Accountability Citizenship
Support AC.org, Get Cool Stuff!
Institutional Racism and Sexism: Our Collective Duty to Address It
It should not come as a surprise to anyone when I assert that institutional racism and sexism were baked into the original fabric of the United States. I don't state that as an advocate for so-called "cancel culture." I am not lamenting it or judging it in any way. I am simply stating a fact as a starting point in this essay. My moral view of that fact is irrelevant to the purpose of this essay. In this essay, I will use the fact that the government of the United States was born as a racist, sexist institution as support for my conclusion: that institutional racism and sexism still exist in the United States, albeit to a lesser degree, and that the continued manifestations of institutional racism and sexism in 2020 should be morally intolerable for all Americans.
I don't think any reasonable person can deny my starting point. Look at the picture of the signing of the Constitution. The only people in the picture are white men.
Read the words of the original Constitution. They very clearly allow slavery, and the continuation of importing slaves, and the counting of slaves as "three fifths" of a person for purposes of representation in Congress. "Indians not taxed" are excluded from being counted for purposes of representation. Ironically, women are not mentioned. Presumably, because the Declaration only states that "all Men are created equal," the authors of the Constitution did not feel it necessary to explicitly address women. But the Constitution effectively denies equal rights to all three classes—slaves, Indians, and women. That is clear because it requires separate amendments and laws in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries to abolish slavery and grant equal rights to former slaves, Indians, women and people of color. It is a simple fact, therefore, that the political and social institutions of the United States were racist and sexist at the time of the drafting and ratification of the Constitution. [House Document 112-129, The Constitution of the United States with Index and The Declaration of Independence, 25th Edition, 2012].
Those who hold that there is no institutional racism and sexism in the United States today must, therefore, believe that something has happened since the drafting and ratification of the Constitution that has removed the original problem. Indeed, we can point to the XIIIth, XIVth, and XVth Amendments to the Constitution as ending slavery, affording equal protection of the law to all persons, and explicitly granting former slaves the right to vote in 1865, 1868, and 1870, respectively. But clearly, this change to the supreme positive law of the United States did not guarantee compliance at the level of state laws and practices.
The 100 years after the Civil War were full of examples of domestic terrorism and murder against African Americans. The federal government effectively looked the other way as the Constitution was ignored in some cases and addressed with inadequate half measures to preserve segregation in others. Violence sometimes erupted into major incidents like white mobs leveling the "Black Wall Street" in Tulsa, Oklahoma in 1921 or the black town of Rosewood, Florida in 1923.
Women and Native Americans saw their rights formally recognized in the XIXth Amendment (1920) and the Indian Citizenship Act (1924), respectively. In practice, these changes in law did not magically change the treatment of women and Native Americans in every aspect of society. Social prejudices persist even when laws change.
When programs like the New Deal, the GI Bill and Veterans home loans seemed to promise economic advancement without regard to race, social practices and governmental policies ensured a preservation of the status quo in a way that systemically took advantage of African Americans and other people of color, holding them at a lower level of economic achievement. Social Security was originally designed to exclude farm workers and domestic workers—exclusions that disproportionately affected black Americans. In 1950, "the National Association of Real Estate Boards' code of ethics warned that 'a Realtor should never be instrumental in introducing into a neighborhood… any race or nationality, or any individuals whose presence will clearly be detrimental to property values." The federal government's Home Owners' Loan Corporation was an active participant in preserving these racial restrictions. [Coates, Ta-Nehisi, We Were Eight Years in Power, pp. 185-88]
The period from 1954 to 1964 saw another series of major changes to public law that seemed to signal real progress towards a society that was not racist. In Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court ruled that state laws segregating public schools were unconstitutional. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 explicitly specified the equal rights for people of all races that had been systemically denied to people of color previously. Violence erupted in many parts of the country as the federal government sought to enforce these rulings.
Ironically, the states failed to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) that was intended to grant constitutional protection against gender discrimination. Congress passed the ERA in 1972, but only 31 states approved the amendment. The Constitution requires three fourths of states to approve an amendment before it is ratified. A version of the ERA is still under consideration.
Changes to existing laws continue to address areas where discrimination surfaces in our society. In the years since passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, there have been advances in civil rights on many fronts, including race, gender, sexual orientation and identity. Many who argue that current manifestations of discrimination are not manifestations of systemic or institutional racism or sexism seem to feel that the many legal advances to this point have left only a problem with individuals who are racist or sexist or who act in discriminatory ways. These people seem to feel that, since they ascribe the problem to the individual level, there is no need for broad governmental action to address any perceived institutional racism.
This argument seems wrong to me because there is clear evidence that the effects of our social and governmental systems are still having a disproportionately negative impact on people of color and women. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 established the concept of "disparate impact" as a standard for determining whether a practice, policy or system was discriminatory. In employment, the standard is generally this: any practice that has a disparate impact on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin that is not job related or a business necessity is proof of discrimination. It seems to me that there is a clear disparate impact of our economic, social and legal systems on people of color and women. We can see this disparate impact in different life expectancies, incarceration rates, and levels of economic attainment. As the cases of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and many others make painfully clear, we can see a difference in the rate at which civil authorities use force against people of color. Because the evidence of disparate impact is so clear, we must conclude that our systems and institutions still harbor, foster or tolerate racism and sexism.
There have been many attempts to address racism and sexism with legal changes over the years. None have been successful in addressing the whole problem. The fact is that the institutional problem we are confronting today is different than the problem that erupted in the Civil Rights movement of the twentieth century. The problems that exist in our institutions and across society today may not be as intentional or obvious as those addressed by previous generations. That doesn't mean the problems are not institutional, systemic and serious. The argument from disparate impact indicates that they are all of those things.
The twin tragedies of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor's deaths are but instances of a disturbing pattern that should be morally unacceptable to all Americans. The circumstances surrounding these and similar cases demand that we include a systemic and institutional focus as we address the symptoms of racism and sexism in individuals and in groups. Adopting a zero-tolerance policy on inappropriate use of force, coupled with an expanded role for de-escalation skills, community engagement and support activities seem the minimally acceptable steps to take at the level of our local government, law enforcement and educational institutions.
Thoughts on Individual Steps We Can All Take to Fight Racism
I am going to start this essay by stating, emphatically, that Black Lives Matter. I acknowledge that systemic racism and sexism exist, that systemic racism and sexism harm people of color and women (in general), and I support the agenda of fixing social systems to eliminate systemic racism and sexism affecting people of color and women. I want to make that perfectly clear at the outset because I am likely to say things in this essay that will offend many people. My goal is to be honest, because I believe honesty is the essential element of any solution to the challenges of racism and sexism.
