No. 4 Commando arrived, they chose the smartly dressed troops, leaving No. 3 Commando the supposed dregs. What No. 4 didn’t know was that Slater had asked the drill instructor to have the best men wear old clothes.

Despite the incredibly high attrition rate, morale remained high among the commandos and there were always plenty of volunteers waiting to join.  One of the reasons morale remained so high was that Slater and his officers took care of their men. On one occasion, the officers pooled their money and bought champagne for their men to enjoy during a lull in the fighting.

No. 3 Commando became so famous that government officials and senior officers begged to accompany the troopers on patrol. Civilians were taken on patrols in which one troop would hide near the patrol area and pretend to be the enemy. After an exchange of harmless gunfire, the civilians were taken back to base to brag about their adventure. Military men were taken on real patrols with the possibility of being shot by the enemy.  

No. 3 Commando fought in North Africa, Italy, Operation Overload (“D Day”) and all the way to the Ruhr Valley, Germany’s industrial heartland.  As the war progressed, the Army Commando units were combined with the Royal Marine Commandos. In 1946, the Army Commandos were disbanded but their training methods and esprit de corps continue in the Royal Marine Commandos.

John Durnford-Slater, DSO and Bar, recounts many more adventures in his memoir, Commando: Memoirs of a Fighting Commando in World War Two (1991 reprint). Slater died in 1972.

If you would like Norma’s blog sent to your inbox, we invite you sign up by clicking here! And we will see you next time!

And be sure to follow Norma on LinkedIn  

Financing the Revolution

Mary Ellen Pleasant was born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in 1814 into a free, middle class black household. There were no schools in the city for black children, so when Mary Ellen was seven years old, her father took her to live with business associates on Nantucket Island which had a “colored” school.

Mary Ellen Pleasant

Unfortunately, the Hussey family of Nantucket were less than honest. They pocketed the tuition money from her father but didn’t send Mary Ellen to school. Instead, Mary Ellen was put to work in the Hussey general store. Recognizing the balance of power based on skin color, Mary Ellen worked hard to be indispensable to the Hussey family.

She was charming and friendly, brilliant at selling to every customer who came into the store. She helped the Hussey family make money while learning all aspects of their business. She used her experience and knowledge to amass a fortune later in life. She even remained on good terms with the Hussey family throughout her life.

She had arrived in Nantucket just as the whaling industry was creating vast fortunes, giving her a front row seat to the earliest boom town in the U.S. Boom towns shake up the roles of race and gender, at least temporarily. White, Indian, and black people worked together in the whaling business. As the men moved into higher paying jobs on the docks and on whaling ships, women took over running the shops, hotels, and other businesses that supported the whalers.

One of the centers of growing wealth was Newtown, a free black community separated from Nantucket by a fence. Newtown’s business leaders used some of their wealth to support the abolitionist cause. In 1841, Frederick Douglass was invited to speak at a local abolitionist meeting. He talked about his life as a slave and his escape from slavery. His speech inspired Mary Ellen to fight for an end to slavery.

In 1842, she moved to Boston, where she met her first husband, James W. Smith, a businessman from Charles Town, West Virginia. Smith was an abolitionist who bought slaves at slave auctions so that he could free them. Unfortunately, Smith died two years after they married. When his estate was settled, Mary Ellen inherited $45,000 ($1.2 million today).

In 1848, she married JJ Pleasant, but he soon abandoned her to join the California gold rush. Mary Ellen followed JJ to San Francisco in 1852, only to discover he had joined the crew of a steamship that operated a regular route between California and Panama. Mary Ellen decided to secure her own future. Like Mark Twain, she quickly figured out that there was more money to be made in San Francisco than in the mining camps.

Mary Ellen made money as an investor and as an arbitrager. She used part of her inheritance to loan money at 10% interest. As an arbitrage trader, she bought gold and then exchanged it for silver. When she had amassed a sufficient amount, she sold the silver to eastern investors for an incrementally higher price than she had paid. By 1858, she was worth more than $150,000 ($4.2 million today).

She was successful because she was able to easily build rapport with people at every economic level of San Francisco. However, she preferred to stay in the shadows, operating through white men. San Francisco was a melting pot of whites, Hispanics, blacks and Chinese immigrants. But it also overflowed with racists who blamed black and brown skinned people for everything from “stealing” jobs from whites to being criminals. Chinese immigrants were regularly subjected to ICE-style raids by mobs that resulted in property destruction and murder. For non-whites, there was no legal recourse.

In 1854, the California Supreme Court ruled that non-whites were banned from testifying against whites in court, in the Folsom v. Leidesdorff case. The ruling allowed James Folsom, a politically connected white man, to steal an estate valued at $1.4 million ($38 million today), from the heirs of black entrepreneur, William Alexander Leidesdorff. A state law codified this grotesquely racist decision.

Recognizing the political reality, Mary Ellen protected herself by staying in the background and quietly using her wealth to try to change the status quo. She donated to efforts to overturn the California state law and supported a variety of abolitionist newspapers and organizations. Her most spectacular and risky donation was to finance John Brown’s revolution.

John Brown was a murderer who suffered from delusions of emulating the Haitian Revolution in which black slaves led by Toussaint L’Ouverture overthrew French colonialism. His revolution would begin with a slave insurrection in West Virginia. But first, he would need to steal guns and ammo from the U.S. military depot at Harper’s Ferry.

Mary Ellen gave Brown a bank draft for $45,000 ($1.3 million today) to underwrite his revolution. She later traveled to West Virginia, meeting with slaves to encourage them to join the revolution. Alas, she misread their enthusiasm. The slaves didn’t rise up in rebellion and Brown’s raid was crushed in about 48 hours. (John Brown was hanged a year later, becoming a thoroughly undeserving martyr to the abolitionist cause.)

Mary Ellen briefly went into hiding before returning to California in 1859. Most of her fortune had been blown on the revolution, but she insisted she never regretted her choice. She set about rebuilding her fortune.

After the Civil War, she decided to use the new federal Civil Rights Act of 1866 to challenge local laws which prohibited black people from riding the San Francisco streetcars. A white friend boarded the chosen streetcar and watched as the conductor zoomed by the next stop where Mary Ellen was waiting to board. Mary Ellen sued for discrimination.

A streetcar

In Mary E. Pleasants v. NBMRR, the court ruled that the local streetcars must be desegregated and awarded her $500 ($6,863 today) damages. She was able to testify because the old state law had been repealed. The case was widely cited in the 1950’s and ‘60’s civil rights litigation.

The inevitable backlash to her lawsuit was a smear campaign alleging that Mary Ellen was a former slave, a mammy, a voodoo priestess, or a madame, depending on which pseudo-journalist one chose to read. The backlash included the election of a white supremacist as governor in 1867 who rammed through laws stripping legal rights from non-whites.

However, voters quickly tired of the racists, who whined about the unfairness of life, while catering to the wealthy and ignoring the problems faced by most people. In 1871, a reformer was elected governor after promising to address the housing shortage and food insecurity faced by most Californians. One of his biggest campaign donors was Mary Ellen.

The new governor had lived at the downtown San Francisco boarding house owned by Mary Ellen. They remained friends until his death. Her closeness with the governor proved that Mary Ellen had the connections and the money to get things done. She used both to quietly underwrite a political and social revolution.

Mary Ellen Pleasant died in 1904, leaving an estate valued at $600,000 ($16.2 million today). Her final wish was that people would remember that she had devoted a large part of her fortune to the cause of ending slavery.

Mary Ellen Pleasant’s story appears in Black Fortunes, by Shomari Wills (2018). A movie about her life, “Meet Mary Pleasant”, is available on Netflix and Amazon Prime.

If you would like Norma’s blog sent to your inbox, we invite you sign up by clicking here! And we will see you next time!

And be sure to follow Norma on LinkedIn  

Nepo Baby from Hell

Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus was born in 37 AD to Agrippina the Younger and Gnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus. Daddy is irrelevant since he ever-so-coincidentally died when his son was three years old. Mommy was a granddaughter of Emperor Augustus and sister to Caligula.

In ancient Rome, ambitious women used ruthless cunning and sex to get what they wanted since they had no legal rights. Agrippina was a master of both. She decided that her son should become emperor, but there was a hindrance. Her uncle Claudius was emperor and he already had a son. These impediments were a mere speed bump for her.

First, Agrippina arranged for Claudius’ wife to be executed for adultery. Then she convinced Claudius to pressure the Senate into changing the incest laws so that she could marry her uncle. Next, she had her son designated as the spare heir with the adopted name of Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus. Having served his purpose, Claudius was poisoned by Agrippina. Disposing of Claudius’ son wasn’t even a speed bump.

In 54 AD, Nero was declared emperor and Agrippina arranged his marriage to Claudius’ daughter, Octavia. Agrippina was an acute political operative who had a sense of how far she could push her cruelty without causing a fatal backlash. Nero learned only to emulate her cruelty.

As a teenager, he liked to disguise himself as a slave and wander the streets of Rome with friends, visiting brothels, shoplifting, and assaulting bystanders. His viciousness was tolerated because of his mother’s social and political influence.  When his identity leaked to the public, copycat attacks on distinguished people increased. The rule of law slowly died as the emperor engaged in criminal behavior.

