Walking the Berkshires

Unknown: A Local History Civil War Mystery

I came upon this grave marker recently in Cornwall Hollow Cemetery.  It caught my eye as a government issued headstone of the "Civil War" type, authorized in the 1870s for the graves of Union soldiers (and also was used for unmarked graves of veterans of earlier wars).  Given its low status position over at the very edge of the graveyard, I wondered whether it would prove to belong to a black soldier, for there were social and racial hierarchies even in New England graveyards and I often find veterans of the 29th Connecticut colored infantry in such places.  What I found instead has left me searching for explanations.

This weathered marble stone has no name or associated company and regiment.  It is inscribed simply  "Unknown U.S. Soldier".  If this private cemetery were near some battleground or a place that had seen the passage of armies, I would not have given it another thought.  But this is northwest Connecticut, hundreds of miles from the battlefields of the Civil War, and in a part of the state which has never seen a military engagement since its settlement. 

The presence of this artifact at this location raises many questions.  How did it come to be here?  Are there remains associated with the grave marker, and how were they associated with Cornwall, Connecticut?  The marker was provided at no cost for veterans by the government, but someone covered the expense of the plot, and if the soldier died far from Cornwall, also paid to transport the remains here.  

Graduate school taught me the value of testing the assumptions of every explanatory hypothesis.  The available evidence at the outset consists of the stone itself and the site where I found it, which is a matter both for the archeologist and the historian.  My initial inquiry in Cornwall has determined that neither the historical society nor the town clerk, nor the sexton have any knowledge of a written record beyond what is recorded on the stone, nor of how it came to be here.  So let us begin with the stone.

As the photograph at the top of the page illustrates, this marble headstone is discolored and weathered, consistent with other military grave markers of its time period.  It is of a "Civil War" type used for Union veteran's graves beginning in 1873, and authorized for use in private cemeteries in 1879.  This establishes the earliest date in which this artifact would have appeared at this site.  Such markers were in use until a significant design change after WWI.  This one has straight rather than curved sides coming to a point at the bottom of the sunken shield, which is the earliest variation on this design.  Although unmarked graves of U.S. veterans of from the Revolutionary War, War of 1812, Mexican War, Civil War, Indian Campaigns and Spanish American War were furnished with this type of headstone, (Confederates got their own from the U.S. government in the early 20th century), this stone - because of its apparent age and the sheer number of soldiers involved - is most likely for an unknown Civil War soldier.

This is not the first design for grave markers of unknown U.S. soldiers, however.  According to this site"

"In 1873 Secretary of War William W. Belknap adopted the first design for stones to be erected in national cemeteries. For the unknown dead, the stone was a block of marble or durable stone six inches square, and 30 inches long. The top and four inches of the sides of the upper part were finished and the number of the grave cut on the top...The use of stone blocks for marking graves in national cemeteries was discontinued on October 21, 1903, and the graves were marked with the same design as those furnished for the known dead."

It is possible that this practice had already been followed in private cemeteries long before 1903, but I do not know how regular it was.  Two of the federal contractors for Union grave markers were located in the southern Berkshires in Stockbridge and Lenox, Massachusetts.  Quite possibly the stone was manufactured there.

Coincidentally, there is another Civil War connection between the little cemetery in Cornwall Hollow, Connecticut and Stockbridge,  Massachusetts.   Major General John Sedgwick came from here and is buried beneath a prominent monument in the Cornwall Hollow Cemetery, with another monument to his memory located across the road.  A branch of the Sedgwick family moved to Stockbridge, Massachusetts from Cornwall, where his cousin Catherine Maria Sedgwick was prominent fiction writer.

That is about all that I can surmise about the stone itself.  There is also its position in the cemetery to consider, in a low status plot at the very edge of the graveyard.  This is not a public memorial, though it is a dutiful acknowledgment of the military service of an unknown soldier with a government headstone in a private cemetery.  I believe that while the stone itself may have been moved within the cemetery and probably replaced an earlier marker of some kind, there were indeed once unknown remains with which is is associated. 

How did an unknown U.S. soldier of this time period come to Cornwall?  It is hard to imagine a scenario where remains of an unknown soldier from the Civil War were at least partially identified such that they could be positively to assigned to a soldier from this particular rural community in Connecticut.  Cornwall Hollow is in the northeast corner of the town, but even if we consider Goshen, and Canaan/Falls Village as well it still seems implausible.  Remains that preserved evidence of a Corps badge colored by division, a regiment number and company letter would stand a good chance of being positively identified unless there were several candidates from the same company who came from the same place and died in the same place.