I'm sure there are people already offended, so let me address the imaginary conflict between "All Lives Matter" and "Black Lives Matter" right at the outset. In business, we measure programs and processes by outcomes. And here we are, nearly 60 years after the Civil Rights Act was passed, and the outcomes, frankly, suck. By every measure I can see, all the programs and processes designed to ensure equal protection of the law to people of color and women are failing. No where is that problem more severe in American society than with regard to the African-American community.
African-Americans were the only group enslaved in America, and today, in 2020, we find they are still disproportionately poor, disproportionately sick, disproportionately jailed, and disproportionately killed by law enforcement. For that reason alone, it is 100 percent appropriate to focus our efforts on making sure that every segment and every level of our society internalizes the message that Black Lives Matter. The outcomes clearly indicate we have not internalized that message, and the consequences of our failure to do so going forward will be fatal to the American republic, at least insofar as that republic is supposed to represent the fulfillment of the promise of the United States Constitution.
Some will say that the problems are all related to individual choices, and I think that is completely inconsistent with the evidence I see. I have a friend about my age who, like me, is a West Point graduate and a retired infantry officer. He went into a store in downtown Denver a few years ago and security stopped him on the way out so they could check his pockets for stolen merchandise. That has never happened to me, and I suspect it never will. He is black, and I am white. Remember Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr.? He was arrested on July 16, 2009 after police responded to a 911 call about an attempted burglary. Gates was just returning from a trip to China, and had enlisted the help of his cab driver when he found the front door of his house stuck. What should have been a three-minute conversation resulted in the arrest of a Harvard University professor. I can guarantee that would not have happened if Gates had been white. In these two cases, distinguished individuals with a record of making great choices were harassed unnecessarily because they were black.
Some will correctly point out that the two cases I cite in the preceding paragraph provide only anecdotal evidence for my thesis. Here's some more anecdotal evidence: Watch the video of George Floyd being murdered by police. Watch the video of Terence Crutcher being murdered by police. Read about how Philando Castile was stopped for a broken taillight and then shot to death in the front seat of a car in which his girlfriend and her four-year old daughter were passengers. Read about the 2015 Charleston church massacre where nine African-Americans were murdered by a white supremacist during a Bible study. Read about the 2017 neo-nazi and white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. You could keep reading and watching for a long time, but at some point you should just stop and consider the statistics. What is clear is that there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that we have a serious race-relations problem in the United States, that the policies intended to solve that problem have failed, and that we all—regardless of our race—have both individual and collective duties to do something to fix the problem.
This essay deals with racism at the individual level. The next essay will address the society-wide dimensions of racism. That essay will address issues such as how we should deal with controversy over monuments, the issue of reparations, and practices that disproportionately harm the rights of protected classes. This essay, in contrast, addresses what racism is, our individual duty in combatting it, the concept of white privilege, and a brief discussion of the long history of racial inequality.
I begin this discussion of racism at the individual level by reminding the reader of what I have said in a previous essay about bias in general: we all have it. It's part of how we are constructed as homo sapiens. A recent training on implicit bias cited a statistic from a Harvard University study: our brains process approximately 11 million pieces of information every second, and we can only process about 40 of those consciously. Daniel Kahneman's excellent book Thinking Fast and Slow is a superb overview of how our minds use models to simplify what we experience and how our models are biased by experience and evolutionary factors.
Implicit bias does not have to cause racism. We can define racism as discrimination or antagonism directed against others on the basis of their race or ethnicity. Another definition that I like is based on outcomes: racism is whatever perpetuates inequality that persists on racial lines.
Our first duty as individuals in combatting racism is to force ourselves to consciously surface and interrogate our propensities, likes and dislike to try and understand our bias. Stanford social psychologist Jennifer L. Eberhardt, Ph.D., makes this point in her book Biased: Uncovering the Hidden Prejudice That Shapes What We See, Think and Do. Forcing ourselves to be aware of our bias is especially important when making decisions that affect others.
Building systems with checks and balances helps. We are social animals—we should seek the input of others to mitigate our personal bias wherever possible. This does not mean we cannot make individual decisions. It does mean we are likely to make better decisions when we consider the perspectives of others.
Another duty in combatting racism is to confront it, peacefully and persistently, when we see it. We should all insist that the people around us show proper respect for others, in word and deed. We should never tolerate disrespectful language or conduct based on race, ethnicity, religion or gender.
Once, shortly after taking over management of a warehouse (and publishing my expectations for all employees), I discovered an employee had used a racial slur—directed at an Asian co-worker—on our hand-held radio network. I immediately contacted the supervisor to bring the employee to my office so I could fire him. The team arrived with the Asian co-worker as well, who insisted it was all a joke. He assured me he was not offended. I told him that the behavior was clearly against my policy, and that the behavior offended me. Then I fired the employee who had used the slur. All of us, especially when we are leaders (but even when we are not), must confront racist behavior. It is far too easy for people to rationalize bad conduct under the guise of friendship or teamwork.
In the introduction to my 2013 book Accountability Citizenship, I wrote "For both my father and myself, I see a combination of both hard work and luck as the main features of a tapestry spanning nearly one hundred years…. I am the American dream fulfilled." If you would have asked me then what I meant by "luck," I would have said that I was lucky to have had the parents and siblings that I have, I was lucky in my military career to have survived a few near misses, and I was lucky to have met the future CEO of the company where I would eventually go to work. If you would have then asked me what I thought about the role race played in any person's ability to live the American dream, I would have said something about the Civil Rights Act and the progress that we have made since then. I would have concluded that racism was still a problem in some places, but, by and large, people of all races could achieve the same level of success with the same amount of hard work and luck. And I would have been wrong.
I now think that answer is incomplete, because I now believe that part of the "luck" that enabled my success was what people are now referring to as white privilege. I have rewritten that sentence a few times. I want to be absolutely clear that I do not believe any race is superior to any other race. I have never sought preferential treatment based on my race, and have always taken pride in earning my way based on my skills and merit. I would never have approved of a system that gave me an advantage because of the color of my skin, especially if that system disadvantaged others because their skin color was different. But regardless of all that, it is now clear to me that American society, in general, even in 2020, offers a multitude of advantages to white people that are not available to people of color. I have benefited from the white cultural orientation of American society. That is to say, I have benefited from white privilege.
I believe we all have a duty to work toward a society where no one is privileged based on the color of their skin. At the same time, given the failures of policies and programs designed to produce equitable outcomes for Americans of all races, I do not think we are anywhere close to a society that can function fairly without government oversight programs like Affirmative Action. In addition to the duties to combat racism mentioned earlier in this essay, it is my individual responsibility to articulate the need for such programs, to participate in the dialogue about how to make them effective, and to use my vote to support racial justice.
