Category: History

Grumpy opinions about American history

The Contradictory Life of Thomas Jefferson

On March 18, 2023

Part I, Liberty and Slavery

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

These stirring words that Thomas Jefferson used in the Declaration of Independence put forth a clear statement of his political philosophy. Unfortunately, the man behind the words is not nearly so self-evident. To borrow a phrase from Winston Churchill, he is a riddle wrapped in a mystery, wrapped in an enigma. Biographer Joseph Ellis referred to him as The American Sphinx.

He was a man of the enlightenment, but he was also a man clearly bound to the brutal slave economy. He dreamed of a bucolic America peopled by hardworking yeoman farmers while he lived the life of a wealthy British aristocrat. He abhorred the thought of banks and bankers but spent his entire life mired in debt. He wrote and spoke often of the need to avoid factionalism in politics but was a skillful practitioner of political intrigue. He constantly argued against expansion of governmental power but as President, without having the authority, he undertook to expand the United States to more than double its size.

So, how do we reconcile the words with the man? Perhaps we don’t. Perhaps the best we can do is try to understand the world in which he lived and the circumstances that led him to take such contradictory positions in his political and personal life. Tens of thousands of pages have been written trying to understand and explain Thomas Jefferson. Now, I’m only going to look briefly at his relationship to slavery. In a later post I’ll be looking at Thomas Jefferson as the master of political manipulation.

Of the many contradictions in Thomas Jefferson’s life, his relationship to slavery is the most difficult to reconcile. One of his first cases after becoming a lawyer was to represent a slave seeking his freedom on the grounds that his grandmother was a mulatto which would require him to be in bondage only until age 31. In an argument to the Virginia court Jefferson said, “Everyone comes into this world with the right to his own person, this is what is called personal liberty and is given them by the author of nature, under the law we are all born free.”

Both the judge and the jury were outraged that Jefferson would propose freeing a slave. The judge refused to hear any further such talk and ruled against Jefferson’s client. According to historian Winston Groom the fact that Jefferson had such a position at that time (1770) is considered significant and was a milestone in the evolution of his thought.

About that same time Jefferson was elected to the House of Burgesses and he introduced an act that would allow masters to govern emancipation of their slaves rather than having to seek the permission of the courts and the royal officers. This was met with strong opposition and did not pass. It is significant that Jefferson did not pursue either the court case or the legislation.

As a member of the Continental Congress, Jefferson prepared an amendment to the Ordinance of 1784 (a precursor to the Northwest Ordinance) stipulating the freedom of all children born to slaves after a certain date but requiring that they be deported to either the Caribbean or Africa. This amendment failed by a single vote in Congress. Reflecting on the decision Jefferson wrote: “Thus we see the fate of millions unborn hanging on the tongue of one man and heaven was silent in that awful moment”. But Jefferson was to remain silent as well!

To Jefferson it was unimaginable that free whites and free blacks could live together peaceably. Even years later when writing about it he said that it was “inconceivable [then] that the public mind would bear this proposition, nor will it bear at this day”. He also wrote “Yet the day is not distant when it must bear and adopt it or worse will follow, nothing is more surely written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free.” According to Jefferson’s biographer Jon Meacham, he was never able to move public opinion on slavery and his powers failed him and they failed America.

As president, Jefferson signed a law making it a crime to import slaves. But at the same time, he believed that if slaves were set free, they must be deported to Africa or the Caribbean. Most of his contemporaries agreed; they felt that American slavery was equivalent to “holding the ear of a tiger”, but they saw no way to let go.

So again, we return to the question of how to reconcile Jefferson the philosopher with Jefferson the enslaver. Jefferson was a man who enjoyed luxury and the finer things in life. Today he is viewed as a wealthy planter. However, he was what we would now consider cash poor. All his wealth was tied up in property and his slaves were a large portion of that property. His land was heavily mortgaged, and his slaves were his collateral. Jefferson’s wife was the daughter of a wealthy man and when her father died Jefferson inherited his 135 slaves and his land, which was also heavily mortgaged. He also inherited his father-in-law’s other considerable debts. He worried constantly about his financial status, yet he could not control his lavish spending. Freeing his slaves would have lost him the collateral against which his many loans were guaranteed.

Jefferson recognized the evil of slavery but also benefited greatly from it. He was unable to give up his comfortable life even while bemoaning the institution which made it possible. His relationship with Sally Hemmings has been a subject of much debate and is beyond what I can address here but if you are familiar with her story, you know that this a singular example of Jefferson’s inability to subordinate his desires to his principles.

During his lifetime he freed only two of his slaves and in his will, he freed only an additional three. This compares to some other founders who freed all their slaves in their wills. Perhaps he recognized that freeing his slaves would have resulted in an immediate foreclosure on his beloved Monticello.

It is long been axiomatic among historians that people should be judged by the time in which they lived. Jefferson was a man of his times, an exceptional man without doubt. However, his was a time that was consumed by one of the great evils of history. And that evil will always reflect on his memory. Each of us will have to make our own decision about Thomas Jefferson.

My Journey into Genealogy

By John Turley

On March 6, 2023

In Appalachia, Commentary, History

My journey into genealogy began when I was in my early 60s, an age at which many people would already be calling me an ancestor. It’s not something I had ever been particularly interested in. I really had very little sense of my family history. At that time, I could name my grandparents and one of my great grandparents and the family name of some other great grandparents but little else. Of course, like everyone else, we all had our family lore such as the Cherokee Princess in the family but no real documentation of anything.

Margie’s first cousin Mary has been involved in the Daughters of the American Revolution for quite some time. She really encouraged Margie to become a member and in fact did her research and prepared her application. She asked me at the time if I had thought about joining the Sons of the American Revolution. I dismissed it as unlikely because another part of our family lore was that all our ancestors came over from Ireland during the potato famine of the mid-1800s. Like much family lore, this tended to have little basis in fact and the only ancestor I have been able to document as having arrived from Ireland in the mid-1800s was not a Turley but a Kanary, another name that I had never heard before I started my journey.

Margie’s other first cousin Barbie was also in the DAR and her husband Bob is in the SAR. Bob encouraged me to apply to the SAR, but I was convinced that there were no ancestors in my family who could trace back to the revolution. Bob said he would do the research for me if I wanted to join. My friend Dick also helped me start down this path.