The problem with bullies like Nero is that he was a physical coward. He could dish it out; but he couldn’t take it. When Senator Julius Montano was attacked in the street, he fought back instinctively and punched Nero. Montano immediately apologized when he recognized the emperor, but Nero deemed the apology a slur and forced Montano to commit suicide. After that Nero always surrounded himself with soldiers and gladiators who protected him in the street brawls.

Nero may have been a coward but he loved watching violence. In his day, theater performances were often disrupted by rival gangs who supported different dance troupes. (A modern equivalent is soccer club “ultra” fans who attend games solely to start drunken brawls in the stands. Ultras are criminally prosecuted and usually banned for life from games.) Nero waived legal penalties for hooliganism and even offered prizes to the gangs. He often hid in the shadows, watching the fights. Eventually, public complaints about the violence forced Nero to station troops in theatres to keep the peace.

Nero’s attacks on the rule of law weren’t limited to hooliganism on the streets or in the theaters. He had the Senate appoint him as consul even though as emperor, he couldn’t legally serve as a consul.  He used his consulship to protect a serial criminal and murderer named Publius Celer. Nero couldn’t simply pardon Celer, since the crimes weren’t committed in his province, but he ensured the court case dragged on long enough for Celer to die of natural causes. Tacitus doesn’t give a reason why Nero protected Celer but there is a hint of one crook protecting another.

Nero’s flood-the-zone approach to lawlessness was enabled by the supposedly independent Senate. Senators were wealthy and often came from aristocratic families, but that could not save them if Nero decided they were a threat to him. Besides, with corruption beginning at the top and the rule of law being ignored, nobody’s property or person was safe, so each Senator was busy grabbing what they could.

The fighting in the top 1% of society didn’t bother most people initially. They cared more about economic issues, like taxes. Tax collection was delegated to third parties who paid for a license and guaranteed a fixed amount of taxes were paid to the national treasury. The tax collectors could levy additional fees and tax amounts without any governmental oversight. Even people bad at math can see the scope for corruption.

Private tax collectors managed to climb the social and income scale almost as fast as modern tech bros, leaving a trail of financial ruin in their wake. In 58 AD, Nero decided to win public acclaim by abolishing all taxes. At that point, the Senate invited him for a chat where they flattered him for his noble generosity before explaining that an empire without revenue is doomed. Nero agreed to make tax collection fairer by setting maximums on tax rates and limiting the extra fees charged by tax collectors. Public announcements of the new limits can be seen on surviving monuments.

After this popular triumph, Nero reverted to being a selfish, greedy nepo baby. In 59 AD, he orchestrated the murder of his mother, removing the only restraint on his paranoia and megalomania. Free to live as he wanted, he decided he wanted to be a charioteer. Then he wanted to be a musician and began playing the lyre. He also declared himself a poet.

To showcase his talents, he created the Youth Games. The games were held in a newly built district consisting of brothels and taverns. He dished out money to ordinary people who could only spend it in his new redlight district. At later games, the Senate cut to the chase by offering Nero the first prize and creating awards to feed his ego.

None of it was enough. He had Puteoli (modern Pozzuoli) renamed after himself. He surrounded himself with yes-men like Tingellinus who claimed Nero was loved and admired. Tingellinus also convinced Nero to banish or murder anyone who threatened Tingellinus’ influence and power.

But everyone was becoming bored with Nero’s erratic antics. Rumors circulated that attendees were bored by his performances and that privately senators and aristocrats mocked him.

Then a fire burned Rome in 64 AD. It spread rapidly through narrow, twisty streets lined with wooden buildings. Gangs of looters prevented people from fighting the fire. As the city burned, a second fire started on the estate of Tingellinus. When the fires finally burned out, three districts were levelled, seven were barely habitable and only four districts were intact.

Nero immediately decided to build a Domus Aurea (Golden House) on the levelled districts. He bragged about marble floors, gold trimmings, and lavish murals at a time when most Roman citizens were homeless and starving. He was shocked to learn they were angry, so he ordered food to be distributed to buy their goodwill.

It wasn’t enough. Rumors circulated that Nero was playing his lyre while the city burned, or that he had started the fire so that he could steal the land to build his gilded palace. Popular opinion swung completely against him. For years, ordinary people had witnessed his excesses, thinking it didn’t affect them. But as the rule of law was hollowed out, corruption trickled down from the top 1%, gutting government services that could have assisted in rebuilding Rome.

Nero got his Golden House (parts of which have been excavated in recent years) but he didn’t get to enjoy it. In 68 AD, to avoid assassination, Nero committed suicide, abandoned and loathed by everyone. His gruesome sidekick, Tingellinus was forced to commit suicide in 69 AD.

Today we may debate whether Nero was a sociopath or a psychopath; he was certainly a mass murderer.  His reign highlights how corruption at the top undermines the rule of law and quickly destroys society because no one’s property or person is safe from the criminals.  His name survives as the Italian word for “black”.

This account of Nero comes from The Annals of Imperial Rome, by the historian Tacitus.

If you would like Norma’s blog sent to your inbox, we invite you sign up by clicking here! And we will see you next time!

And be sure to follow Norma on LinkedIn  

Creating Hope in a World With None

Anna Essinger was a force of nature. Her optimism kept her moving forward against crushing challenges. She was born in Ulm, Germany in 1879 into a family of prosperous, assimilated Jews. In 1926, she started a school at Herrlingen (now Blaustein), Germany. She was known to her students as Tante (Aunt) Anna.

In 1933, she organized the transfer of the school’s Jewish students and teachers to England to protect them from the Nazis. [See November 2025 blog.] The school resettled into a rundown manor house in Kent, England, called Bunce Court. Since there was no money to pay for repairs, the students and staff renovated the property and transformed it into a sort of friendly Hogwarts. The students worked in rotating teams that repaired the buildings, tended a vegetable garden and beehives, and raised chickens and pigs.

Anna Essinger

During the war, many of the children worked on neighboring farms to supplement the school’s finances and to obtain more food. The school also accepted local English children as required by the local school board as the price for obtaining the necessary permits to operate as a school. Their tuition provided additional financial support for the school.

The majority of students at any given time were Jewish refugees who arrived in several phases. Each group had specific psychological and emotional problems based on their wartime experiences. The first group were the original refugees from Herrlingen. They had suffered the least emotional damage because they escaped Germany before persecution of the Jews had ramped up.

The next group were Kindertransport children who arrived between December 1938 and September 1939. Tante Anna coordinated with the Refugee Children’s Movement which organized the Kindertransport trains. Children could only gain a seat on a Kindertransport train if someone paid for their passage (essentially a ransom) and there was a family, preferably Jewish, who would foster them when they arrived in England.

Kindertransport children arriving in England

Most of the Kindertransport children were from assimilated Jewish families. That didn’t matter to a rabbi who delayed one trainload of children in Germany because, in his opinion, there weren’t enough Orthodox Jewish families among the volunteer foster parents.

In early 1939, England appealed to the U.S. to allow 20,000 Jewish refugee children into the U.S. The proposed legislation needed to waive the severe limits on legal immigration stalled in Congress. One idiotic and unidentified member of Congress argued that “admitting children without their parents was against God’s law”.

Some of the Kindertransport children arrived at Bunce Court. Unlike the children who fled in 1933, these children were deeply traumatized. They had been subjected every day to casual brutality and then witnessed the looting and murders during Kristallnacht. Today, these children would be diagnosed with PTSD. In 1939, Anna and her staff helped these children learn to have hope again through music, art, gardening, and caring for the farm animals.

Bunce Court

Then, more financial bad news hit the school. In 1939, the owner of Bunce Court informed Anna that the school’s lease would not be renewed. The property was valued at £5,000 (equivalent to $513,222 today), an impossible sum. A lesser person would have folded at the knees. Anna refused to give up. She decided to hold a fundraiser.

In June 1939, the school staged The Magic Flute for the local community and their patrons. Additional money was raised from the sale of the students’ art and handicrafts. The Dean of Canterbury Cathedral was so impressed, he invited the students to restage their production at the cathedral. Anna raised enough money to convince the School Council (her board of directors) that they could obtain a mortgage to buy Bunce Court. The school was saved again.

But the hits kept coming. In June 1940, Bunce Court was requisitioned for use as an RAF base and the school was given three days to evacuate. While students and staff packed up the school, Anna traveled to the west of England and found another rundown estate called Trench Hall. In the space of three days, Anna signed the lease, hired buses and trucks to move their belongings, and arranged for the youngest children to temporarily stay at another school. The school took another financial hit when they had to abandon their chickens, pigs, beehives and vegetable garden at Bunce Court.

Trench Hall had no electricity, no plumbing, a leaky roof, and a lack of space. In the first few weeks, the staff stayed up all night operating a hand pump to provide enough water for everyone the following morning. The students immediately got busy repairing the buildings. Soon, the older boys were sleeping in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Garages and the Saddler’s Shoppe. Teachers slept in renovated horse stalls. A sunken rose garden was converted into an open-air theater.

While operating at Trench Hall, the school received a third wave of students, Kindertransport children who had been living in English foster homes. These children were traumatized while living in Nazi-occupied countries and then again by foster families who had no idea how to cope with their emotional problems ranging from food hoarding to nightmares to angry outbursts.

When the war ended, the school returned to Bunce Court. They found the place completely trashed by the RAF. Tante Anna didn’t hesitate and neither did her students, who were old hands by now at fixing up uninhabitable spaces. They repaired the buildings and planted a new vegetable garden.