It is our duty to make a reasonable effort to understand diverse perspectives. We can do this by reading, through dialogue, voluntary exposure to cultural events sponsored by those with different backgrounds, and by sharing elements of our own heritage. These individual duties apply to people of every race. Even if kids are more comfortable sitting with other kids that look like them in the school cafeteria, all kids should make an effort to include people of all races in their social circles. The fact that this may be uncomfortable for some makes it even more important.
The Roots of Racial Inequality Are Much Older than the United States
Years ago, textbooks rationalized colonialism, conquest and exploitation of indigenous populations with the argument that the conquering powers brought technology and improvements to the quality of life of the conquered people. Buried in this proposition was the assumption that native peoples were somehow inferior to the conquerors, adding a racist rationale to the raw profit motive of economic exploitation. The racist notion that colonialism was a duty to lift up people of color was known as the "white man's burden."
The question of why technology and social organizations grew at different rates among different peoples is a reasonable line of inquiry. To paraphrase the words of UCLA Professor Jared Diamond, why did Europeans arrived to conquer the Incas rather than the Incas arriving to conquer Spain? In Guns, Germs and Steel—The Fates of Human Societies, Diamond provides an excellent description of how environmental factors shaped the speed with which civilizations emerged, developed various technologies, and projected their power on other peoples.
First, and most importantly, Diamond provides a clear rationale for why human societies developed at different speeds that debunks the racist idea that white Europeans developed faster due to inherent superiority. "In short, Europe's colonization of Africa had nothing to do with differences between European and African peoples themselves, as white racists assume. Rather, it was due to accidents of geography and biogeography—in particular to the continents' different areas, axes, and suites of wild plant and animal species." (Diamond, p. 401) Guns, Germs and Steel offers a fascinating and comprehensive analysis of these factors across all regions and peoples.
Diamond makes the case that homo sapiens moved more rapidly from hunter-gatherer societies to agriculture-based societies in areas where there were higher concentrations of wild plants and animals suitable for domestication and food production. In turn, the ability to generate a surplus of food in a reliable fashion enabled the rise of cities, classes of people who could focus on something other than survival, armies, and technology. Population-dense groups living in proximity with domesticated animals suffered from new forms of communicable disease, to which many developed immunity. All together, these factors gave farming societies the ability to expand, displacing or conquering hunter-gatherer societies in their path.
Second, Diamond points out that the pattern of expansion, conquest, displacement, enslavement and brutalization of conquered peoples occurs all over the world among all the races of homo sapiens. For example, the Bantu expansion in Africa, the empires of Mesoamerica and South America, and the expansion of societies in Asia and the Pacific all ended badly for the people who were conquered and displaced. Just as being conquered does not imply intellectual inferiority, neither does it confer moral superiority. Power corrupts, it seems. Across all races, people with the power to expand, conquer and dominate their neighbors have done so.
The differentiator, according to Diamond, is the original "luck" that accrued to peoples living in areas with sufficient biodiversity to give them a head start on the path to guns, germs and steel. These peoples moved more rapidly to the stage of expansion and conquest by virtue of the geographical and ecological factors of their original homeland. Therefore, we can say that "white privilege" has its roots in a much older "Fertile Crescent privilege." Neither privilege was ever deserved, earned, or intended by most of the people they have affected (positively or negatively).
The problem with white privilege in the United States lies primarily in areas where we can see that privilege has been leveraged, extended and caused to persist through injustice and with intention. Those of us who have remained unaware of privilege, as well as those who have passively accepted it, are also at fault. It is far past time for a comprehensive evaluation of social systems and processes to achieve justice for all.
Racism—defined as either discrimination directed against others on the basis of their race or whatever perpetuates inequality that persists on racial lines—is evil. It arises from bias. We all have bias, and we should acknowledge that fact. But bias does not become racism until we either engage in or tolerate unjust behavior. It is our duty as citizens of the United States to ensure our personal conduct neither creates nor enables racism in any form.
Jumpin' and Shoutin' and Carryin' On
Fiction #283
(published June 22, 2006)
The morning began warm and bright. The sky was clear, with the white sun poised just above the horizon in the blue expanse, and the shafts of light made everything appear more radiant. Though the moon was still visible, it was a milky silhouette, fading. An intermittent breeze came through unsettling loose objects in the yard and troubling the Inca doves masquerading as leaves; they coo-hoo, coo-hooed each time the breeze arose.
At first the draft merely seemed to keep the morning in motion, but then it became steadier and cold, carrying with it the smell of burning in the distance. Like the billows of smoke ballooning upward, dark clouds emerged, the sun cowering behind them, and the sky turned ugly — gray and uninteresting.
Standing in his backyard, Luther turned his attention to the sky's sudden haziness. He was trying to listen, though an unexpected gust shook through the trees and the doves ascended in great haste, distracting and momentarily confusing him. He muttered a curse word, and again poised his ear toward the distance. Following some concentration, he could distinguish the sound of wood being pieced together, a refrain, and then the thunk, thunk thunk of a hammer's blow. The murmur of human voices rose above the wind. Shaking his head, Luther turned his attention back to the tub of dungarees he was angrily scrubbing. His wet hands ached as the cold breeze passed over them, making it difficult for him to wring water from the heavy denim.
He sighed, in anger and frustration; he would have to leave soon.
The change in weather would not keep them from gathering and, as a member of the Negro community, Luther knew he was expected to be there as well.
As he struggled with the tub of wet clothes, muttering to himself, Luther thought of the ancient Israelites, of the commandment of Yahweh that they celebrate their being passed over by the Angel of Death. They were to gather year after year in celebration of their history — their salvation — but Luther couldn't help but wonder if ever some, or maybe just one, ever thought or said, "We know why we're still here. I've got some other things I need to do—can't we just let this go this time?"
He laughed at the absurdity of this his thoughts, but still, along the same line, he thought: Can't I just not do somethin' I don't want to do? Isn't that what today is all about—people being free? Negroes are free; we all know that, even if it's just up there on that paper in Washington, D.C. Can't I just join y'all same time next year?
But he knew he could not, so he hastened his washing, draping the dripping clothes across the line running between two trees. He'd been up since early morning, though he'd gotten a late start, and he tried not to think of the other chores that would have to go undone, for today at least.
Luther kicked at the tub until it toppled over and the water spilled out into the yard, running backward and rushing over his boots. It would do him no good to curse again, but Luther did anyway as he headed out of the backyard and down the road.