Our mother had always said that she could have joined the DAR but never did. I always discounted this because she had several other family legends that she used to tell us. One of those legends was that we were related to Teddy Roosevelt. This was because her grandmother’s family name was Bullock and Teddy Roosevelt’s mother’s family name was Bulloch. I always felt this was highly unlikely for two reasons, first because the spelling was different but mostly because our Bullock ancestors were New Jersey Quaker farmers and Teddy’s ancestors were wealthy southern planters. However, despite the fact we weren’t related to Teddy, I was surprised to discover we had many ancestors who traced back to the revolutionary era on both sides of the family.

Bob did his research and found my ancestor with ties to the revolution. His name was Samuel Henry, yet another ancestor I had never been aware of. His support for the revolution came in the form of what is called patriotic public service. He served on a grand jury that was called into session by the revolutionary government of Virginia in defiance of the crown.

This got me interested in seeing if I had any other revolutionary ancestors. In specific, as a former Marine, I was looking for somebody with more manly service than a grand jury. I found my man, a Massachusetts farmer named Moses Nash who served in the Massachusetts militia as a Minuteman Lieutenant and my fourth great grandfather. Not one of the Lexington and Concord Minutemen, but a Minuteman, nonetheless. Well now I was on a roll. I thought if there are two, there must be more. My current count is eight ancestors whose service I have documented and another 19 who were living in the colonies during the revolution but for whom I have not yet documented service,

I had no idea that my family can be traced so far back into the United States. Specifically, I had no idea that a significant branch of my family has ties to colonial New England in Massachusetts, Vermont, and Connecticut. One branch of my family I have traced back to the 1620s in Massachusetts. It was fascinating to read the will of an ancestor who died in 1638. I’m now on the hunt for the Holy Grail of American genealogy, a Mayflower ancestor. Although it’s highly unlikely, it’s still an interesting search.

I did try to discover that Cherokee Princess. I found a handwritten family history that said my second great grandmother’s grandmother was a Cherokee. Why it was listed that way rather than naming her I’m not sure. I have done some research and I have not been able to document any Cherokees in her lineage unless they were named Adkins or Midkiff or Gillespie, none of which I believe are Indian names.

DNA testing has also failed to document any Native American heritage. Although after that many generations that is not completely exclusionary. The person in question is my fourth great grandmother and on average I have inherited only 1/64 of my DNA from her. It is possible that specific Native American markers were not included in that small segment of DNA I inherited. But when the lack of DNA evidence is added to the lack documentary evidence, I have to admit that I’m not descended from a Cherokee Princess. (By the way, I’ve always wondered why it’s never a Cherokee Prince.)

So how did those ancestors get from New England to West Virginia? Right after the revolution the new United States government was almost broke. Many revolutionary soldiers were paid with a land warrant giving them a grant on the western frontier. They moved from New England and the eastern seaboard states into Ohio, western Virginia, Kentucky, Indiana, Illinois, and Tennessee. Generally, the lower the rank of the soldier the further West and the smaller his land warrant. But for men with no opportunity to own their own farms in the crowded eastern colonies, this was an opportunity they could not resist.

I have discovered a lot of things commonly believed about genealogy that appear to largely be mythology. There’s the story that the family’s name was changed at Ellis Island. If the family’s name was changed, either they did it themselves to appear more American or it was done on board ship before they arrived. At Ellis Island, ship manifests were copied into the arrival journal and no additional individual information was taken from the immigrants beyond a health examination and identification of a sponsor who would be responsible for them. Occasionally names may have been inadvertently changed later by a census taker who misunderstood or couldn’t spell ethnic names.

There’s also the “three brothers” story. This is a story where three brothers arrived from Ireland, England, Germany, take your choice, and then went to three different areas and that’s why there is significant name distribution. In fact, almost always when family members immigrated together, they tended to stay together as they moved further into the United States. DNA studies have demonstrated that most of the widely distributed name clusters have little close relationship.

If you want to find a quick and easy source of information about your family history, go to any of the major genealogy websites and look at census records. Depending on the year of the census you can find where your ancestors were born, if they could read or write, where their parents were born and what occupations they followed. It’s also surprising how large the families were. If you look at surrounding families, you can see that there are many clusters of relatives in the rural areas. Once they’ve moved into the cities they tend to be less often grouped together.

My favorite website is ancestry.com, but any of the major websites will have fascinating information. Just don’t accept everything on those web sites as factual. I have found many of the relationships listed to actually be an unrelated person of the same name. For example, in the early 1800s there were four John Turley’s in the Kanawha County area. Middle names weren’t common then and it took some research to figure out which one was my third great grandfather.

If you’re interested in genealogy, just get in touch with The Grumpy Doc and I’ll be glad to help you on your journey. Who knows, maybe we’re cousins.

Anchors Aweigh, Part IV

By John Turley

On February 7, 2023

In History, Medicine, Travel

I reported on board the USS Sanctuary in September of 1969 and went to the personnel office for my assignment. This won’t surprise anyone who was ever in the Navy, but they seemed to have no idea that I was coming. After conferring among themselves, they came back and told me that I would be senior corpsman in sterile surgical supply.

Sterile surgical supply was where we prepared and maintained all the equipment necessary for conducting surgery as well as the sterile equipment used in the clinics and wards. The Sanctuary had several surgical suites that were busy almost all the time when we were on station in support of combat operations. It was a busy place and went through a lot of equipment.

Life on board a Navy ship is a 24 hour a day, seven day a week job. There are no days off when you’re at sea. Fortunately, as a member of the hospital crew, I was what they called a shift worker. Which meant I had a set schedule. Members of the ship’s crew were watch standers. That meant they worked in four hour rotations that changed every 24 hours. We could at least have some type of a routine for awake and sleep time, but for a watch stander the schedule was constantly rotating. As a petty officer and a supervisor, I was exempt from some extracurricular duties such as working on the mess decks and taking part in working parties for regular ship maintenance and supply.

The work was hard and continuous. There was no shortage of casualties in 1969. Our job was to provide direct medical support to our troops in combat. The wounded were flown by helicopter directly from the battlefield to the ship. We got the most severely injured; the ones who couldn’t be effectively treated at a field hospital.

The crew was highly trained and incredibly efficient. From the time a wounded soldier or marine landed on our flight deck it was only minutes until he was in the operating room. The survival rate for the wounded in Vietnam was far greater than it had been in either World War II or Korea. This was largely due to the speed with which casualties were transported to definitive medical care.

We generally didn’t treat civilians, but one day, unbeknownst to us, one of our medevac helicopters was bringing in a pregnant Vietnamese woman. When she was offloaded on the flight deck she was already in labor. They brought her down to the preoperative holding area which was adjacent to our sterile supply room. When there was a heavy influx of casualties, we helped out in the preop area that functioned somewhat like an emergency room.