While these repairs were being made, Bunce Court received a fourth and final wave of students. These students were known as the “concentration camp boys” because they had survived the camps or by living rough in the Polish countryside. (Girls were less likely to survive because the Nazis classified them as “useless eaters” to be murdered immediately.) These deeply traumatized survivors were each adopted by a group of their fellow students who helped them to “become human again”, as one survivor put it.

The refugee children of Bunce Court ended the war as orphans. Tante Anna coordinated with the Red Cross and Jewish refugee organizations to trace the families of her students. The parents and most of the extended families of the children had perished in the Holocaust.

About 900 students passed through the school before Bunce Court closed in 1948. Most of them became college graduates and leaders in their professions. A few of the students never recovered from their childhood trauma, leaving a trail of depression, broken marriages, and substance abuse that affected their own children. However, they never forgot the kindness and caring of Tante Anna and stayed in touch with her until her death in 1960.

Today, Bunce Court is divided into four apartments. A resident became interested in the history of the building after talking to several people who showed up to look at the house. The visitors were former students or the children and grandchildren of students.

Anna Essinger is one of a very rare breed of people who refuse to allow a world without hope. To learn more about this remarkable woman and her school, see The School That Escaped the Nazis, by Deborah Cadbury (2022)

If you would like Norma’s blog sent to your inbox, we invite you sign up by clicking here! And we will see you next time!

And be sure to follow Norma on LinkedIn  

The Little School That Escaped the Nazis

In 1933, the mainstream conservative political party invited Adolf Hitler to become chancellor of Germany in a cynical ploy to stay in power. The conservatives knew that Hitler was a danger to Germany’s fragile democracy. They didn’t care.

The conservatives claimed that Hitler didn’t really intend to abolish all independent power bases in Germany, starting with journalists and government departments. They said Hitler didn’t mean it when he threatened retribution against his enemies. (Immediately after coming to power, Hitler ordered the arrest of the attorney who had prosecuted him for tax evasion years earlier. He also filed bogus criminal charges against a prominent newspaper that was critical of his policies, forcing the paper to close.) They also claimed that Hitler wasn’t serious about eliminating the Jews in Germany and Europe.

But not everyone was so willfully stupid or greedy for power. Some people believed Hitler meant what he said.  One such clear-eyed individual was Anna Essinger.

Anna Essinger

Anna was born in Ulm, Germany in 1879 into a family of prosperous, assimilated Jews. At the age of 19, Anna joined a widowed aunt in Nashville, Tennessee, then moved to Wisconsin to attend college. She was studying for her doctorate at the University of Wisconsin when World War I began in 1914 and anti-German sentiment forced her return to Germany.

While in the U.S., Anna had become acquainted with several influential Quakers.  She melded their humanitarian and compassionate values with her belief that education is the key to progress. In 1926, she started a school at Herrlingen (now Blaustein), Germany.

The Herrlingen school was unlike anything ever seen before in Germany.  The school looked like a private home and many classes were held outdoors. The curriculum emphasized art and music. The only rules were to be honest, hard-working, to resolve conflicts peacefully, and to treat others fairly. Misbehaving students were sent to Tante (Aunt) Anna for a compassionate chat about how their bad behavior affected others.

For several years, the school flourished as Jewish and non-Jewish parents looked for an alternative to the typical regimen of corporal punishment and rote learning.  That changed as the Nazis gained political power in the Reichstag and began gaining control of local and state governments. An early target was education and school curricula.

Adolf Hitler at the Nuremberg Rally

Local Nazi bigwigs threatened to close the school unless Anna taught a curriculum approved by the Nazis which emphasized obedience to the state, glorification of the military, and “history” lessons blaming Jews for everything wrong in Germany and the world. Then they ordered all non-Jewish staff and students to leave the school. Tante Anna knew it was a matter of time before the Nazis forced the school to close.

Anna decided to save her school from the Nazis. She masterminded an audacious plan to move the school to England with the help of Quaker acquaintances. The logistics were a nightmare, requiring travel documents and permissions from multiple levels of government in Nazi Germany and the countries they would travel through. Parents had to consent to send their children to England with no promise that they would ever meet again.

In the summer of 1933, she put her plan in motion using a cover story that they were taking an educational school trip. School trips during the summer break were popular in the 1930’s as part of the “wanderlust” movement, in which students and young adults traveled around Europe to visit cultural sites and experience local cultures. The wealthier ones could even afford to travel to the U.S.

Tante Anna’s students were split into three groups accompanied by their remaining teachers. Each group left from the local train station but took a different route over the following week. The cover story was that they would take a two-week educational holiday before returning to Herrlingen. Instead, the groups met up at the Belgian port city of Ostend and boarded a boat to England.

The school resettled into a rundown manor house called Bunce Court in Kent, England. Anna immediately embarked on a never-ending struggle to scrape together enough money to pay the rent each month and buy food. Most of the teachers were refugee Jews who received room and board in lieu of a salary.

Anna’s optimism inspired everyone. Under the supervision of a teacher, students in the woodworking shop churned out materials needed to repair the manor house and outbuildings. Other students assisted the handyman who maintained the boiler that provided heat and hot water. The most popular duty was assisting in the kitchen since that often meant getting a little extra food.

The school was soon self-sustaining as the students planted a huge vegetable garden and raised pigs. They later added beehives and sold the honey. It wasn’t all hard work. The former lawns were transformed into a swimming pool, an outdoor amphitheater, and a football (soccer) pitch. Classes were held outside whenever the weather permitted.

Meanwhile, the lives of their parents in Germany were increasingly hopeless. Jews seeking to emigrate were forced to sign over all their assets to the Nazis as the price for leaving Germany. But they also needed to find a country willing to take them, which was nearly impossible since they would be destitute upon arrival.

In June 1938, England and the U.S. headlined a conference at Evian, France to discuss waiving immigration quotas to allow German Jews to emigrate. But the conference quickly fizzled into nothing. Americans were isolationist and anti-immigrant. Politicians of all stripes claimed that Jewish immigrants would be a burden on taxpayers.

The indifference of democratic countries encouraged the Nazis to ramp up their activities. In November 1938, they stage-managed the destruction of Kristallnacht, blamed the Jews for the violence, and stripped the Jews of their citizenship. Anna’s brother was forced to hand over the family’s furniture business to a Nazi-approved goon, who quickly bankrupted the company.

The children at Bunce Court learned about the struggles of their parents and siblings from letters they received. Mail delivery between England and Germany continued until war was declared on September 1, 1939. After that, the Red Cross and other private organizations attempted to pass along information.

The children were never able to reunite with their parents, who perished in the Holocaust. After the war, Tante Anna spent many hours working with Jewish refugee organizations and the Red Cross trying to locate relatives of the children but was rarely successful.  

The Herrlingen school building was confiscated by the Nazis. It was later gifted to Field Marshal Erwin Rommel as a reward for military service. (He had already collected every possible military decoration.) Rommel was living at the former school when he was forced to commit suicide in October 1944. The building is now a museum for both Rommel and Anna Essinger.

Most people, when faced with dictators and evil, will concede without a whimper engaging in “anticipatory obedience”, a term coined by Professor Timothy Snyder. Anna Essinger is one of a very rare breed of people who refused to give in to evil or to allow a world without hope.

To learn more about this remarkable woman and her school, see The School That Escaped the Nazis, by Deborah Cadbury (2022)

If you would like Norma’s blog sent to your inbox, we invite you sign up by clicking here! And we will see you next time!

And be sure to follow Norma on LinkedIn  

Anarchy Rules

For ten long years, the workers had fought for improved working conditions. They wanted an 8-hour workday, a shorter workweek, increased attention to worker safety, and to be treated with respect as human beings.

Their demands were met with police truncheons and militia, the private armies hired by the factory owners. National Guard troops were often activated by governors who owed their political office to the people with the money.

 The madder the workers got, the more scared the employers became and the more extreme their reactions. As union membership expanded, employers hired spies to infiltrate the organized labor movement. Union organizers lost their jobs, were frequently arrested on dubious charges, or turned up dead. Employers locked out union workers, then brought in strikebreakers, who were protected by Pinkerton agents that had been temporarily sworn in as sheriff’s deputies.

On May 4, 1886, some workers gathered for another labor rally in Haymarket Square in Chicago. As the speechifying began, a bomb was thrown at the police forming a perimeter around the crowd. The police responded by blasting away with live ammo. In the aftermath, seven policemen and four civilians lay dead. Uncounted numbers were injured.

Although no one was ever conclusively identified as the bomber, eight individuals were charged with murder. A quick trial in August 1886 resulted in convictions and eventually four were hanged. Newspapers sympathetic to workers published images of gallows and nooses next to sketches of the “martyrs”. Newspapers sympathetic to the factory owners branded labor unions and workers as “anarchists”.

Anarchy was a muddled middle-class political philosophy projected onto the labor movement. The middle class then, as now, was a sandwich being squeezed from above by aristocrats and fabulously wealthy industrialists and from below by the growing masses of urban factory workers. The middle-class could never become aristocrats like the Crawley family at Downton Abbey and they lacked the resources to become factory owners. But they could slide down into the ignominy of poverty. They felt that they were not reaping the benefits of Gilded Age capitalism.