Guessing at the time, Luther supposed the hammering was the tent going up, the burning was surely the pit being readied for the chicken and ribs to be cooked, and although his mind allowed him a taste of Miss Rose's sweet potato pie, the Seven-Up cakes made from scratch by the Lacey sisters, the peach and apple cobblers, still it was not enough to sway his mood.
The celebration was inconvenient; that was most of it, Luther thought. Why did it seem that everything that needed to get done waited till Juneteenth to start hollerin' for attention?
Still he wondered why the black folks in town continued this celebration. There was nothing different year after year; same old jumpin' and shoutin' and carryin' on, he thought. People died or moved away, but that seemed to be the only aspect that changed.
Still they gathered.
Luther plodded along the dirt road toward the clearing in the woods where the Negroes in town met for such occasions. In the distance, laughter could be heard. Joyous singing. Luther crossed his arms about him and lowered his head, thinking how he might tolerate the work to be done for the warmth of the fire. Looking up to gauge his distance, he was surprised to see two figures emerging toward him, away from the site of celebration.
Nearing them, he was further surprised to find it was Doc and one of his granddaughters.
Doc had been a minister most of his life, but he'd also studied medicine, becoming the first Negro doctor in town, his intention being (Doc would tell you if you asked and especially when you didn't) to heal body and soul. Luther remembered Doc as a solid and booming man, but a stroke had struck him down, confining him to a wheelchair and stealing away his speech.
Still Doc had his way. If there was something in the new preacher's sermon that Doc didn't agree with, for example, the old man would take his cane, the one he'd used before the stroke, and bang the tip of it against the wooden floor again and again to show his dissatisfaction.
His granddaughter, Nancy, like most Negro women Luther knew, worked as a maid in some white family's home, although he'd heard that she was studying to be a nurse.
Meeting up, Luther informed them that they were headed in the wrong direction.
"We're gatherin' that way," he said with a slight laugh, worried that his irritable disposition had somehow changed the day's events, affecting others.
Nancy smiled. "Oh, we just came from there, but we can't stay."
"The weather?"
The young woman shook her head. Placing her hands on either of her grandfather's shoulders, she said, "He isn't feeling well today. He just wanted to make an appearance, make sure it was going to happen."
It happened every year, Luther assured her. Negroes celebratin' just like they had when old General Granger arrived in Galveston with General Order Number 3.
Luther searched his mind and spoke with quiet deliberation:
"The people of Texas are informed that in accordance with a Proclamation from the Executive of the United States, all slaves are free. This involves an absolute equality of rights and rights of property between former masters and slaves, and the connection heretofore existing between them becomes that between employer and freed laborer.
"The freedmen are advised to remain at their present homes and work for wages. They are informed that they will not be allowed to collect at military posts, and that they will not be supported in idleness, either there or elsewhere."
Luther was surprised that the words he'd memorized as a child had come back so clear to him, so easy. The intense interest on Doc's face and Nancy's made him uncomfortable, so he made light of his knowledge, saying, "Like we'd been idle all along."
Nancy grinned and then said in a solemn tone, "Granddaddy used to know that by heart too."
Doc jabbed the dirt with his cane.
"He knows it," she said, correcting herself. She leaned her head close and pressed her cheek to her grandfather's. "You still know it; you just can't get it out no more."
They remained like that for a few moments and then Nancy straightened herself and wrapped her hands around the handles on the chair. "We'd better be going."
"Back home?" Luther asked, feeling it was a shame that Doc wasn't himself anymore. Every Juneteenth, until he had the stroke, Doc had run the whole damn show.
Nancy shook her head. "Nah, we're going down to the Ashton Villa."
Luther's eyes questioned her, although he said nothing.
Explaining, she said, "The proclamation's read there every year. Granddaddy was there in Galveston when the news first came. He'd been a slave all the five years of his life, and although he was a bit angry having to work longer than he should have, nothing made him happier than hearing that he didn't have to work no more — not for free, anyway."
Luther eyes widened. "I didn't know that about Doc." He looked down into the man's face. Doc was smiling, but Luther couldn't be sure the smile was for him.
"We go there every year," Nancy continued. "To hear that it was ended."
"Well, least in word," Luther laughed. "They be lettin' black folks over there?"
"Oh, we don't stay long . . . just long enough for the ceremony and for Granddaddy to remember. Besides, they don't bother us none. I'm sure they're used to us by now." Nancy laughed. "Though I remember one time, when me and Ida and Pearl were young and Granddaddy decided to take us with him. It must have been the first time we'd ever gone, but we sure didn't want to.
"Anyway, once there, this white man told us we needed to get, that we weren't free to be on that side of town . . . We could just feel Granddaddy bristling at that, but he just replied, 'I may not be at liberty to be on this side of town, but Sir, may I remind you that I am free to do as I damn well please.' Oh, that just made that man so mad, his nose was flaring and his face got all red. Granddaddy gathered us up right quick and we made haste to the car, Granddaddy giggling all the way, though he kept an eye in the rearview mirror 'til we got home. The next year, we begged to be taken along."
"Really now," Luther said, his mind now full of things to consider. "Well."
Nancy smiled. "You have a good time, Luther. We'll be seeing you."
Luther watched them depart before he turned and headed down a hill towards the celebration grounds.
The Emancipation Proclamation had gone into effect in January 1863, but the news hadn't reached Texas until the middle of June —two and a half years later.
Freedom had arrived not too long ago, Luther thought. Not at all.
He was pondering the details he'd just learned, amazed that he knew someone who'd survived the burden of slavery. Now he understood Doc's valiant and constant cry every Sunday morning that his congregation "forget the unnecessary things in their past."
"It wasn't all bad," Luther could recall Doc saying. "Something back there got us thus far." Doc had attributed their survival to the faith and endurance of their African ancestors despite the circumstances of their lives.
"That evil called slavery had to fall, but we don't," Doc had proclaimed. "We need to grab hold of the worthwhile things they left us and move ahead!"
Luther was coming to an understanding of Doc's determination and its transcending spirit born out of that experience, and suddenly what had begun over two hundred years before didn't seem so remote, something just for some history books. Luther felt his mood shifting, buoyed by the meaning of his newfound knowledge. If there were no need for this celebration, where would he be?
Doc might not be around much longer, Luther was thinking. In his mind, he could see the man before the Ashton Villa, his former slave heart swelling with a memory. But as Luther continued on to the celebration, calling out to the crowd and waving, an image of himself began to emerge in Doc's place.