We were standing there, an anesthesiologist and three corpsmen, trying to figure out how to deliver a baby. Thank goodness the woman took it in her own hands and delivered the baby herself! Of course, that didn’t stop us from congratulating each other about delivering the only baby born on a Navy hospital ship during the Vietnam War. If only all our patients could have turned out so well.

When I remember my time on the Sanctuary, I try not to dwell on the suffering of our patients. Their sacrifices still move me to tears. I prefer to be grateful that I was mostly out of direct combat and to focus the less intense episode that helped us maintain our sanity.

One unexpected benefit of being the senior corpsman in sterile surgical supply was being able to order those supplies. One day while going through the supply catalog I discovered it was possible to order five gallons of pure medical grade grain alcohol. And even better, it required no approval. I also ordered a large five gallon glass beaker. We had wall mounts in our work room where there were glass beakers with soap solution and acetone. We also had an empty wall mount.

The alcohol arrived, along with the five-gallon beaker. I put the alcohol in the beaker and pasted a large poison sign on it. I got green food coloring from the mess decks in return for a promise to share. It’s easy to be generous when you have five gallons. I did have to emphasize that it couldn’t be drunk straight but had to be diluted by fifty percent with fruit juice or soda.

The food coloring gave it an appropriately poisonous appearance. It also gave us the advantage of hiding it in plain sight. I quickly became the most popular corpsman on the ship.

Right after Thanksgiving the CO of the ship issued an announcement that the crew was now authorized to put up Christmas decorations. (I think I’ve mentioned before that sometimes I don’t always think through my wise cracks.) The fact that we were now authorized to have Christmas got me thinking. I made a large sign that said “All enlisted personnel desiring to have a Merry Christmas must report to the ship’s office to obtain a Christmas chit. Personnel having a Merry Christmas without an appropriate chit will be subject to nonjudicial punishment.” A chit was basically the Navy’s version of a permission slip. I thought this was pretty funny. Apparently, the ship’s office did not agree when people started lining up to get their Christmas chits.

This resulted in a stern lecture from our leading chief. It generally consisted of about every third word beginning with the letter F. I was sure I was going to be reassigned, reduced in rank, sent to the brig or something even worse. Surprisingly, after many blistering words, he dismissed me with a wave of the hand. As I was leaving, much relieved, the chief said, “And you can drop off the rest of that grain you got to the chief’s mess .” That depleted my supply and ended my short-lived popularity on the USS Sanctuary.

Right after Christmas, we had the opportunity to have a Bob Hope show on board the ship. Everyone was crammed onto the main deck to watch Bob, a few musicians and some dancers put on about an hour and a half show. I was way in the back as we had all the patients in the front. Bob’s jokes were corny. I’m sure the dancers were pretty (I wasn’t close enough to tell for sure) and the musicians weren’t particularly talented, but a good time was had by all.

Navy ships at sea in a combat zone practice strict blackout at night. Hospital ships don’t. Not only are they painted white, but they are lit up like a cruise ship with large flood lights hanging over the side of the ship to illuminate the red crosses. This illumination led to what quickly became one of our favorite pastimes.

Inshore ocean waters in Southeast Asia are infested with sea snakes and they are attracted to light. One sailor had his parents send him a sling shot and BBs and before long the ship’s rails were lined with sailors firing BBs and watching the snakes rolling in the water. For most of us, these were the only shots we fired in Viet Nam.

Once, while cruising close to the mouth of the Perfume River near Hue City, the ship went dead in the water. The rumor quickly spread among the crew that the NVA had attached a mine to the hull. Everyone rushed on deck to watch as divers went over the side to investigate. Imagine our disappointment when they surfaced dragging a large fishing net that had wrapped around the propeller.

I don’t remember as much about the trip home from Vietnam as I do about the plane ride over. I do remember that as soon as the plane lifted off the ground everyone on board started cheering and applauding and whiskey bottles were passed up and down the aisles. (Perhaps that’s why I don’t remember much about the flight.) Needless to say, it was a very happy trip.

There were other events that I may share at some point, including a misguided trip to Camp Eagle and several port calls to the infamous Olongapo in the Philippines. However, this post has gone on long enough, but I may return later to revisit these memories.

We arrived at Norton Air Force Base, which I now knew was in Ontario, California, not Ontario, Canada. They took us through customs and started searching our bags. I was wondering why, because I couldn’t imagine anything we could possibly be bringing back that would be valuable enough for customs to worry about until I saw them going through bags and pulling out weapons, grenades and even a mortar shell.

This was in the spring of 1970 and the height of the Vietnam War protests. As soon as we cleared customs, they put us in a large auditorium and gave us our welcome home briefing. One of the few things I remember from this is that we were told that if we did not have civilian clothes that we should go to the base exchange buy some and put them on before we got to LAX. Under no circumstances should we go to LAX in uniform because we would be harassed or possibly even assaulted by protesters. This was not quite the welcome home any of us were expecting.

I was on my way to an officer training program and four years in college. I was sure that by the time I graduated and got commissioned the war in Vietnam would be over. But, like many things associated with that war, nothing would ever be certain, and I would see that sad country again.