Anarchy was initially defined by individuals like Prince Peter Kropotkin, a Russian aristocrat with a first-rate education and a gift for gab. He developed “white guilt” at the privileges enjoyed by his social class while most Russians were still serfs, essentially slaves to the aristocrats who owned the land worked by the serfs. Tsar Alexander II decreed an end to serfdom in the 1860’s only to be assassinated by an anarchist in 1881. His son, Tsar Alexander III, reacted much like Stalin or Putin, imprisoning and torturing anyone even vaguely suspected of dissent.

Prince Peter Kropotkin

Kropotkin fled Russia to evade a one-way trip to a Siberian prison. He went to Switzerland where he made fiery speeches advocating the overthrow of the capitalist system. Kropotkin preached that society could only survive if the bourgeois world was destroyed. Bourgeois intellectuals and college students packed the halls where he spoke.

As support grew, so did the inevitable backlash. No one has ever willingly given up a single privilege, particularly when there is a financial penalty, say higher taxes, attached to such a sacrifice. Besides, the anarchists couldn’t offer an economic system that would be fairer to everyone. Those who saw benefits in capitalism decided that Switzerland would be better without the gabby Russian.

The Swiss government expelled Kropotkin, so he went to Paris, where he promptly engaged in dubious activities leading to his arrest. In exchange for a pardon, he agreed to leave France. He went to England, which has a long tradition of tolerating political refugees and oddballs.

But while Kropotkin and his friends enjoyed their gabfests, they had no idea what life was really like for the “victims of capitalism”. In Chicago, the workers who met in Haymarket Square led an almost unimaginably grim life. They worked 10 hours a day, six days a week, with no paid leave and no retirement plan. They made about $1.50 a day (about $50 a day at today’s rates). A worker injured on the job or who was no longer physically able to do the job found himself unemployed. A worker killed on the job left behind a destitute family who faced homelessness and starvation.

There were no social welfare programs providing a safety net for workers or their families. A lack of healthcare meant poor people (and wealthier folks) self-medicated with laudanum, a mixture of opium and alcohol. It was as addictive as OxyContin and as deadly. Accidental or intentional overdoses ended the physical and emotional pain of those overcome by despair.

Living conditions were horrible. Entire families were crammed into squalid tenements, not much bigger than today’s efficiency apartments. When New York City required a specific amount of square footage per adult tenant, landlords gamed the system by building tenements with 15-foot and 20-foot ceilings, counting all that air space in the square footage calculations.

In the face of these obvious inequities, politicians decided anarchism was the real threat. They used a divide and conquer strategy to pit native born against immigrant workers to protect the privileges of the wealthiest one percent. Anarchists railed against landlords, factory bosses, cops, and judges as the representatives who enforced the capitalist system.

The slow pace of change eventually caused a split in the ranks of anarchists. Non-violent sorts like Kropotkin were optimists who believed that capitalism would collapse under the weight of its rottenness. A small offshoot advocated a violent overthrow of the capitalist system.

Political assassinations became popular. In 1878, the kings of Spain and Italy survived assassination attempts and Kaiser Wilhelm I survived two attempts. In 1898, Empress Elisabeth of Austria was killed by a knife-wielding nut. In 1901, President William McKinley was assassinated in Buffalo, New York. (Have any presidents visited Buffalo since?)

President William McKinley

Anarchism was never an organized political movement. It was the philosophical meanderings of individuals who felt that they were not winners in the political and economic system of their day. The assassins tended to work alone because they were radicalized privately by what they read in books and political pamphlets.

Anarchism lost its appeal in the U.S. when progressive politicians began enacting laws that protected workers (but not immigrants). In Europe, anarchism became irrelevant when the old socio-economic system was destroyed by World War I.

The modern equivalent of anarchism is the antifa (anti-fascist) philosophy. Antifa advocates tend to be educated and middle class. Some suffer white guilt like Kropotkin and long for an indefinable social justice. All come from families who feel squeezed by the current system in which they will never attain the wealth of an IT billionaire but could easily slide down into poverty.

Like the anarchists before them, antifa is not an organized political movement. Also like the anarchists, most are non-violent with a sprinkling of violent actors. As a result, this new Gilded Age will also be marred by political assassinations committed by lone wolves radicalized by what they read and see on social media. The current government will overreact by openly siding with the billionaires whose money got them elected and passing laws that protect their privileges.

Eventually, the level of inequities will become so outrageous that a new progressive era will usher in a new round of social justice legislation to make capitalism feel less predatory. Or we’ll destroy the current system with another world war. Then a new cycle will start and a new version of anarchism and antifa will emerge.

For a more in-depth look at how the original Gilded Age mirrors today’s world, including the similarities of anarchism and antifa, read The Proud Tower, by Barbara W. Tuchman (1966).

If you would like Norma’s blog sent to your inbox, we invite you sign up by clicking here! And we will see you next time!

And be sure to follow Norma on LinkedIn

Let’s See What’s Out There

At the end of the pilot episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation, Captain Jean-Luc Picard says, “let’s see what’s out there” and the USS Enterprise sets off once again to “explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life forms”.

Those phrases capture the vision of the founders of America. The founders of the U.S. supported public education and scientific research and development. They knew that was the best path to prosperity for the people and the country.

That is why the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, which transferred federally owned land in what became the states of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, required the new territorial governments to set aside land for schools and universities. Public schools educated the children (because a democracy depends on an educated electorate). Public or land grant universities had a dual purpose of providing a college education and conducting research related to agricultural and mechanical (A&M) projects to bolster American farmers and industry. In the past 200 years, American universities have helped develop higher yielding crops that are more resistant to disease and lousy weather, thereby reducing world hunger.

For more adventurous souls seeking out new worlds and life forms, the U.S. government funded exploration. In 1804, the federal government funded a Voyage of Discovery, more familiarly known as the Lewis & Clark Expedition, that explored the vast lands President Jefferson had bought from France. This scientific expedition found a land full of wealth just waiting to be exploited for capitalist gain, from the logging industry to farming. The cities came later.

Since government money covered the cost of the trip, reports on discoveries and expenditures were due to Congress. Meriwether Lewis was on his way to Washington to answer questions about his expense reports when he died mysteriously on the Natchez Trace, near Hohenwald, Tennessee.

After the American Civil War, relentless westward expansion meant there were additional areas to explore. In 1869, Congress voted to fund a scientific expedition to explore the upper Colorado River. As its leader, they chose a one-armed Civil War officer, Major John Wesley Powell, a native New Yorker who lived by the maxim to “stay curious” long before Steve Jobs thought up that tag line for his overpriced consumer products.

Powell was a lifelong learner. He was a university professor of geology who dabbled in scientific research on a variety of topics, as well as ethnography, which came in handy when he met indigenous tribal people along the Colorado River. He was an eternal optimist. Without his optimism, the expedition he led would probably have been a dismal failure. No matter how bleak the situation seemed, he always had faith that the crisis could be resolved successfully. That came in handy during his white-water rafting trip down the Colorado River.

The expeditionary troop he assembled consisted of ten men that he thought would be resilient and who could work as a team.  Their first task was to build custom rafts durable enough to survive any rough waters they encountered. Then they had to choose food that would remain edible over the long haul, such as flour, sugar, coffee (naturally!), bacon, and dried apples.

Eventually, they pushed their rafts into the Colorado River, scrambled aboard, and launched themselves down the river. Over the next three months, they passed through parts of modern-day Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, and Arizona.

What a three-month ride it was! They almost drowned while exploring tributary creeks in side canyons near the Grand Canyon when storms upriver caused flash flooding. Most famously, Powell dangled off a cliff with his one good hand until he was rescued by a team member. Their rafts were repeatedly snagged on sandbars or flipped by white water rapids.

When the rafts flipped, all their supplies were dunked and waterlogged. Everyone grabbed what they could and pulled it ashore on the riverbank or a sandbar. They would pause for a day or two while they waited for their food to dry in the sun or by a fire lit from driftwood.

They never recovered all their supplies and gradually the food dwindled. Eventually, they faced starvation as their supplies ran out. Several of the men couldn’t take it anymore and mutinied. Powell tried to convince them that even though the situation was grim, it would get better.

His optimism persuaded most of the men to stick with him but three decided to walk back to civilization. The three men vanished near the mouth of the Grand Canyon and no one has ever learned what happened to them. Almost immediately after the three men left, the expedition encountered a group of Indians who gave them food. Powell decided to end the expedition before they entered the Grand Canyon.

After the trip, Major Powell wrote a report for Congress describing the expedition’s adventures on the river, the local Indian populations, and the geology of the area. His report was so informative and exciting, he was encouraged to publish it as a book. More than 100 years later his adventures are still a roaring good tale of optimism and perseverance.

Powell later became the director of the U.S. Geological Survey, shaping it into the trusted institution it is today. He was also the first director of the Bureau of Ethnology at the Smithsonian Institution, where he encouraged linguistic and sociological research.  

Today, the vision of America’s founders is crashing and burning. Federal grants to fund education and R&D are being terminated to “eliminate government waste” in one of the most blatant examples of self-sabotage and self-harm in the history of the world.

At the end of 2024, the U.S. was a world leader in scientific research and had more Nobel Prize winners (physics, chemistry, medicine, etc.) than any other country. Americans held more patents than the citizens of any other country. We are now abandoning all that greatness. China is rapidly approaching parity on patents and their national investment in R&D now matches (and has probably already overtaken) the U.S.