Maybe the white folks of Galveston would be bothered enough to ask what he was doing there, a lone Negro appearing every June 19 and, already, Luther could hear himself saying, "Remembering."
http://www.poormojo.org/cgi-bin/gennie.pl?Fiction+283)
Each of Us is Accountable For Living Up to the Founding Principles of the United States
The events of the past few weeks make it essential for each of us to confront America's long and imperfect struggle to realize the promise of our founding principles in the way we treat each other. This is the first of a series of blogs that will focus on these issues. For this first blog, I simply reprint an excerpt from my book Accountability Citizenship, published in 2013. This excerpt provides a high-level overview of our Constitution, slavery, the Civil War, and westward expansion; I intend it only to set the stage for the next few blogs.
"The first effort to structure a unified government for the new United States was based on something known as the Articles of Confederation, and it was a failure. Generally, historians agree the Articles of Confederation did not provide the central government with sufficient powers to administer the basic functions of a viable government. The Constitution was developed in 1787 to address the shortcomings of the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution is not perfect either—it has been amended twenty-seven times. The first ten amendments were adopted in 1791 and are known collectively as the Bill of Rights.
Seventy-four years after the Constitution was formally approved, we suffered four terrible years of Civil War because we could not agree on the issues of slavery and the relative powers of the state and federal governments. From 1861 to 1865, the Civil War claimed the lives of approximately six hundred and twenty-five thousand Americans. Abraham Lincoln's 1860 election on a Republican platform that included a pledge to keep slavery out of the western territories prompted the secession of several southern states. South Carolina seceded from the Union in December of 1860, followed by Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, and Louisiana in January 1861. State militias in South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, and Florida seized federal installations, arsenals, and armories in January 1861. The federal government refused to recognize the legitimacy of secession even as other states seceded and joined the Confederate States of America. By the time Abraham Lincoln was inaugurated on March 4, Texas had also seceded and seized the federal arsenal at San Antonio. Confederate forces opened fire on Fort Sumter on April 12 and captured the fort on April 13. Lincoln responded with a blockade and a call for volunteers. The federal army eventually conquered and occupied the Confederate states. In April 1865, Lincoln was assassinated; Confederate military forces surrendered across the south and an armistice was signed. The Thirteenth Amendment ending slavery was adopted as part of the Constitution in December of 1865.
But the end of the war and the adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment did not solve the problems of discrimination, human dignity, and civil rights. For over one hundred years after the end of the Civil War, African Americans and other minorities fought domestic terrorism, harassment, and discrimination. The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments ostensibly gave African Americans and other minorities the rights of citizenship and the ability to vote, but in practice these rights were systematically denied in many parts of the country. The passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964 marked a significant milestone in the struggle for equality. The peaceful persistence of people like Dr. Martin Luther King and Cesar Chavez raised awareness of shortcomings in law and in behaviors. A series of important decisions by the courts have supported and strengthened the law.
Besides the struggle of African Americans and other racial minorities, women also struggled against inequality from the earliest days of our republic. In fact, it wasn't until the Nineteenth Amendment was ratified in 1920 that women were given the right to vote. The path to the Nineteenth Amendment was long and arduous. Women leaders such as Lucy Stone, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, and Alice Paul led a peaceful movement for change and persisted in the face of ridicule, harassment, imprisonment and brutal treatment. Legislation prohibiting discrimination on the basis of gender and providing penalties for sexual harassment have greatly improved conditions, but behaviors undermining equality persist.
The expansion of the United States westward across the continent came by seizing lands originally occupied by Native Americans. The campaigns to subdue these tribes were brutal. Both sides committed atrocities. The United States government broke treaty after treaty with Native American tribes. In the aftermath of the wars and forced migrations, the government generally failed to provide adequately for the people we had conquered and displaced. Our Native American peoples have had their own unique struggle to address the legacy of this period and to gain their civil rights.
The United States was not the first nation to lay claim to much of the territory we occupied in our march westward. During our colonial period, France had claimed much of the interior lands west of the Mississippi. Spain had claimed the area now covered by the states of Florida, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California, Nevada, Utah, and Colorado. Russia held what is now Alaska. The United States purchased the territorial rights claimed by France in the Louisiana Purchase of 1803, effectively doubling the size of the country at that time. In 1819, the United States purchased the rights claimed by Spain in Florida. Two years later, Mexico won its independence from Spain. Under the Treaty of Cordoba, Mexico assumed sovereignty of all territories claimed by Spain in the American southwest. In 1824, a dictator suspended the Mexican Constitution and rebellions erupted in several places in Mexico. Texas gained its independence from Mexico in 1836, existing as an independent republic until it was annexed by the United States in 1845. The United States fought a war with Mexico from 1846 to 1848. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo ended the war in 1848 with the United States paying Mexico $18 million and taking control of all territory north and west of the Rio Grande including California. In 1867, the United States purchased Alaska from the Russians for $7.2 million. The Kingdom of Hawaii was overthrown by American and European businessmen in 1893. The United States annexed Hawaii in July of 1898 despite the opposition of a majority of native Hawaiians. Both Alaska and Hawaii remained territories until 1959 when they became the 49th and 50th states respectively.
An unvarnished view of the history of the United States forces us to confront many unpleasant facts. In our treatment of citizens as well as others subject to our laws and powers, the people of the United States have frequently acted no better than the people of other nations, and our government no better than other governments. The founding principles of our country were a unique expression of individual dignity and liberty in 1776, but our [244] year struggle to realize in practice the ideas implied by these founding principles teach us that we cannot accept a romanticized view of our republic at face value. The words of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution are only as good as the sum of our individual efforts to make the policies and practices of our government conform to the spirit of those words.
Accountability citizenship requires that each of us accept responsibility and accountability for all that our country does or fails to do. It is not enough to blame dysfunctional government as if it were a thing apart: our government is designed to be of the people, by the people, and for the people. Even when we disagree with the chosen course, we are responsible and accountable for registering that disagreement with our votes and with our persistent and peaceful engagement with elected officials." [Accountability Citizenship, 2013, pp. 46-49]
General John Allen, USMC (Ret) becomes Third Senior Military Officer This Week to Condemn President Trump's Presidency
"In denouncing the president for his response to the George Floyd protests, John Allen became the latest in a string of venerable military figures to have gone public over what they describe as the threat posed by Trump to the non-political nature of the armed forces, and more broadly to US democracy." General John Allen, USMC (Retired)
So, just to be clear, a former Secretary of State, a former Secretary of Defense, two former Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, two former National Security Advisors, and now a second Marine four-star general all resign in protest and / or condemn the President's divisive leadership as a threat to our country, and we are supposed to believe that they are all wrong and he is right? Pardon me, but that makes no sense.