Anchors Aweigh, Part III

By John Turley

On January 20, 2023

In Commentary, History, Medicine, Travel

When I left my duty station in Key West, the Navy handed me my orders and a check to cover my travel costs. As always, they left it up to me to figure out how to get there. I didn’t worry about that for the first two weeks. I was at home in Charleston, WV, and when I had a week left in my leave, I thought it was time to figure out how to get from Charleston to Norton Air Force Base, where I was supposed to get government transportation to take me to my new duty station, the hospital ship USS Sanctuary that was cruising off the coast of Vietnam.
I asked my father. He had never heard of Norton Air Force Base either and he suggested we contact a friend of his who was a travel agent. So, Dad gave him a call and two days later I went down to pick up the tickets. The agent handed me an airline ticket to Ontario International Airport. While I was trying to explain to him that I wasn’t going to Canada, that I was going to take my orders to Vietnam, he laughed and told me that Ontario was actually in California. It was the closest commercial airport to Norton Air Force Base.
While the Navy had given me money for transportation, it would only cover coach. In those days a coach seat was about the size a first-class seat is today. That flight took me to California where I got a bus to the Air Force base for the government chartered flight to Vietnam.
It was a long trip from California to Da Nang. We stopped in Hawaii to refuel. Unfortunately for us, they wouldn’t let us out of the airport. We were on that airliner long enough that they fed us three times, once on the way to Hawaii and twice between Hawaii and Da Nang. All three meals consisted of baked chicken, peas and carrots, and mashed potatoes. It wasn’t so bad for lunch and dinner but baked chicken for breakfast just wasn’t something I was up for. In typical government style we had three meals supplied by the lowest bidder.
I arrived in Da Nang to discover that the Sanctuary only came in port about every 6 to 8 weeks to resupply and wasn’t due back for three weeks. I got assigned to the transient barracks, where the Navy puts people awaiting further assignment. Sometimes at morning muster (roll call) they gave us jobs such as unloading trucks or doing basic lawn maintenance. Most of the time we were on our own to entertain ourselves.
The transient barracks was in Camp Tien Sha, a Sea Bee run support base. The most popular place on the base for enlisted men was the movie theater. It was open 24 hours a day and was free of charge. You could bring your own beer and they even allowed smoking in the theater. (Everyone smoked in the 60s.) They only had four movies which they ran in continuous rotation. But most importantly, it was the only place on base that an enlisted sailor could go that was air conditioned. Some guys even slept there.
While the camp was in one of the most secure parts of the Da Nang area, occasionally at night the alert sirens would sound. If any place in the surrounding area was attacked everyone got an alert. We would then go out to the bunkers and stand around outside to see if there were any rockets landing close to us. If there were, we would go inside the bunker. If not, we stood around outside smoking and trying to avoid the shore patrol who drove around to make sure we were in the bunkers. Occasionally we could see an explosion or the path of tracers in the air. Mostly we could just hear them. We were never quite sure where they were, but we were fairly confident they weren’t very close.
One of the most entertaining things was watching the TV news reporters. Camp Tien Sha had a weapons repair facility. If you were near it, you could hear machine guns and other weapons being test fired after having been repaired. You could also see tanks and other armored vehicles running up and down their test track. We got a big kick out of watching reporters put on a helmet and a flak jacket and stand in front of the camera while the tanks ran up and down behind them and the machine guns fired and them saying: “I’m reporting from the front lines in Vietnam. You can hear the battle raging behind me “. Occasionally, we would laugh so hard that one of the production people would come over and run us off. I know we ruined more than a few shots.
Eventually I got called to the personnel office and was told that the Sanctuary was due in port that afternoon. They handed me my orders and told me to report on board. I asked how to get to the dock and the personnel clerk just looked at me and shrugged. I eventually found my way to the motor pool and got a ride with a jeep that was heading down towards the docks.
There were several ships in the port at that time. However, the Sanctuary was hard to miss. Unlike other Navy ships that were painted gray, the Sanctuary was painted bright white and was emblazoned with big red crosses on the hull. I walked up the gangway, saluted and requested permission to board. In Anchors Aweigh Part IV I’ll talk more about life on the Sanctuary.

Have You Been To The Museum Of African American History And Culture?

By John Turley

On September 7, 2022

In Commentary, History

Margie and I are frequent visitors to Washington, DC. We love its history, its cultural activities, and its restaurants. We love the feeling of pride in being Americans that comes with a visit to the city. Over the years we have visited almost every major site from the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier to the Treasury to see money being printed. But there had been one place that had eluded us since it opened in 2016, the National Museum of African American History and Culture. We tend to be last minute travelers and the tickets have always been booked up months in advance, until this year.
We finally got tickets during our visit in May. It was a profound experience and I recommend it to everyone. Beginning with the early 1600s, it is a magnificently presented and emotionally challenging trip through the Black experience in America. As would be expected, slavery plays a significant role in the story told by the museum just as it does in the lives of African Americans and in the history of America.
I can never know nor understand how the history of slavery affects black Americans. I do know, after visiting the museum, I was deeply affected and that if those enslaved people had been my ancestors, I’m not sure I would be able to accept it without deep anger. It made me think that it is time for me to take a deeper look at slavery and how, 150 years later, it still reverberates through our society.

Intellectually, I believe I have had a basic understanding of the facts of slavery, its economics, its structure, and its broader role in history, particularly in the 19th century. But until I saw those exhibits I had not had a true understanding of the suffering, the pain, and the dehumanizing impact inflicted on those who endured it. I want to share with you some of the things I have learned about slavery.

John C. Calhoun, vice president under both John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson, was one of the strongest advocates of slavery ever to have served in the US government. He defended slavery as an almost benign institution that benefited the black people who were subjugated in his service. He used the term “the peculiar institution” or “the peculiar labor” to avoid the word slavery. As you can see below, he may also have been one of the scariest looking people ever to have been in our government. But slavery didn’t start in the American south and to begin to understand it we must go further back in history.