Regardless of your political affiliation, ask yourself this question. How can America be great if it rejects its founding principles and refuses to invest in its own future?

John Wesley Powell’s book was originally published in 1895 as “Canyons of the Colorado” and is available today as “The Exploration of the Colorado River and Its Canyons”.  You’ll learn a lot about different types of rocks while enjoying Powell’s death-defying and sometimes hilarious adventures.

If you would like Norma’s blog sent to your inbox, we invite you sign up by clicking here! And we will see you next time!

And be sure to follow Norma on LinkedIn

I Hate You. But I Hate Them More!

In 1932, in a desperate bid to stay in power, the conservative politicians in Germany cynically offered a power sharing agreement with Adolf Hitler. Hitler was even more cynical and unprincipled than the conservatives; in less than a year, the conservatives were completely out of power. [See “Stuck in the (Center Right) With You”, 7/27/2020]

After a few years of bludgeoning Germany into submission, Hitler went after France. He hated France because it had insisted on punishing Germany after World War I. Germany was forced to pay crushing reparations, to demilitarize its border with France, and limit the size of the German military. Hitler promised to make Germany great again by destroying their old enemy, France.

When Hitler attacked in 1940, France was a political, social, and military mess. France was still recovering from the fallout caused by the Dreyfus Affair (1894 – 1906), when the highest-ranking Jewish officer was falsely accused of treason to cover up the actual treason by another officer who had better political connections. Politicians and the military high command backed each other’s lies until it became impossible to distract public attention from the truth.

The Dreyfus Affair fractured French society, revealing deep pockets of antisemitism and intolerance. It discredited the main political parties allowing the rise of new parties ranging from fascists to socialists, conservatives to communists. Protestants and Catholics fragmented into support for each political faction, except the communists who were anti-religious.

The French still believed in their “Grand Army” which had conquered Europe for Napoleon more than 100 years earlier. But the military leadership had put their faith in a static defense based on the Maginot Line, a string of half-built fortresses, at a time when military tactics were shifting to mobile warfare with mechanized troops.

In May 1940, the Maginot Line became irrelevant when the Germans simply went around it. French citizens were shocked because they had been told the Maginot Line made France invincible. Then their Grand Army fell apart so rapidly that the whole campaign was over within six weeks. By June 1940, the Germans were parading down the Champs Elysees in Paris.

The shocking loss discredited the French military leaders and politicians. Later some of them openly collaborated with the Nazi occupation, in hopes of maintaining some of their privileges and power. Cynical people mouth patriotic drivel while selling out their countries for personal gain.

French citizens, on the other hand, were mad as hell and they weren’t going to take it. Small groups immediately organized into resistance cells. But the resistance groups mirrored the political and cultural divisions of France and had difficulty setting aside their petty bickering in the face of a common enemy. They trusted only the people they knew. No one trusted the communists because they took their orders from Moscow and had refused to fight the Germans until Hitler invaded the Soviet Union in 1941.

Henri Frenay

Conservatives flocked to Combat, led by Henri Frenay, while socialists opted for groups like the Socialist Resistance Leaders, led by Christian Pineau. Most groups operated locally. One of the few resistance groups operating across France was The Alliance, led by Marie-Madeleine Fourcade. [See “The Hedgehog Who Ran Rings Around the Nazis”, 1/28/2019]

Marie-Madeleine Fourcade

In the early days of the occupation, resistance groups were amateurish and lax about security. It was easy for collaborators to infiltrate an organization and arrange for the Gestapo to arrest everyone. Arrest meant undergoing torture as the Gestapo demanded the names and whereabouts of anyone who had escaped the original roundup. (Counting backward from 100 was recommended as a distraction while being tortured.)

To support the French resistance, outside organizations quickly formed to offer supplies, training in spy craft, and channels for relaying intelligence reports. But the outsiders had different objectives for France, which meant they didn’t trust each other.

The Free French were led by Charles de Gaulle who wanted an all-French liberation of France, with himself as the leader, naturally. He had to rely on the British for supplies but disguised this weakness by projecting strength through his speeches broadcast into occupied France and his steely determination to always have a seat at the Allies’ table when decisions were made.

Charles de Gaulle

Prime Minister Winston Churchill was an imperialist who wanted to protect the British and French empires so that their vast resources could be used by the Allies to win the global war. Churchill created the Special Operations Executive (SOE) which coordinated the British government’s activities in France.

Winston Churchill

The SOE consisted of individuals who had lived in France and sounded like natives, rather than English tourists with bad accents. The SOE ran its own agents in occupied France as well as supporting activities with resistance groups in France. One of the groups supported by SOE was the Maquis, a militia operating in central France. (In the TV series, “Star Trek: Deep Space Nine”, a small group of rebels called themselves the Maquis in homage to the WWII group.)

In 1942, the Americans showed up and decided to back Admiral Darlan. The Americans didn’t really like Darlan; but they hated de Gaulle. Apparently, de Gaulle’s massive ego and condescending attitude clashed with the massive egos of the Americans. The Americans created the Office of Strategic Services (OSS, forerunner of the CIA) which ran its own agents behind enemy lines.

The ultimate goal of all this activity was to prepare for the expected Allied invasion of France. But with so many different networks of agents running around France, the situation remained chaotic. Eventually, de Gaulle and Churchill cooperated minimally to support the Conseil National de la Resistance (CNR) led by Jean Moulin. Moulin was a former prefect (i.e., governor) who was energetic and had good organizational skills. His job was to persuade all the major resistance groups to coordinate their efforts in the months before the Allied invasion.

Jean Moulin

Henri Frenay, the arch conservative, refused to cooperate with the CNR because he (falsely) accused Jean Moulin of being a communist. The Americans reflexively despised anything “communist” or that they didn’t directly control. Churchill’s attention, meanwhile, was already drifting toward preserving the British Empire.

Despite mutual suspicions, massive egos, and contradictory goals, a master plan was successfully implemented by the French resistance which added to the chaos behind German lines when the Allied invasion began in June 1944. By August 1944, Paris was liberated.

After France was liberated, the old fractures immediately resurfaced. A witch hunt ensued for collaborators. Women who had fought for France, been tortured by the Gestapo, but survived the war were unceremoniously dumped by the governments of France, Britain, and the U.S. and their contributions were erased from official records.

But the women and men of the French resistance, whatever country they originated from, show us what we can accomplish when we don’t allow fear to deter us from our goals. They believed fighting intolerance and injustice was more important than their own lives. That belief allowed them to overcome their differences to achieve the common goal of defeating fascism.

There are many books about the French Resistance, including many memoirs. For this article, I relied on Soldiers of the Night, by David Schoenbrun (1980).

If you would like Norma’s blog sent to your inbox, we invite you sign up by clicking here! And we will see you next time!

And be sure to follow Norma on LinkedIn

Love and Hate, Medieval Style

Lust. Sibling rivalry. Murder. Infidelity. Intertwined family trees. Double and triple crosses. Inheritance battles. Meet the Angevins! Henry and Eleanor, and their obnoxious sons, Henry, Richard, Geoffrey, and John. An ordinary, loving family when they weren’t trying to kill each other.

Eleanor inherited the Aquitaine and the County of Poitou at the age of 15 when her father died while on pilgrimage to Saint James of Compostella. He had gone to ask the saint’s help in smiting some of his vassals with whom he was feuding. Apparently, the saint wasn’t listening, since he died while awaiting the saint’s blessing.

Aquitaine and Poitou covered two-thirds of modern-day France, a prosperous area of farms and vineyards. That wealth enabled the counts of Aquitaine to support the finer arts, hosting poets and troubadours who sang chansons d’geste and chansons d’mour. (Today, the best-known chanson d’geste is the Song of Roland.) Eleanor grew up in a rich, cultured court unmatched at the time in Europe.

Her overlord was Louis VI (a/k/a the Fat), king of France, who was hellbent on expanding French crown territory. Wasting no time, Louis the Fat arranged the marriage of Eleanor to his 16-year-old heir. Eleanor was escorted from sunny, southern France to a dank, drafty abode on the Ile de France in the Seine River.

Louis VII was a saintly lad, more priest than king, while Eleanor was raised by a father who fought the church when he wasn’t fighting his vassals. She eventually gave birth to two daughters, but no heir for the French throne. Not surprisingly, Eleanor was bored with Louis and Paris after ten years of marriage. Then she met a tempestuous 18-year-old, Henry of Anjou.

Henry’s family was even more screwed up than Eleanor’s. His mother, Matilda, was the daughter of King Henry I of England and widow of the Holy Roman Emperor. She insisted on being called Empress Matilda even after becoming the Countess of Anjou when she married a much-younger man, Geoffrey, Count of Anjou. Count Geoffrey was an odd, capricious man. One of his odd habits was wearing a weed (Latin name, planta genet) in his cap.

Love had nothing to do with their marriage. It was an alliance of two ambitious people hoping to use each other to grab more power. Matilda expected to inherit the crown of England because her father arranged for the English barons to swear allegiance to Matilda after his son (Matilda’s brother) died.

But raw power beats a sacred oath any day of the week. When her father died, Matilda’s cousin, Stephan of Blois, had himself crowned King of England in 1135. For the next 19 years, Stephen and Matilda fought a civil war across southern England for control of the English crown. (The Brother Cadfael mysteries by Ellis Peters are set during this civil war.)