It is time for all of you professional Trump apologists to wake up and admit the President is a train wreck. Write your senators, and find out why they did not vote to impeach him when they had the chance.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/04/trump-military-retired-general-john-allen-protest
General Mattis Confirms Trump Is a Failure as President
General Mattis has always struck me as a creature of duty and a true patriot. Proud to share his opinion piece calling out the President for his divisive rhetoric and poor leadership:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/06/james-mattis-denounces-trump-protests-militarization/612640/
Time, Space, Population, and the Purposes of Government
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." These are the six purposes for the government as they are listed at the beginning of the Constitution of the United States. There may be differences of opinion about how the government should pursue these purposes, but there can be no doubt that these are the words given in the Constitution to define the general scope of the government's authority.
On closer examination, we can probably agree on more than just the list of general purposes. We can probably agree that a government charged with establishing justice, ensuring domestic tranquility and promoting the general welfare of 1000 people has a more difficult task than a government charged with the same responsibilities for a population of 100 people. These tasks, in particular, and perhaps the others as well, are pretty clearly tasks that require a bigger government for a larger population than for a smaller population. These three purposes of our government, at least, involve mediating the interactions between citizens, especially when those interactions involve conflict. As the number of people in a society increases, or more accurately, as the effective population density increases, we might expect the number of interactions requiring government mediation to increase as well. We can use effective population density as a yardstick to approximate, at least on a relative basis, how much government is required to achieve the purposes identified by our Constitution.
Effective population density captures the idea that, as you increase the number of people in a given area, and increase the technology with which they can affect the people around them, you will increase the number of interactions that are likely to require some kind of government regulation or intervention. Basically, if the Hatfields and McCoys want to go off in the middle of nowhere and have a feud that doesn't affect anyone around them, some might say that is their business. But move that feud to downtown Manhattan at rush hour, and we can probably agree that the government has an interest--a duty even--to intervene, mediate, regulate, control or prevent the feud. To properly "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility,... [and] promote the general Welfare" of all the innocent bystanders who would be hurt by the fight in downtown Manhattan, we can probably all agree the government has a duty under our Constitution to intervene.
In the era of the founding of the United States of America (1775-1788) it took 7-10 days to travel the 308 miles from Lexington and Concord to Philadelphia, depending on whether you rode a horse or rode in a carriage. Let's take the low end of that range: 7 days is 168 hours. So the speed of information was roughly 2 mph. There were about 3 million colonists and slaves living in the original states, which controlled at most an area of about 200,000 square miles, for an average population density of roughly 15 people per square mile. We might assign a "technology factor" to account for the fact that, in a given space, the ability of one person to affect or communicate with other people was limited by the range of their voice, or, if they were fortunate enough to know how to read and write, by their access to a book or newspaper. Even the effective range of common weapons was limited to a fraction of a mile, and their rate of fire, for an expert, was 2 to 3 rounds per minute. But there were newspapers, and according to the census of 1790 we can estimate that about 5 percent of the population lived in cities. So let's arbitrarily assign a technology factor of 5. Given all this, then, we might calculate the effective population density to be 2 miles per hour times 15 people per square mile times a technology factor of 5 for an effective population density of about 150.
Today, in the United States, we have about 330 million people living on 3.8 million square miles, or roughly 87 people per square mile. Today, information travels at the speed of light: roughly 671 million mph. Multiplying those numbers together, even with the simplifying assumption that the technology factor is part of the increase in the speed of information, yields a staggering 58 trillion. On this view, the effective population density of the United States today is nearly 400 million times what it was in 1790.
This number is probably way too big. After all, the combined speed-of-information-and-technology factor in the second calculation masks the fact that, as the cost of communicating with each other has gone down and the frequency has gone up, the significance of many individual transactions has also lessened. Not every email can be equated to a Hatfield-McCoy feud in its impact on justice, domestic tranquility, and the general welfare. But even with other reasonable, if arbitrary, reductions, the fact remains that modern society is exponentially more complex than the society the framers of our Constitution experienced.
The quality and quantity of changes between their society and ours are so great that the men who wrote and ratified the Constitution could not have imagined all the things that would be necessary today to achieve the purposes they enumerated for our government. They could not have imagined, for instance, e-commerce and air traffic safety and cyber crime. But they gave us the six purposes they thought any government of free people should aim to accomplish: "to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." As I see it, that all basically boils down to regulating interactions between people within our society and with people in other countries in such a way as to keep us all from having to go to war with each other to secure our basic rights.
People who complain that government is too big or is too involved in our daily lives should offer a blueprint for how, exactly, government is supposed to "form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" in today's society without being more involved in our daily lives than it was in the days before electricity. If the purposes of government are to regulate interactions between people to remove the need for those people to resort to the Hatfield-and-McCoy type of solution, then I think the government should be big enough to accomplish that purpose. And I think that, when it comes time to elect people to serve in our government, or to decide whether to support some new idea, we should consider our choices in the context of the purposes of government as identified in our Constitution.
The power of this approach is that it provides a simple, shared framework for discussion and argument that is independent of your political party, your religion, or the color of your skin. Using the framework will not answer every question or solve all of our disagreements, but it will allow us to focus on whether or not some proposed law is a legitimate exercise of governmental power. Because frankly, there is nothing in the Constitution that says I have to agree with your ideas on religion, or your political philosophy, or your ideas on how to improve society. In fact, the Constitution gives me the express right to disagree with you and everyone else on all of those things. We are more likely to achieve meaningful outcomes if we use the framework provided in the Constitution to focus our discussions about what government should do on any particular issue than if we waste time on matters where we are all entitled to our own opinion.
The beauty and power of the United States Constitution is not that it contains a tailor-made solution for every new type of problem that has emerged over the past 230 years. Rather, the beauty of our Constitution is that it contains a framework for tapping the wisdom of each generation to solve that generation's problems. The beauty of the Constitution is that it recognizes one thing does not change--people continue to disagree over how to use the resources of our society to solve the problems we face. The beauty of our Constitution is that it includes fair processes for considering opposing viewpoints as we try to resolve our disagreements. The proper use of our Constitution is not to suppress dissent or to take us backwards to some imagined "good old days." The magic of our Constitution is its power to use reason to leverage our differences, with all parties making the best case possible for how their programs, proposals and candidates can help us "form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity".
James Mattis: Let's honor the fallen by protecting our fragile experiment in democracy
Great Memorial Day tribute from General Mattis... the whole article (attached here​) is concise and worth reading, but my favorite part are these last few paragraphs:
"We are most indebted to our veterans who fell, and their families, for the survival of this experiment. They can never be fully repaid, but we begin to do so by respecting one another in this land of boundless possibilities, because those who faced down danger and paid the price on our behalf deserve no less.