Slavery as an institution has been around for millennia. It is even mentioned in the Bible. However, most Americans’ concept of slavery is that of chattel slavery as practiced in the antebellum south in the United States and in the Caribbean. It is important to understand the history of slavery in the world to gain a true perspective on the odious nature of that exceptionally cruel form of slavery.
The practice of slavery preceded written history. It occurred in ancient Egypt, in the early mid-eastern states, and in ancient China. It is described in both the Hebrew and Christian bibles. Mesoamerican civilizations were known to have practiced slavery prior to European contact. It appears to have been well-established in almost all ancient cultures.
However, most historic types of slavery generally differed from what we think of as slavery in the Americas. In ancient civilizations many slaves were either prisoners of war or what were known as debt slaves. War slaves sometimes were repatriated when wars ended. Those who were not sacrificed to the victors’ gods were occasionally integrated into their captor’s society. This is not to say that this type of slavery was not brutal. Slaves were often malnourished and were at times subjected to such arduous working conditions that they died of exhaustion.
Debt slaves were those who entered a period of slavery because of the inability to pay bills but were sometimes able to work their way out of slavery and purchase their freedom. Their treatment, while less harsh than other forms of slavery was far from kindly.
Similarly, the serf system of the European middle ages was a form of slavery where peasants were bound to the land and owed their lords their service but were not specifically owned by the lord. A modern analogy to serfdom occurred in the first decades of the 20th century where miners were bound to the coal companies by their heavy debts to the company store.
Among the earliest international slave traders where the Vikings, who may have been the first to develop the slave trade into a purposeful business rather than a byproduct of war. They raided into the Baltic and Slavic countries and sold their captives into slavery in Western Europe and the northern African Muslim countries. Because Muslim law prohibited one Muslim from holding another in slavery, the trade in slaves quickly became international and highly profitable. It may be apocryphal, but some people claim that the word slave was derived from the fact that many Viking slaves were of Slavic origin.
While it would never be argued that any slaves were well treated, most did not suffer the type of abuse that existed in the Americas. Chattel slavery considered the slave to be not human but property. Property that could be disposed of or treated as the owner saw fit. This led to be a form of abuse which was particularly heinous.
But even this form of slavery was more complex that most of us realize. In the African slave trade, many of the people who were bound into slavery initially were captured and sold by other Africans. Most of the African coast slavers were Black rulers who sold either their subjects or their enemies captured in battle. Many Muslim African rulers had no problem selling other Africans they considered to be pagan. And of course, the Christian whites had no problem enslaving people that they felt to be “less than human.”
While we in the United States focus on slavery in the 13 colonies, most Africans sold into slavery in the Americas were sold in the Caribbean. Slavery on the sugar islands was particularly cruel. Due to disease, over-work and the brutality of the slave owners, most slaves did not survive the first year in the islands. To further underscore how the enslaved were considered as property and not as people, Caribbean slave holders believed to was cheaper to replace those who died than to provide them with adequate food, shelter, or health care.
After the slave importation was abolished in the United States, but while slavery itself was still allowed, many slaves were sold from the 13 colonies into the Caribbean sugar islands. This was little more than a death sentence for those who were shipped there. Families were broken apart with husbands and wives, parents and children never seeing one another again.
Even those who remained on the plantation were often brutally treated. On most plantations, slaves were forced to work from sunrise to sunset six and a half days a week. They had one set of clothes. Often entire families were housed in a 10 by 10 foot cabin and given only meager food. Those who did not work to the satisfaction of the overseer were frequently beaten and women were subjected to sexual abuse without any recourse. Many of the enslaved were not even allowed the basic dignity of a last name, though some, often secretly, gave themselves a last name to express their humanity and to strengthen their family structure.
To understand how these people were treated as property, one only need look at wills and probate records of the time. A will might state the “property includes five horses, a plow, a house, a barn, three black men, two black women, and three black children.” They were listed as property alongside animals and farm tools.
It is little wonder that slaves frequently made any attempt they could to escape to freedom. In fact, it is amazing to me that there were not more slave uprisings.
In the years following the Civil War, as part of the myth of the lost cause, there was an attempt to rewrite history, picturing slavery as being “good” for the slaves. The claim was that it provided them with structure, a Christian education, and a chance to become “civilized.” You can look at photographs taking during and immediately after the Civil War and realize that a big lie was the basis for this claim. People who deny the brutality of slavery have much in common with those who deny the brutality of the Holocaust.
I’m not a believer in original sin or that the evils of past generations are bestowed on the present. However, we must recognize that many of our fellow citizens are still, over 150 years later, strongly influenced by the echoes of the evil of slavery. This has been an open wound for many years. If it is ever to heal, we need to recognize what happened and that many people have a deep emotional tie to that history.
Black Lives Matter has a visceral meaning for African Americans that white Americans can never truly understand. But everyone can understand that there was a time when Black lives didn’t matter.
I don’t have all the answers. I never have and never will. But I do know that healing begins with understanding. Denial only prolongs the hurt. It is time to reach out, from both sides, face the uncomfortable truths and recognize that we are all Americans and must work together for a better country and a brighter future.
And that is my grumpy opinion. Agree or disagree, that is your right, but please give it your thoughtful consideration. Your comments are welcome.

A Well Regulated Militia

By John Turley

On July 4, 2022

In Commentary, History

The Second Amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I don’t think there is any subject in American history where so few words have generated so much disagreement. Every time there is a public shooting and the subsequent outcry for stricter gun control, the debate inevitably revolves around the Second Amendment. I won’t reargue the gun control issues. That has been done by others better informed and more eloquent than I.
I am going to talk about something that most people taking part in this argument seldom address, and probably don’t understand. I include myself in that latter category. What exactly is a well regulated militia, particularly in the context of the US Constitution?
We all have a vision of the farmer soldiers at Lexington and Concord standing up to the professional British redcoats. This is an image that has become part of our national identity and the way we think of ourselves as Americans. But from where did it come and how has it evolved?
Militias have been a part of our history since the founding of the first English colonies in North America. When those first brave settlers arrived, there was no army to protect them; they were expected to provide for their own defense.
There usually was not a formal militia structure, there didn’t need to be. The whole community was the militia. The men did the fighting, and the women and children reloaded muskets, carried powder, and tended the wounded. At times, women and children also took a direct part in the fighting which might be taking part on their farms or even in their homes.
As the colonies grew and became more settled, the militia became more structured. Individual colonies passed their own militia laws that specified who was obligated to serve, the condition of service, and the rates of pay. Prominent citizens were appointed militia officers and tasked with organizing and training the citizen soldiers.
On the frontier the militia remained critical to the safety of pioneer families. In the more settled portions of the colonies some militia companies had become little more than social clubs and others had ceased to exist altogether. The majority of those that still functioned had little equipment and even less funding.
While some militia units served admirably, the performance of the majority of the militia in the Revolutionary War was spotty. Few militia units had the training or the equipment necessary to stand up to the professional British Army in a pitched battle and most had terms of service so short, often one to three months, that they never received the necessary training. Many militia units were called into short term service for guard duty, to garrison military camps while Continental Army soldiers were on campaign, and to help subdue civil unrest.
Experience with the regular British Army prior to and during the Revolution left most Americans with a distrust of a professional standing army. Many people believed that their freedoms would best be guarded by a reinvigorated militia; one designed to cure the problems evident during the Revolution. The Militia Act of 1792 was designed to create a well regulated militia.
I’m going to include a brief excerpt from the act to help us understand the relationship between the militia and the Second Amendment.
“Be it enacted…. That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States…. shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia…..That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints…..”
The relationship of the Second Amendment to a well regulated militia is clear. Not only are citizens required to be a part of the militia, but they are also required to provide their own weapons of war. There is one key difference from our society today; their weapons were the same ones they used to protect their homes and hunt for food.
The 1792 act didn’t solve the shortcomings of the militia. Problems arose with issues of state and federal control, funding, and standardization. During the Mexican-American War, the Civil War and even as late as the Spanish-American War the militia was unable to provide the government with sufficient adequately trained troops. The federal government resorted to the creation of “volunteer” units when it needed to expand the size of the army. These volunteer units were not a part of either the militia or the regular army. The most famous of these was the 1st United States Volunteer Cavalry Regiment, better known as the “Rough Riders.”
These experiences led to the passage of the Militia Act of 1903 that repealed the Militia Acts of 1792 and organized the militia into two groups: the Reserve Militia, which included all able-bodied men between 18 and 45, and the Organized Militia, which included state militia (National Guard) units receiving federal support.
This leads to a question, “Do we still have a militia?” The answer is yes. Most obviously, we have the National Guard, a well regulated militia of citizen soldiers who serve under state control but who can be activated for federal service. Their exemplary service in the 21st century proves that the concept of a well regulated militia is viable when properly supported.
I’m sure it will surprise many people because it surprised me, that we still have state level militias that are independent of any federal affiliation. They serve under state control and cannot be called into federal service. They receive no direct funding or support from the federal government, although occasionally they may receive surplus equipment.
Twenty-two states have authorized state level militias, also known as state guards or state defense forces. They vary in training and function. Many operate only in a search and rescue, or disaster mitigation function such as supporting pandemic relief programs. Only a few states provide weapons training and have a police type mission in times of civil disturbance.
The latter half at the 20th century saw the rise of armed groups that style themselves as militias. They are both left wing and right wing although most tend to be on the far right. The one thing they have in common is a strong antigovernmental bias. They use their self-declared militia status to justify their use of weapons of war. They are among the most vocal proponents of unlimited Second Amendment rights.
But is this what the founders had in mind when they drafted this amendment? I don’t think so. They drafted the Second Amendment with the idea of the citizen soldier who would be defending his country. These groups certainly do not meet the well regulated qualification. They have no ties with any governmental entity and are under no supervision or control. If anything, many of them represent a threat to the government and civil welfare. If they want to keep their deer rifles, shotguns, and pistols, fine, just not weapons of war with no purpose other than killing their fellow citizens.
That is my grumpy opinion. I’m sure some of you will disagree. If you do, please leave comments and we can discuss it. We may never agree but at least we can air the issues.