Matilda, probably stupidly, looked to her husband, Geoffrey, for assistance. Since she had made no secret of the fact that she thought marrying him was a step down in prestige, it’s not surprising that Geoffrey always seemed too busy to lend her any knights to fight in England. After all, he was busy fighting Stephen and the French king for control of Normandy.

Meanwhile, Henry was shuttled between his parents, much like a child today whose divorced parents share custody. During one of his stays with Geoffrey, Henry was taken to Paris to swear allegiance to the French king as the heir to the County of Anjou and Duke of Normandy.

Henry was 18 years old, a strapping, athletic lad with reddish brown hair. Eleanor was 25 years old with a dull, saintly husband. They fell deep into lust. For Eleanor, it must have felt like a real-life version of a chanson d’mour. But before they could get together, something had to be done about her husband.

Their brilliant plan was to ask the pope for an annulment on the grounds of consanguinity. After some delicate and skillful negotiations, the pope annulled Eleanor’s marriage to Louis in 1152 on the grounds that they were too closely related. All the European aristocratic and royal houses have overlapping family trees, whether in the 12th century or the 21st century. Eleanor promptly married Henry to whom she was even more closely related.

In 1154, King Stephen of England died. Based on his settlement with Matilda that had ended the English civil war, Stephen cut his own son from the inheritance and Henry became Henry II of England; the first Angevin king of England. Henry II and Eleanor now controlled all of England and most of modern-day France. They made a great team, ruling in tandem, at least until they started fighting each other.

Henry II couldn’t keep his britches on. He was a serial philanderer and Eleanor quickly lost patience and tolerance for his catting around. By 1167, she had returned to Poitou, where as Countess of Poitou, she was a vassal of the French king and could count on his support. Eleanor and Henry were at war with each other.

As their sons, Henry, Richard, Geoffrey, and John, grew older, they inevitably joined the family feud. Henry II had fought for everything he had, and he expected his sons to do the same. Henry’s favorite home had a mural showing eaglets attacking an adult eagle, which he bragged was a visual description of his relationship with his sons.

The eldest son, Henry, was slated to inherit the English throne. He badgered his father incessantly about his inheritance until he was given a coronation and became known as Henry the Young King. Richard was Eleanor’s favorite, and she ensured he was made heir to the Aquitaine. Geoffrey was made heir to Brittany, a region his father stole from the French king. John, the youngest son, had no land to inherit and was derisively nicknamed John Lackland by his father.

As any idiot could have predicted, parceling out Angevin lands was like adding gasoline to a fire. The boys fought each other to grab a bigger piece of the inheritance. They fought their father, often with the support of the French king, to whom they owed allegiance for their French lands. Eleanor usually supported her sons as they fought Henry II. (Hell hath no fury…)

In 1173, Eleanor and her sons rebelled against Henry II with support from the French king. From the Pyrenees to the Scottish border, Henry’s realm was in flames. But Henry II practiced 12th century blitzkrieg, traveling at a speed that confounded his enemies. By 1174, he had broken the rebellion and captured Eleanor, imprisoning her. (She remained a prisoner until Henry’s death.) Their sons negotiated a surrender to stay alive and out of a dungeon.

Henry and Eleanor tomb effigy

In 1183, Henry the Young King died and that meant Richard was next in line for the English throne. Henry II decided to reapportion the inheritances of his remaining sons. That set off their last rebellion, which included John Lackland, who had previously sided with his father. They were still fighting when Henry II died in 1189. Eleanor lived well into her 80’s, dying in 1204.

Richard the Lionhearted tomb effigy

Henry II was the first Angevin king and one of the greatest kings of England. But he was a dud as a husband and father. He was succeeded by his son, Richard the Lion-hearted, who bankrupted the kingdom to pay his ransom when he was captured on the way back from the Crusades. His younger brother John was a vicious, arbitrary soul, who liked to torture people. One of John’s victims was his nephew Arthur of Brittany. In 1215, John was forced to sign the Magna Carta to keep his crown. After John died, the Angevins rebranded as the Plantagenets. The last Plantagenet king was Richard III, who died in 1485.

King John tomb effigy

A brief article can’t possibly do justice to the intertwined family trees and medieval allegiances that explain so much of the complexity of Eleanor and Henry II. To get a more in-depth understanding, see Eleanor of Aquitaine and the Four Kings, by Amy Kelly (1950) and The Greatest Knight, by Thomas Asbridge (2014).

If you would like Norma’s blog sent to your inbox, we invite you sign up by clicking here! And we will see you next time!

And be sure to follow Norma on LinkedIn

Weary Work for Women

Lucretia Mott was barely five feet tall, weighed less than 100 pounds and she scared the hell out of men.  She believed that slavery was morally repugnant and should be abolished.  She also believed women should have equal rights with men, including the right to vote. Men feared her because she was a powerful and persuasive public speaker. 

Lucretia Mott was doubly dangerous because she was an organizer. In 1833, she and other Quaker women founded the Philadelphia Female Anti-Slavery Society.  The new group immediately caused a scandal because (gasp!) black women, like the poet Sarah Forten, were full members. Most abolitionist groups either banned African Americans or offered them second-class membership. 

Lucretia and James Mott

The women’s group was formed in response to the American Anti-Slavery Society which was also founded in Philadelphia. This group was dominated by men who ignored the suggestions of women during the debate over the content of the group’s constitution. Their dismissive attitude didn’t stop Lucretia from repeatedly interrupting the debate to offer her own suggestions.  The women were also denied the right to sign the society’s constitution. 

The women’s group was immediately attacked in newspaper editorials. Many editorials ordered them to stop poking their noses into politics and to return to their “domestic duties” as wives and mothers. Other editorials attacked them for mixing races, which was an affront to almost all white Americans at that time.  Some editorials worried (correctly) that women would use the abolition movement as a starting point to argue for women’s rights, most importantly, the right to vote.  

Underlying all the criticism was an amorphous fear that equality for women was a threat to men. Lucretia Mott was fortunate in having a husband, James, who supported her political organizing.  Most of the women in the early abolitionist movement had to maneuver around their husbands’ disapproval or they were unmarried women. 

Since women couldn’t express their opinion through their votes, they had to find other methods for getting their abolitionist message in front of Congress.  They chose to petition.  Today, petitions constantly circulate on social media with a plea to readers to “sign” the petition, an effort of dubious value since there is no way to verify these electronic signatures.  The abolitionists did it the old-fashioned way; they trudged from town to town, clutching a paper copy of their petition and asking everyone they met to sign it.

It was dangerous and dirty work.  One society’s report called it “weary work”.  Men yelled abuse at the women, claiming they had no right to be involved in politics and accusing them of sedition. The women were often spit upon and constantly ridiculed.  One woman stated that they weren’t just fighting to end slavery, “we must also overthrow the injurious prejudices relative to the real duties and responsibilities of women”. 

Many of the canvassers were teenage girls as young as 11 years old. They were taught a script, which included handling hostile responses.  Their motto was “Let no frown deter, no repulses baffle. Explain, discuss, argue, persuade”.  One of these teenage volunteers was Susan B. Anthony.  She later used the skills she had honed during the petition drives to fight for the right to vote.

One of the earliest petition drives was organized by Lucretia Mott.   By 1835, petitions calling for an end to slavery were flooding the halls of Congress, outraging Southern slave owners and their northern sympathizers, many of whom were merchants profiting from sales to southern states or manufacturers who bought slave-produced goods like cotten. 

Sen. John C. Calhoun

Sen. John C. Calhoun (South Carolina) had already led an effort to ban the U.S. Mail from delivering abolitionist newspapers and pamphlets in slave states.  Another South Carolinian, Rep. James Hammond proclaimed that abolitionists should be punished with “terror - death” and demanded that Congress should reject any additional abolitionist petitions.  For politicians, censoring speech they didn’t like became an obsession.

Rep. James Hammond

A gag law was passed by the House of Representatives which prohibited members of the House from reading or discussing the petitions and from referring them to committees.   Committees are the basis upon which Congress acts, gathering information and drafting new laws. If no committee could review the petitions, the petitions were essentially toilet paper.

The Senate never passed the gag law, but they routinely ignored the petitions that flowed in from the folks back home. Both houses of Congress appeared indifferent to the concerns of their constituents and out of touch (particularly with women who couldn’t vote despite being half the population). 

Even people opposed to abolishing slavery worried that Congress was destroying the constitutional liberties of Americans by censoring speech.  If Congress could arbitrarily decide what kinds of speech were safe or dangerous, then “farewell, a long farewell to our freedom,” opined The Evening Post of New York.   The criticism caused many Northern state legislatures to abandon efforts to pass state censorship laws.  

The gag law turned out to be a spectacular recruiting tool for abolitionists.  Women flocked to the abolitionist societies and volunteered to canvass communities with new petitions.   The abuse and ridicule they suffered energized the women’s rights movement.

In 1848, Lucretia Mott, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and other women met at Senaca Falls, New York for a convention on women’s rights.   They demanded civil rights, including the right to own property in their own name, the right to an education, and most crucially, the right to vote.  Women finally won the right to vote in 1920 when the 19th Amendment was ratified.

The petition drives of the 1830’s demonstrate that a reactionary and out-of-touch government cannot ignore social justice issues forever.  Social (and political) reform is a long game, measured in years and sometimes decades.  Eventually repressive governments collapse under the weight of their own hypocrisy and corruption.  But this can only happen when citizens are sufficiently motivated to fight for their own interests by resisting political and social injustices. Resistance begins by registering and then voting in every election at all levels of government.