Many of us enjoy America's freedom by an accident of birth, yet we all live free in this land by our own choice. It is our responsibility to show respect and genuine friendship to each other as fellow citizens--including those with whom we sometimes disagree--by unifying around our radical idea [government of the people, by the people, for the people]. That is how we can meet our ultimate responsibility: to turn over to the next generation a republic in better shape than we received it.
Those who fell while wearing our nation's cloth in defense of freedom, and the Gold Star families of their survivors, paid an everlasting price. Every American owes them a commitment to keeping vibrant the experiment for which they died."
​https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/james-mattis-social-distancing-cant-stop-the-closeness-we-feel-honoring-the-cost-of-freedom/2020/05/22/b4a1be16-9c47-11ea-ac72-3841fcc9b35f_story.html
Be a Census Champion!
There is certainly a lot going on these days. I hope this post finds you all well. I want to remind you that census day is April 1st, and to share some information with you about how to complete your census requirement, or get answers to your questions about what your requirement is. At the end of the day, the census is the method we use to allocate resources to meet the health and welfare requirements of our society. One of the six purposes of government, as listed at the beginning of our Constitution, was to promote the general welfare. The census informs social decision-making on where we need more hospitals, more schools, more roads and infrastructure. This week you have a once-every-ten-years chance to help bring resources into your community. Please don't miss your chance! Here's some information:
Responding To The Census
1. The 2020 Census Is Happening Now. You Can Complete Your Questionnaire Online, By Phone, Or By Mail.
Who Is Required To Respond?
2. Everyone Living In The United States And Its Five Territories Is Required By Law To Be Counted In The 2020 Census.
3. You Should Respond For Your Home In One Of Three Ways: Online, By Phone, Or By Mail.
Who To Count?
4. Before Completing The 2020 Census, You Need To Know Where To Count Yourself And Who To Count With You In Your Home
Where You Are Counted
5. The goal of the 2020 Census is a complete and accurate count of everyone living in the United States and its five territories. You should count yourself at the place where you are living and sleeping most of the time as of April 1, 2020 (Census Day).
6. Please count everyone living in your home. Where there are more people, there are more needs. An accurate count helps inform funding for hospitals, fire departments, schools, and roads for the next 10 years.
7. You have the option of completing the questionnaire by phone. To begin, call tel:844-330-2020, or call the number associated with your preferred language.
8. You can get more information at www.2020census.gov
George Washington, Action Hero--The Early Years
The path from the Articles of Confederation [1] to the ratification of the United States Constitution was hindered by widely shared distrust of any powerful central authority. Having fought for freedom from an overbearing monarchy, many American leaders were wary of any form of government that might usurp power and constrain their liberties. The fact that the Constitutional Convention produced, and the states ratified, a Constitution featuring an executive branch co-equal with legislative and judicial branches seems an unlikely outcome. George Washington was the person everyone expected to serve as the first President, and the universal high regard Washington enjoyed was probably the most compelling reason that many Americans supported the Constitution's provisions for the executive branch.
Any attempt to outline what differentiates our greatest presidents from the rest must, therefore, begin with an examination of the character of the man who shaped the American Republic's expectations and hopes for the presidency. If you, like me, came out of high school with a picture of Washington as a genteel colonial aristocrat whose selection as commander of the Continental Army and, subsequently, as the first President, was a natural progression in a life of privilege, then you are mistaken. On the contrary, there was no easy path to success for young Washington. His father's death when he was only eleven years old denied him any formal education beyond about the eighth-grade level and left his future uncertain. By his own initiative, the future president—ambitious, charismatic and a bit of a rogue in his younger years—carved his place in society as an adventurer, a warrior and a ladies' man.
A Young Man Finds His Way [2]
Washington's father left most of his "modest property" to his two oldest sons, who were George's half-brothers. One of these men, Lawrence, fourteen years older than George, became a substitute father of sorts, at least for a few years. Lawrence's share of the inheritance included the property that would later be named Mount Vernon, and George lived here with his mother and four younger siblings after his father's death.
The move to Mount Vernon brought young George into contact with the prominent Fairfax family, whose American headquarters was just a few miles away at Belvoir. William Fairfax, a minor relative of Lord Fairfax, served as the American agent of the powerful British Lord. Coincidentally, Lawrence Washington married one of William's daughters. William's son, George Fairfax, and George Washington became friends. It was this Fairfax connection that enabled sixteen-year-old George Washington to participate in his first wilderness adventure, surveying Fairfax lands across the Blue Ridge in the Shenandoah Valley. In love with the wilderness and in need of a way to earn a living, George set himself up as a surveyor across the Blue Ridge the very next year. In a short time, he was able to begin speculating in land on the frontier. But just as this part of his life was gaining momentum, his half-brother became ill. George accompanied Lawrence to Barbados to help care for him, but the disease did not abate. The two returned to Mount Vernon, where Lawrence died in 1752.
Lawrence had been a natural role model for George even before the death of their father. When George was just nine, Lawrence had secured an officer's commission in an American regiment that participated in an ill-fated expedition with British regular forces against the strategic Spanish outpost at Cartagena. The excitement of his older half-brother's military adventure undoubtedly inspired George to pursue military appointments to further his own career when he came of age. His half-brother's marriage help George secure the patronage of the powerful Fairfax family. In 1752, a 20-year-old George Washington sought and attained his deceased brother's post as the Adjutant General of the Virginia militia. Thus, Major Washington had his first military post without any experience in the responsibilities that post entailed.
Military Misadventures, Legendary Courage and A Reputation Secured [3]
As fate would have it, Washington's military education would be through the hard school of experience. Britain and France were engaged in a global competition that was about to erupt into full-scale war, and the Ohio Valley—the wilderness beyond the Virginia frontier—was one of the regions where the two powers were to clash. Between 1753 and 1759, Washington commanded several expeditions into the contested territory and served as an advisor to the British Regular Army on others. Raised to the rank of Colonel and Commander in Chief of all Virginia militia, he sought to defend the Virginia frontier against raids by tribes allied with the French. Through a series of failures, Washington earned for himself a hero's reputation for his courage and skill as a frontiersman. He also earned praise for his attempt to get the British regulars to adopt tactics more suitable to the wilderness, and his energetic efforts to protect the Virginia frontier with insufficient resources.