The Man Who Saw The Future

By John Turley

On June 18, 2022

In Commentary, History

One of the true joys of studying history is coming to understand that no matter how bad we think things are, past generations have faced the same or worse problems. In fact, apart from science, there is very little that hasn’t been seen before.
We are constantly being told that we live in an era of unprecedented polarization and partisanship. This is probably due to the human tendency to give undue importance to our personal experiences.
Recently, I was reading George Washington’s Farewell Address to the People of the United States. It was distributed across the country at the end of his second presidential term. Truly there is nothing new under the sun. His address is very long, and I have reproduced only a portion of it below.
It is written in the style of the 18th century and specifically references the problems of that time. It takes some effort to read, given his tendency toward long and complex sentences. It is worth the effort because its application to the United States today is clear. It requires no comment from me.

“ …….a solicitude for your welfare, which cannot end but with my life, and the apprehension of danger natural to that solicitude, urge me on an occasion like the present to offer to your solemn contemplation, and to recommend to your frequent review, some sentiments which are the result of much reflection, of no inconsiderable observation, and which appear to me all important to the permanency of your felicity as a people….
“…. The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so; for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad, of your safety, of your prosperity, of that very liberty which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national Union to your collective and individual happiness;…. discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts….

“…. Citizens by birth or choice of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles….
“…. These considerations speak a persuasive language to every reflecting and virtuous mind and exhibit the continuance of the Union as a primary object of patriotic desire….
“…. In contemplating the causes which may disturb our Union, it occurs as matter of serious concern that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by geographical discriminations—northern and southern—Atlantic and western; whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heart burnings which spring from these misrepresentations. They tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection….
“…. The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, until changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government….
“…. All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations under whatever plausible character with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle and of fatal tendency…. to put in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community…. However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion…
“…. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation on the ruins of public liberty….
:…. It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrections. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption….”

George Washington
1796

Medicine During the American Revolution

By John Turley

On June 17, 2021

In History, Medicine

We all have an idea of what life was like for our 18^th century ancestors: no electricity, no running water or indoor plumbing, no central heat, no telephone or computers, no rapid transportation. But try to imagine what medicine was like under these conditions. Most things that we take for granted as a routine part of our medical care did not yet exist. There were no X-rays, no lab tests, no EKGs, no antibiotics and no concept of sterile procedure or anesthesia. Surgery was a painful and often fatal process.

In many ways, medicine was more of a trade than a profession. There were only two medical schools in 18^th century America. The Philadelphia Medical College was founded in 1765 and Kings College Medical College in New York two years later. Most physician and surgeons (chirurgiens as it was spelled at the time) who had formal training received it in Europe. By far, most physicians received their training by a one-to-three-year apprenticeship in the office of an established physician. Others, particularly on the frontier, simply declared themselves physicians and set up practice. In some remote areas, surgery was performed by the local barber or butcher because they had the tools.

The first medical society was formed in Boston in 1735. By the mid-1700s most colonies required a medical license of some form. In many colonies the medical license was little more than a business tax with few, if any, enforceable professional standards. The first hospital in the colonies was founded in Philadelphia in 1751 by a group that included Benjamin Franklin.

In 1775 there were an estimated 3000 physicians practicing in the colonies. Fewer than 300 had a medical degree or a certificate from a formal apprenticeship. Early attempts at licensing were resisted as an attempt to place a monopoly on medicine. Massachusetts was the first colony to attempt regulation by issuing a certificate of proficiency for completion of an approved apprenticeship. But even in Massachusetts, as notable a physician as Benjamin Rush reported that the only prerequisite for “…. a doctor’s boy (apprentice) is the ability to stand the sight of blood”.

While modern concepts of disease and sanitation were beginning to evolve in the late 18^th century, many practitioners still ascribed to the almost 1000-year-old ideas of the Greek physician Galan. He believed that the body had four humors: blood, phlegm, yellow bile, and black bile. Good health required a balance of the humors and illness resulted from their imbalance. Attempts to restore balance included bleeding, purging, diuretics and laxatives, and placing heated cups on the back to form blisters and draw out the humors. It was this belief that led to the bleeding that hastened George Washington’s death. Quite literally, the cure was worse than the disease.

The physicians of the time had few effective medicines and often acted as their own apothecary, compounding medications of spices, herbs, flowers, bark, mercury, alcohol, or tar. Opium elixir was marketed to help babies sleep through the night. Mercury was used to treat everything from syphilis to scabies. Voltaire summed up the state of pharmacology when he said “…. a physician is one who pours drugs of which he knows little into a body of which he knows less.”