This account of women abolitionists who became suffragists is based on The Republic of Violence, by J.D. Dickey (2022). 

If you would like Norma’s blog sent to your inbox, we invite you sign up by clicking here! And we will see you next time!

And be sure to follow Norma on LinkedIn

Creator of the Modern World

The world we live in today would not exist without Napoleon Bonaparte.  Napoleon I was a stubby, later chubby, Corsican with a gigantic ego.  He decided that his best path to glory and fame was through a military career.  Volunteering for military service continues to be a path to fame and fortune, as illustrated by the number of military veterans elected to political office across the U.S. 

Napoleon was an artillery officer. In the late 18th and early 19th centuries, artillery was an elite branch of the military because artillery barrages could shatter defensive emplacements and kill scores of the enemy without endangering one’s own troops. Napoleon followed conventional military tactics which required opening every battle with artillery barrages to soften up the enemy position before committing the infantry, usually in a frontal assault on the enemy position. Napoleon was so successful that armies around Europe and in the U.S. adopted his tactics while ignoring technological upgrades of military weaponry. 

Napoleon’s troops, for example, faced the “Brown Bess” a British gun that was only effective at close range. Fifty years later in the American Civil War, everyone used Springfield rifles which were accurate at a distance. One hundred years later in World War I, troops went over the top into machine gun fire that mowed down a generation of young men. But in December 1944, the Germans omitted an artillery barrage (lack of ammunition) and caught American troops off guard in the Battle of the Bulge.   

Napoleon’s career sputtered following the French Revolution in 1789. The revolutionary government caromed from one crisis to the next. Revolutionaries and radicals tend to turn on each other after they get rid of their original opponent, in this case the French king and queen. The country descended into a low-grade civil war as the various factions fought for control.  

Initially, none of the factions wanted to include Napoleon because they were leery of his ambition. But desperate times lead to hasty, stupid decision-making. One faction asked for Napoleon’s help to defeat a rival faction, fully expecting to dump him when the deed was done. That failed when they realized Napoleon was more popular than they were.  

In 1798, Napoleon was packed off to Egypt with the goal of breaking British supply lines that stretched to India. To ensure plenty of favorable PR, he invited scientists and artists to accompany his troops. They were fascinated with the monuments of ancient Egypt and busily sketched and painted everything they saw. Their sketches and paintings inspired others to dig in the Egyptian sands. Effectively, Napoleon created a new academic discipline, archaeology.

While the invasion of Egypt was an abject military failure, Napoleon didn’t care and neither did most French citizens. Back in France, people had decided that democracy required too much effort, and that ceding their civil liberties was worth the price of a dictatorship promising law and order. Naturally, Napoleon was one of the three members of the new dictatorial Consulate. He quickly dispensed with the other two members and in 1804 he was crowned emperor.

Unlike most egotists and dictators, Napoleon was intelligent and had excellent organizational skills. Under his leadership, revisions to the legal code were finalized in 1804 into the Napoleonic Code. The Code is still used by countries that were part of the French Empire and by the state of Louisiana. He also reformed the army, which was necessary for his other goals.

Napoleon had bold plans for expanding French territory in Europe and overseas, including plans to reoccupy Louisiana after selling it (and most of the North American continent) to the U.S. Since the French navy was no match for the British navy, and because he was an artilleryman, he opted for land battles in Europe.

Every battle won was a propaganda opportunity to convince opponents that resistance was futile. Some countries caved in, signing treaties with France which Napoleon had no intention of honoring. Napoleon excelled at exploiting the fears and political divisions of everyone in Europe. 

Europe was a patchwork of countries and territories with fluid borders from centuries of warfare. The biggest and weakest political entity was the Holy Roman Empire (962 – 1806 AD) which covered most of central Europe and stretched down into northern Italy. Napoleon blew it apart. The Holy Roman Empire splintered into self-selecting groups based on their local languages and customs, eventually forming the countries we know today.

Napoleon’s successes lulled him into believing his own propaganda. He decided to invade Russia because he was unhappy with Tsar Alexander I for not sucking up sufficiently. Like all egotists he had surrounded himself with sycophants who cravenly agreed that stretching supply lines past the breaking point to attack a country spread across 11 time zones was a good idea. Napoleon’s Grand Army starved in the snow outside Moscow or drowned at the Berezina River during the retreat. (Archaeologists recently found the graves at the Berezina River.)

When a bully is down, it is irresistible to kick the stuffing out of him. (It’s why bullies and tyrants are terrified of losing power.) Everyone in Europe who opposed Napoleon and French control piled on. By April 1814, Napoleon was backed into a military and political corner and forced to abdicate.

Napoleon’s influence on the modern world is undeniable, both the good and bad. The good category includes creating the academic discipline of archaeology and modernizing the laws and political structure of France. Destroying the Holy Roman Empire had both good and bad consequences. 

As the Holy Roman Empire transitioned into modern Europe, the new countries needed more than just a common language to maintain cohesion. They needed to believe their country and their culture was superior to all others, a notion that underpins the jingoistic patriotism that still plagues too many countries today. This laid the groundwork for the 19th century arms race that culminated in a World War in 1914.

Napoleon didn’t invent imperialism, but his desire to build an empire encouraged other nations to prove their superiority by colonizing the non-white world. Throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries, European countries and the U.S. scurried around the world subjugating Asian and African people in a mad scramble to create empires that would supply minerals and natural resources to the imperial power. They brought along their racism and cultural chauvinism, treating the local cultures as inferior. The residue of these attitudes continues to poison international relations today.

We can honor Napoleon for the good consequences arising from his rule. But we should be appalled by the bad consequences the flowed from his actions.

There are scores of books about Napoleon examining his personality, his military prowess and his political career from every possible angle, for those who would like to delve more deeply into this fascinating and flawed man.  

If you would like Norma’s blog sent to your inbox, we invite you sign up by clicking here! And we will see you next time!

And be sure to follow Norma on LinkedIn

Family Secrets

What if you suddenly learned that your family history is a pack of lies told to cover up shocking crimes?  At the age of 38, Jennifer Teege suddenly learned that her grandfather was Amon Goeth, SS commandant of the Plaszow labor camp near Krackow, Poland.  Goeth was tried as a Nazi war criminal and hanged in 1946.

Her beloved grandmother, Ruth Irene lived with Goeth in the house where he stood on the balcony and shot at Jewish prisoners with a high-powered rifle.  (In the movie Schindler’s List, Ruth Irene buries her head under the pillows while he shoots.)   Ruth Irene told Jennifer that Goeth was a cultured, educated man, kind and gentle, who never killed anyone. 

Jennifer Teege was a German girl of mixed race born at a time when that was uncommon.  Her biological father disappeared after conception and her single mother placed Jennifer in an orphanage. While Jennifer loved the family that adopted her, she couldn’t stop wondering what flaw in her had caused her mother to abandon her. 

As an adult, Jennifer learned that her mother, Monika, spent her entire life coping with the emotional fallout of knowing who her father was and what he had done.  Everyone who met Monika said she looked exactly like her father.

Monika’s struggles mirror the mental and emotional distress experienced by other children of Nazi war criminals. The children remembered their fathers and their mothers as loving parents who cared for them, arranged birthday parties, and came to their school activities.  But history books and Holocaust documentaries revealed that their fathers were sadistic monsters who believed in white supremacy and committed murder on an industrial scale.  Many of the children succumbed to alcoholism and suicide. Some worried that their genes were “bad” and underwent voluntary sterilization. 

Jennifer also struggled with depression after learning the truth about her grandparents.  When she revealed her biological family’s history to her adopted family, it almost destroyed them too.  Her adopted father became obsessed with discovering exactly how many people died in the Holocaust. (We’ll never know because records were destroyed, lost or never created.  On the Russian Eastern Front, for example, researchers compare eyewitness accounts of massacres to military reports about the amount of ammunition expended on that date and then estimate the number of likely victims.)

When Jennifer’s adopted father was dying, he finally revealed that his obsession was based on his fear of what his parents might have done.   Was it possible that his father had committed crimes against humanity while serving in the Army in World War II?  What if his father knew of crimes committed by others but said nothing?  Does silence or guilty knowledge create criminal culpability?  What should the next generation do with that knowledge?

In the aftermath of the war, silence was golden to everyone.  Germany was destroyed and everyone was more interested in finding food and shelter than in rehashing the past.  In France, Charles de Gaulle ordered everyone to draw a veil over the past because he feared that France would tear itself to pieces over the issue of collaboration during the Nazi occupation.

In Palestine (later Israel), Holocaust survivors were often silent because what they had been through was so horrific, they didn’t know how to talk about it.  They also kept silent due to social pressures.  Some Jews who settled in Palestine before the war apparently believed that Holocaust survivors must be criminals themselves, staying alive by stealing food from their fellow inmates.     

Today, it’s common to criticize the generation of Europeans who “stood by” while the Holocaust happened.  We tell ourselves that we would never stand by while such terrible crimes were being committed.   

Unfortunately, horrific crimes don’t happen in a vacuum.  They happen because of our assumptions and attitudes which are internalized to the point of invisibility.   