In late 1753, the Lieutenant Governor of Virginia sent Washington with a small band on a dangerous and sensitive mission. Washington was to travel into the Ohio Valley to find and warn the French that they were trespassing on land claimed by the English crown. The mission required moving nearly 500 miles through unbroken wilderness that was home to a formidable array of native tribes. The journey would have been hazardous in good weather, but the party had to fight through snow both ways. Washington found the French, but they were in significant strength and well on with plans to increase their presence and fortify the strategic area where the Allegheny and Monongahela Rivers join to form the Ohio (modern-day Pittsburgh). Waterways were frozen enough to force a return journey through snow and ice. Washington was nearly shot by a turncoat guide, and, later, nearly killed by exposure when a small raft overturned while crossing an icy river. His journal of this adventure was immediately published by the Lieutenant Governor in an unsuccessful effort to raise forces from the Virginia colonists to fortify the Ohio Valley.
The very next year, the same Lieutenant Governor gained the approval of the Virginia legislature for a 300-man force, and Washington, now a lieutenant colonel, became the de facto commander. A small force of about 33 people were sent ahead to fortify "the forks of the Ohio." Washington followed with 159 more. The advance force was quickly surrounded by a vastly superior force of French and Indians, but the Virginia men were merely escorted a short way back and told to go home. When they encountered Washington, he decided to continue westward to link up with his own Indian allies. Together, the combined force launched a surprise attack on a small party of French, killing several of them. Warned that the French were sending hundreds to avenge this attack, Washington built a fort in an open meadow dominated by wooded heights. His allies abandoned him, warning him that the fort was poorly sited, which indeed it was.
The French took advantage of the wooded heights when they attacked on July 3, 1754. Washington's men were exposed, and only the inaccuracy of the muskets used by both sides prevented a worse catastrophe than what unfolded. The return fire from the fort was ineffective. It started raining in the afternoon. The trenches around the fort began filling with water, and the powder stored in the magazine was in danger of being spoiled due to a leaky roof. By nightfall, over 100 of Washington's men were either killed or wounded. The French, however, offered a cease fire. In exchange for a surrender document signed by Washington, they agreed to let the garrison withdraw to Virginia. The whole affair was a disaster by British standards: the Frenchmen Washington's force had killed in their surprise attack included a diplomat on a mission to warn the British away from land claimed by the French. On top of this, Washington's signed surrender was an embarrassment. To Virginians, however, Washington emerged in a heroic light, having won one victory and then led a courageous defense against a superior force. Washington expected his troops to be absorbed into the regular British Army, and to receive a regular commission himself. When this did not happen, he resigned.
The next spring saw two regiments of British regulars, under the command of Major General Edward Braddock, arrive in Virginia with the mission of capturing the now-finished French fort—Fort Duquesne—at the forks of the Ohio River. Advised that no one was more knowledgeable about the wilderness between Virginia and the Ohio Valley than George Washington, the general took Washington on as a volunteer advisor. But Braddock refused to listen when Washington tried to persuade him that European tactics would not work in the wilderness against the French and their Indian allies.
The British force was ambushed about ten miles from Fort Duquesne, suffering horrendous casualties. Washington's horse was shot with him on it. Bullets tore his clothes. But he was not wounded—all the other mounted officers were either wounded or killed. Washington led the evacuation of the wounded, which included Major General Braddock. Braddock ordered him to ride for reinforcements, which he did. Braddock died of his wounds. The British Army withdrew to Philadelphia. Once again, Washington was looked on as a hero by Virginians, and he gained a favorable reputation amongst Americans in other colonies as well. The surviving British officers praised his courage. But the British military establishment blamed Washington for Braddock's defeat. The British abandoned the defense of the Virginia frontier, leaving Washington and his militia to try and fend off incessant raids by tribes armed and encouraged by the French.
For the next two years, Washington served as "Colonel of the Virginia Regiment and Commander in Chief of all Virginia forces," engaged in the impossible task of defending the isolated homesteads of the Shenandoah Valley with resources—funds, troops, wagons, horses and supplies—totally insufficient for the task at hand. He attempted to garrison the valley with a series of small forts that were only one day's distance from one another. With full responsibility for all appointments of officers and matters of supply, Washington—already legendary for his exploits in battle—earned praise for tireless and skillful administration of his small force. He was largely unsuccessful at defending the settlers in the valley, yet they respected his efforts enough to elect him as their representative to the Virginia Assembly.
By 1758, the strategic situation had tipped in favor of the British. Formal declaration of war between France and Britain in 1756 allowed the British Navy to block French supplies from reaching the French in Canada and their allies in the Ohio Valley. Washington was unaware of this development, which finally created conditions favorable for the British to capture Fort Duquesne. Perpetually involved in bureaucratic wrangling with both his civilian leaders in Virginia and the British authorities, George Washington's experience in the wilderness nevertheless made him valuable to both. Thus, when the new British commander, Brigadier General John Forbes, launched an expedition from Philadelphia northward, Washington was given command of the advanced brigade. When British forces reached the forks of the Ohio River in late November, they found the French had abandoned and burned their fortifications. Moreover, the tribes that had supported the French cause by raiding the Virginia frontier now made peace with the British. With the Virginia frontier secure, a 26-year-old George Washington resigned from his military position and returned to Mount Vernon.
Throughout this period, surviving correspondence paints a picture of young Washington as a ladies' man. From flirtatious letters exchanged with women around Mount Vernon to notes from his fellow officers commenting on exploits in frontier saloons, Washington's love of dancing, drinking, and romance is clear. Biographer James Thomas Flexner writes that "Washington was in love with love." He notes that one romance held a special place in Washington's heart even when he was much older. Ironically, the object of this long-lived affection was the wife of his close friend, George Fairfax. It is not clear whether there was more to their relationship than flirtatious correspondence. Whatever their relationship, it never interfered with Washington's friendship with Fairfax. Indeed, that Fairfax connection was important in the social advancement of young George Washington. [4]
By 1759, despite his young age, Washington was widely known throughout the colonies for his prominent role in the defense of the Virginia frontier. There are reports that Benjamin Franklin praised some of his exploits. Although criticized by some for his drinking, gambling and romantic exploits, Washington was also known for his courage, administrative skill, and leadership ability. His survival during many close brushes with death lent him a mystique of invulnerability. The officers who served under his command were intensely loyal to him. Upon his resignation, the Virginia legislature passed a resolution praising his service.
[1] * the first attempt at a federal government for the victorious states after the American Revolutionary War
[2] This section is a summary of information found in Flexner, James Thomas; Washington, The Indispensable Man; Back Bay Books; New York, NY; 1969; pp. 3-9.
[3] ibid., pp. 9-38.
[4] ibid, pp. 7-22.
Author of Thy King Dumb Come and Accountability Citizenship, Stephen P. Tryon is a businessman and technologist with extensive experience in e-commerce, a retired Soldier, and former Senate Fellow.
Register to Win Cool Stuff!