Disease and hardship were a fact of life in the colonies. One in eight women died in childbirth or from complications of pregnancy. One in ten children died before the age of five. Diseases such as malaria, yellow fever, typhus and measles ravaged many communities. They were especially deadly for American Indians.

Smallpox was perhaps the deadliest disease of the colonial period. Entire American Indian tribes were annihilated. Epidemics repeatedly swept through the colonies in the 1700s killing thousands. George III became King of England in part because of smallpox. The last Stewart claimant to the throne died of the disease and England looked to the House of Hanover for the German born King George I.

Inoculations against smallpox had been widespread in Africa and in Arab countries for many years. In the American colonies inoculation was denounced as barbarian and some clergy preached that it was thwarting God’s will. Despite the support of such notables as Cotton Mather and Benjamin Franklin, inoculation against the disease was not widespread until George Washington, seeing the debilitating effect of smallpox on the Continental Army, ordered massive inoculation of all troops.

Disease and poor hygiene were the greatest foes faced by the army. John Adams reported that for every soldier killed in battle, ten died from disease. On July 25, 1775, the Continental Army Medical Corps was formed. Initially, each regiment was required to provide its own surgeon and there were no established qualifications. Only Massachusetts required examination of regimental surgeons and many colonies did not provide the surgeons with a military rank. To make matters worse, the first director general of the army medical corps, Dr. Benjamin Church, was a British spy.

Modern ideas of sanitation were unknown to most colonists. Few people bathed because they believed it removed the body’s protective coating. Most soldiers had only a single set of clothes in which they also slept and almost never washed. Army camps were hot beds of flux (dysentery) and camp fever (typhoid and typhus, the distinction between them was unknown). Camp fever took a huge toll on the army because it left the survivors so debilitated that they required almost constant care and seldom returned to duty.

Sanitation consumed a large part of General Washington’s time at Valley Forge. Latrines, garbage disposal and animal manure were constant problems. Attempts to prevent and treat the itch (scabies) were relentless. At times, several hundred soldiers would be unfit for duty due to infestation. What little clothing and blankets they did have often had to be burned to prevent the spread of the parasite.

Conditions in army hospitals were not much better and could be far worse. Camp fever spread rapidly through the close confines, often killing entire wards, including the staff. Death rates could run as high as 25% in hospitals and many soldiers preferred to remain in camp where they felt they had a better chance of survival. Dr Benjamin Rush stated “Hospitals are the sinks of human life. They robbed the United States of more citizens than the sword.”

The French, as with many things during the revolution, aided the patriots with their health problems. Dr. Jean Francois Coste, chief medical officer of the French Expeditionary Force, was one of the first to introduce strict regulations concerning sanitation and hygiene in army camps. The Americans, noting the significantly better health of their allies, were quick to follow suit.

The revolution was always close to failure. It was made even closer by widespread disease. But as with everything, our patriot ancestors persisted and triumphed.

This post was adapted from my article published in The SAR Magazine, Fall 2020, Sons of the American Revolution.

Sources:

Colonial Society of Massachusetts. Medicine In Colonial Massachusetts 1620-1820. Boston, MA, 1980

Miller, Christine. A Guide to 18^th Century Military Medicine in Colonial America, Self-Published,Lexington, KY, 2016.

Reiss, Oscar, MD. Medicine and the American Revolution; How Diseases and their Treatments Affected the Colonial Army. McFarland & Co, Jefferson, NC, 1998.

Shryock, Richard. Medicine and Society in America 1660 – 1860. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, 1960.

Terkel, Susan. Colonial American Medicine. Franklin Watts, NY, 1993.

Wilber, C. Keith, MD. Revolutionary Medicine 1700 -1800. The Globe Pequot Press, Guilford CN, 1980.

Benjamin Franklin, From Reconciliation to Revolution

By John Turley

On May 5, 2021

In History

Franklin stands before the Lords in Council

I love studying about history, particularly the entire revolutionary period in America. The revolutionary period, as distinguished from the Revolutionary War includes the events that led up to “the shot heard ‘round the world”. This period is generally considered to begin with the Sugar Act of 1764 and end with the Treaty of Paris in in 1783. When I find something new, I love sharing it.

When considering an American icon like Benjamin Franklin it is hard to come up with something new, something interesting, something that everyone does not already know. Most people know the basic outline of his life. He was born the last of 10 children to a poor tallow renderer and his wife in Boston. His formal education lasted little more than a year. Until age nine he worked for his father making candles and soap from rendered animal fat. He was then apprenticed to his older brother’s print shop.

He rebelled against his brother’s tyrannical treatment and ran away to Philadelphia. After much hard work and several failures, he developed a successful printing business. He was one of the first businessmen in America to create what we now know as a franchised business.

He was so successful that by age 42 he retired from the active day to day management of his businesses and devoted himself to the pursuit of knowledge. He was largely self-taught but still became an esteemed scientist, known at that time as a natural philosopher. He was the first North American to be invited to join the Royal Academy of Science.

He spent a large portion of his adult life in Europe, particularly in England. He once told a friend he would be happy to spend the rest of his life in London. One of the few things that kept drawing him back to Philadelphia was his long-suffering wife Deborah who had a fear of ships and the sea and refused to accompany him to London.

Early on the road to revolution Benjamin Franklin strongly favored reconciliation with the monarchy. Some radical Patriots were suspicious of him and thought that he was a spy for the British. He believed that if only the King were aware of the misfortunes of his North American subjects, he would make things right and that would be best for all.

Franklin took a position in London as an agent for the colonies of Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Georgia. A colonial agent was something like a combination ambassador, publicist, and lobbyist. He frequently met with the Privy Council, an advisory group to the King, to discuss issues of importance to the colonies.

While Franklin was serving as an agent for Massachusetts, the colony’s citizens became increasingly dissatisfied with the Royal Governor, Thomas Hutchinson and wanted him recalled. Hutchinson and his Lieutenant Governor Andrew Oliver exchanged a series of letters concerning the best ways to control dissent in Massachusetts that included suggestions that some of the colonists “English liberties” such as the rights to assembly, trial by jury and petition of grievances, should be curtailed.

Franklin made an appointment to meet with the Privy Council to present the recall petition. The Privy Council met in a room in the House of Parliament called the cockpit. It got its name because during the reign of Henry VIII cock fights were held in the room.