The Holocaust happened because social attitudes made it easy to hate Jews.  Jennifer’s adopted father was told by his mother that Jews were hated because they owned all the shops in Germany.  Germans suffered hyperinflation during the Great Depression which made it easy to blame greedy Jewish storeowners, even for people who weren’t openly anti-Semitic. 

The U.S. also has a lengthy history of hate-filled social attitudes which allowed terrible crimes to be perpetrated.  The country continues to engender people who believe in the racial superiority of European Americans.  From slavery to Jim Crow to “the only good Indian is a dead one”, the attitudes we learn at home are so much a part of us, we don’t recognize them for what they are.  Much like Jennifer’s adopted father, a good man who didn’t recognize the anti-Semitism he was taught.

Standing up to injustices means losing our social standing, our friends, and sometimes our lives.  In Nazi Germany, Dietrich Bonhoeffer stood up to the Nazis and was thrown into a concentration camp, then murdered.   Ida B. Wells publicized the horrors of lynching and was chased out of Memphis.  Her enemies smeared her reputation so viciously that 90 years after her death, she is finally being honored for standing up.   More recently, Alexis Navalny stood up for the rule of law in Putin’s Russia and was murdered by Putin’s puppets.

Bonhoeffer, Wells, and Navalny are reminders of the risks of standing up to those who commit unspeakable, horrific crimes.  Whether in Nazi Germany, or today’s Russia and the U.S., crimes are perpetrated because most people tacitly agree with the perpetrators or because they are afraid of becoming targets themselves.  

Jennifer, her biological mother, and her adopted father never had to decide whether to stand up to the Nazis but were guilt-ridden because of the decisions of the prior generation.  The generation that follows us will face the same dilemma when they discover our decisions on standing by or standing up to those who commit horrific crimes.

To learn more about how Jennifer Teege and her family coped with the truth about her grandfather, see her book, My Grandfather Would Have Shot Me (2013).   You may also be interested in The Nasty Girl, a 1990 German film loosely based on the true story of a girl who had grown up hearing that her town resisted the Nazis.  When she begins uncovering what really happened during the war, the town turns on her and her family.

If you would like Norma’s blog sent to your inbox, we invite you sign up by clicking here! And we will see you next time!

And be sure to follow Norma on LinkedIn

The Engine of National Growth and Prosperity

“No Irish need apply,” screamed the job ads.

 They “have no standard of morals,” thundered labor organizer, Samuel Gompers, himself a Jewish immigrant from England, attacking Chinese immigrant-workers.

 Italians came to America, “to cut throats, throw dynamite, and conduct labor riots and assassinations,” screeched anti-immigrant fearmongers.

German immigrants “are generally the most stupid sort of their own nation….and will soon outnumber us,” complained Benjamin Franklin in 1753.   Ben was grumpy because he was taking a hit in his wallet.  His printing press in Philadelphia was losing business to a German-run printing press 70 miles west at the Ephrata Cloister. 

Ben Franklin’s complaint is at the heart of hostility towards immigrants.  Every new immigrant group is accused of stealing jobs from Americans.  That fear oozes into distrust of anything “different”, whether it is skin color, language, clothing, or religion. 

Most of the earliest immigrants from Europe were Protestants, notably the joyless Puritans in New England.  Although Catholics and Jews were present, their numbers were negligible.  Thus, was born the myth that the U.S. is a “Protestant” nation.

That began changing in the 1840’s when Irish Catholics arrived by the thousands escaping starvation and economic misery caused by the potato blight.  Starvation became inevitable when landowners who controlled Parliament refused to reduce tariffs on imported agricultural products so that they could protect the profits generated from their vast farming estates.  

In the decade from 1845 to 1855, 20% of Boston became Irish. In 1884, Boston elected its first Irish mayor.  The Irish were followed by Italians, east Europeans, and Jews.  By 1900, 400,000 Bostonians from a population of 560,000 had at least one foreign-born parent. 

Boston mirrored the country. In the 1890’s, 3.7 million Europeans arrived in U.S.  From 1900 – 1910, another 7.6 million immigrants arrived.  These immigrants came for the same reasons that motivated our families to come to America.  They were seeking religious freedom, economic opportunities, escape from political oppression, or some combination of these reasons.

Europe was a mess at the end of the 19th century.  Industrialists, like modern oligarchs, used their money to ensure that laws protected their privileges and wealth, while a permanent underclass of workers lived in poverty and periodically starved.  Asia was also a mess. China’s economy never recovered from the Opium Wars of the 1840’s, when Europeans forcibly dumped copious amounts of opium and other goods on the Chinese market.   With no jobs at home, Chinese men emigrated to the U.S. where they built the western end of the transcontinental railway while sending most of their earnings home.  (Countries around the world today rely on money sent by documented and undocumented immigrants working in the U.S.)

3rd Class Berth

Europeans could buy steerage class tickets on steamships at ports in western Europe. (Many east Europeans traveling west passed through a Polish rail junction called Auschwitz.)   Steerage class was invented by steamship companies who needed a “backhaul” from Europe to the U.S., where they loaded American products bound for Europe.  Immigrants were stuffed into the holds of ships and half-starved during the two-week journey to America.  The steamship companies made profits almost as outsized as modern tech companies.

Steamship

Boston Brahmins (White Anglo-Saxon Protestants) who traced their families back to the Puritans watched in alarm.  They were a living, breathing version of an Edith Wharton novel and they fretted that their “tribe” was facing extinction. 

They discovered that between 1850 and 1890, the family size for Harvard graduates shrunk by 30%; and at nearby Wellesley College, women were averaging 0.86 child per graduate.  (Economic research shows that as incomes rise, families have fewer children. In addition, girls who get an education are older before they have their first child, and they have fewer but healthier children.)

Theodore Roosevelt criticized the “willful sterility” of white Protestants which was causing a decline in white Americans.  He complained to a friend that the “Finnegans, Hoolihans, Antonios, Mandelbaums, and Rabinskis had 8 – 9 children.”   His complaint lives on in the “white replacement” fiction.

Some of the alarmed Boston Brahmins banded together in the Immigration Restriction League (IRL) in 1894. They were funded anonymously by John Murray Forbes, who had made his fortune in the Chinese opium trade.  Their mouthpiece was Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, another Boston Brahmin, who devoted his political career to passing a restrictive immigration law. 

Henry Cabot Lodge

Beginning in the 1890’s, Lodge pushed a literacy test which required immigrants to read five lines of the U.S. Constitution translated into their native language.  But the test only applied to males over the age of 16. Women were exempted to ensure there would be a steady supply of cooks and domestic servants for the Edith Wharton set. 

Not surprisingly, the steamship companies were the most vocal critics of American immigration laws.  They lavished money on lobbyists who pressured politicians at federal and state levels to vote against any restrictions on immigration. Truth, as usual, was the first casualty in the fight.  The lobbyists claimed that restricting European immigrants would mean increasing immigration of “negroes and half breeds.” 

Slowly, the nativists won. In 1882, the overtly racist Chinese Exclusion Act became law, banning all Chinese immigrants. To avoid a similar fate, in 1908, a “Gentlemen’s Agreement” with the U.S. required Japan to restrict emigration of their nationals. 

Other laws added restrictions, such as banning anarchists, epileptics, polygamists, lunatics, people with poor physiques or contagious (trachoma, tuberculosis) or loathsome (syphilis, gonorrhea, leprosy) diseases.  But even with these restrictions, only 1% of European immigrants were denied entry between 1880 – 1914.

Meanwhile, Lodge’s literacy test was splitting the Republican Party. Their infighting threw the 1912 presidential election to a misogynist and racist, Woodrow Wilson.  As a parting shot, lame duck President Howard Taft vetoed Lodge’s literacy test immigration bill.   

Wilson later vetoed another version of Lodge’s bill after someone explained to him that a sizable chunk of voters hailed from eastern and southern Europe, and some had even voted for him.  Wilson decided they were white enough to stay (and vote).  In revenge, Lodge crushed Wilson’s presidential legacy by ensuring the Senate voted against joining the League of Nations. 

Finally, in 1917, an immigration law passed with a literacy test. The test excluded children under the age of 16 or women accompanied by a literate husband or adult son.  Asians were barred entirely.  This law also gave the federal government broad authority to deport alien “radicals” even if they acquired their radical views long after arriving in the U.S.

The nativists scored their biggest victory with the Immigration Restriction Act of 1924 which set an annual quota of 155,000 immigrants.  The law also set a 2% quota for each nation based on that country’s representation in the 1890 census (i.e., before millions of immigrants arrived).  A West Virginia Representative hailed the law as necessary for “keeping pure the blood of America”.

Since 1924, the U.S. has lurched through various iterations of laws restricting immigration.  Everyone agrees the system is broken but can’t agree on a solution.   Meanwhile, immigrants tend to be younger than the average American and more entrepreneurial.  They pay taxes, regardless of their immigration status, while generally being ineligible for social welfare programs, such as Food Stamps, Social Security benefits, and Medicaid.  That means, whether documented or undocumented, their labor and taxes support everyone else.   

At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, James Madison argued that immigrants were the engine of national growth and prosperity.  He was right.

To learn more about this nativist period in American history and its shocking connections to eugenics (a racist pseudoscience created in America and adopted by the Nazis), see The Guarded Gate, by Daniel Okrent (2019). 

If you would like Norma’s blog sent to your inbox, we invite you sign up by clicking here! And we will see you next time!

And be sure to follow Norma on LinkedIn