Franklin was excited about the prospect of meeting with the Privy Council. So much so that he had a brand-new suit of blue velvet made for the occasion. He presented himself to the Privy Council on January 29, 1774, expecting to present his petition for the recall of the Royal Governor and expecting to have it well received. He assumed that the royal government would welcome the opportunity to support the rights of its American subjects.

However, he was unprepared for the reception he received. He was unaware that members of the Privy Council had discovered his role in the release of the Hutchinson letters, and he had no idea how angry they were about it.

I’ll take a brief pause here to introduce Alexander Wedderburn, the British solicitor general, the crown’s representative to the legal system. In court Wedderburn was considered a combative speaker and his aggressiveness in debate was well known. He was arrogant and condescending and held the colonies in contempt. So, why do we care about this now obscure British politician? Because he was responsible for creating one of the most important of American patriots.

When Franklin arrived at the cockpit, he was required to stand in the middle of the room. It resembled a theater in the round with Franklin alone at the center. He was not allowed to speak or to present his petition.

Lord Wedderburn spoke for over an hour and never addressed Franklin’s petition but attacked Franklin’s character instead. He accused Franklin of spreading sedition and inciting treason. Through it all, Franklin stood completely still, emotionless and silent, his expression unchanging.

After his attack on Franklin, Wedderburn declared that he was ready to examine the witness. Franklin replied that he did not choose to be examined. He then left the chamber. After the chamber was cleared of spectators, the Privy Council denied the petition without discussion.

The personal attack left Franklin in shock. He was a proud man and was not accustomed to attacks on his honor. The next day he learned that he had been removed from this position as colonial postmaster, Not only had his character been attacked, but his work for reconciliation had been ignored and his contribution to efficient government in the colonies had been disregarded.

This may have been one of the least known but most important events on the road to the Revolution. Prior to Franklin’s ordeal in the cockpit, he had been a strong proponent of reconciliation. After the cockpit he would work tirelessly for American independence.

As a note of interest, the suit he had made for this visit was put away and not worn again until the day France signed the Treaty of Alliance with a rebellious American government.

Without Franklin’s insight and involvement, the America that we take for granted may never have come into existence. He played a key role in convincing France to support the side of the colonies, in obtaining loans from the French and the Dutch and in negotiating the final peace treaties. He also attended the constitutional convention, proving a tempering presence to the frequently contentious deliberations. (More on the constitutional convention in a later post.)

So, in closing, when you thank those responsible for American independence, be sure and thank Lord Wedderburn, and do so with a smile.

I would be remiss not to recognize my two main sources for this post:

The Making of a Patriot: Benjamin Franklin at the Cockpit by Sheila Skemp

Benjamin Franklin: an American Life by Walter Isaacson

I highly recommend both books to anyone with an interest in American history or biography. As I quoted in my first post, “To define the future you should study the past.”

If you would like to read a more detailed version of this post, email TheGrumpyDocWV@gmail.com

“Study the past if you would define the future.” ~Confucius

By John Turley

On March 10, 2021

In Commentary, History

I particularly like this quotation. It is similar to the more modern version: Those who don’t learn from the past are doomed to repeat it. However, I much prefer the former because it seems to be more in the form of advice or instruction. The latter seems to be more of a dire warning. Though I suspect, given the current state of the world, a dire warning is in order.

But regardless of whether it comes in the form of advice or warning, people today do not seem to heed the importance of studying the past. The knowledge of history in our country is woeful. The lack of emphasis on the teaching of history in general and specifically American history, is shameful. While it is tempting to blame it on the lack of interest on the part of the younger generation, I find people my own age also have very little appreciation of the events that shaped our nation, the world and their lives. Without this understanding, how can we evaluate what is currently happening and understand what we must do to come together as a nation and as a world.

I have always found history to be a fascinating subject. Biographies and nonfiction historical books remain among my favorite reading. In college I always added one or two history courses every semester to raise my grade point average. Even in college I found it strange that many of my friends hated history courses and took only the minimum. At the time, I didn’t realize just how serious this lack of historical perspective was to become.

Until just a few years ago I was unaware of just how little historical knowledge most people possessed. At the time Jay Leno was still doing his late-night show and he had a segment called jaywalking. During that segment he would ask people in the street questions that were somewhat esoteric and to which he could expect to get unusual and generally humorous answers. On one show, on the 4th of July, he asked people “From what country did the United States declare independence on the 4th of July?” and of course no one knew the answer.

My first response was he must have gone through dozens of people to find the four or five people who did not know the answer to his question. The next day at work, the 5th of July, I decided to ask several people, all of whom were college graduates, the same question. I got not one single correct answer. Although, one person at least realized “I think I should know this”. When I told my wife, a retired teacher, she wasn’t surprised. For a long time, she had been concerned about the lack of emphasis on social studies and the arts in school curriculums. I was becoming seriously concerned about the direction of education in our country.

A lot of people are probably thinking “So what, who really cares what a bunch of dead people did 200 years ago?” If we don’t know what they did and why they did it how can we understand its relevance today? We have no way to judge what actions may support the best interests of society and what will ultimately be detrimental.

Failure to learn from and understand the past results in a me-centric view of everything. If you fail to understand how things have developed, then you certainly cannot understand what the best course is to go forward. Attempting to judge all people and events of the past through your own personal prejudices leads only to continued and worsening conflict.

If you study the past you will see that there has never general agreement on anything. There were many disagreements, debates and even a civil war over differences of opinion. It helps us to understand that there are no perfect people who always do everything the right way and at the right time. It helps us to appreciate the good that people do while understanding the human weaknesses that led to the things that we consider faults today. In other words, we cannot expect anyone to be a 100% perfect person. They may have accomplished many good and meaningful things and those good and meaningful things should not be discarded because the person was also a human being with human flaws.

Understanding the past does not mean approving of everything that occurred but it also means not condemning everything that does not fit into twenty-first century mores. Only by recognizing this and seeing what led to the disasters of the past can we hope to avoid repetition of the worst aspects of our history. History teaches lessons in compromise, involvement and understanding. Failure to recognize that leads to strident argument and an unwillingness to cooperate with those who may differ in even the slightest way. Rather than creating the hoped-for perfect society, it simply leads to a new set of problems and a new group of grievances.

In sum, failure to study history is a failure to prepare for the future. We owe it to ourselves and future generations to understand where we came from and how we can best prepare our country and the world for them. They deserve nothing less than a full understanding of the past and a rational way forward.

I want to close this post with a special thanks to my good friend Jane who gave me the idea for this blog and encouraged me until I finally got around to doing it.