Blaikie Hines "Civil War Volunteer Sons of Connecticut" has a wealth of detail about the service and casualty figures for every Connecticut regiment and community.  The majority of the enlistments in this communities was in the :county regiment": the 2nd CT Heavy Artillery (40% of those credited to Cornwall, 34% of Canaan's soldiers, 53% from Goshen).  Yet even on their worst days of the war, such as Cold Harbor where the Heavy's took heavy casualties and remained under fire for days thereafter, the number of dead in these communities was very low.  Cornwall suffered 11 casualties on June 1st at Cold Harbor but only 1 battlefield death (another was wounded mortally).  Canaan lost just 2 at Cold Harbor and 2 at Antietam and the remainder were single fatalities.  Goshen lost 2 at Winchester.  At no time did these communities suffer multiple battlefield deaths from the same unit (or any combination of units) except at Cold Harbor where Goshen and Cornwall together lost three from the 2nd C.T.H.A.  This strongly suggests that there was not a situation where a group of men from the same communities died and became unknowns at the same place.

I also discount the likelihood that some private individual cared enough about unknowns (perhaps having lost but not recovered a loved one in the war) to pay for the transportation of the remains of an unknown to stand for them all and then bury at the edge of a private cemetery, procuring a government issue headstone somewhere along the way.

The only other explanation I can think of involves considerable conjecture.  It might have been that a Union veteran was passing through the area, alone, unknown in the community, and died here before he could leave.  This might have happened after mustering out - probably not as a deserter because he would have avoided drawing attention to himself identifiable as a soldier - or as an invalid separated from his friends.  He might have been buried "in a pauper's grave", and his original wooden marker replaced with government issue sometime thereafter.  It would have been a lonely end, and in that case someone did the decent thing and buried him with recognition of his service, if not his name.

I honestly do not know the answer.  But I find the possibilities fascinating.  Any readers willing to test my assumptions or offer other insights would be most welcome.

Postscript (November 6th, 2009): Remarkable what data may be lurking in Google books.  In a February, 1876 record of Congressional testimony regarding contracts to furnish soldier's headstones, I find that the contract for the original headstone blocks for unknown soldiers of the Civil War was awarded to one D.C. Sage, of Cornwall, Connecticut.  The unknown soldier grave marker in Cornwall Hollow was not one of Sage's blocks, but could have been a later replacement.

Political Sit Com Pitches: Get 'em While They're Hot!

"Hillary and Seuss" : The madcap antics of the Cat in the Hat at the US State Department.  Staring Jim Cary and Amy Poehler.

"Biden His Time":  It's a gaff-a-minute as week after week, the Veep puts his foot in the proverbial "bucket of warm piss" and proves that while he may not be secure, he's fully disclosed.

"The Cure for What Ales You";  Nobel Peace Prize laureate Barack Obama practices his trademark "beer diplomacy" to solve conflicts around the globe and in your neighborhood.   This week's summit features Mahmoud Abbas, Benjamin Netanyahu, and a six pack of Oktoberfest.

"Rush to Judgment"  Critics are giving standing bloviations to this Night Court remake with right wing talk show host Rush Limbaugh starring as eccentric, fun-loving judge Harry T. Stone (and the rest of the cast).

"Green Eclairs" Al Gabore moves to a LEED certified mansion in the country to promote sustainable living and save the planet.

"Van Palin"  Refusing to be a lame duck, the maverick Governor of Alaska trades in her tailored suits for spandex and hits the road with Ted Nugent.  But just who is fronting for whom?  Check your guns and roses at the door for this one.

"Appy Trails to You"  Hosted by the man who gave new meaning to the phrase "hiking the Appalachian trail", Governor Mark Sandford takes us to more places he didn't go when he was actually with his mistress in Buenos Aires.  Next week: Wall, South Dakota!  A Mockumentary produced for PBS by Ken Burns.

 

Hope and the Politics of Peace

Nobody - neither the bookies nor the pundits - saw this coming. 

"The Nobel Peace Prize goes to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples."

This award strikes many in America as more of an "A for effort" than recognition of significant accomplishments only 9 months into his first term as US President.  In making its announcement, the Nobel Foundation offered this insight into its selection of Obama for this award:

"Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population."

In light of this justification, Obama's speech last month before the UN General Assembly may have helped make up the minds of the Nobel Committee:

"I have been in office for just nine months -- though some days it seems a lot longer. I am well aware of the expectations that accompany my presidency around the world. These expectations are not about me. Rather, they are rooted, I believe, in a discontent with a status quo that has allowed us to be increasingly defined by our differences, and outpaced by our problems. But they are also rooted in hope -- the hope that real change is possible, and the hope that America will be a leader in bringing about such change."

So perhaps Obama received the award for taking American diplomacy in a new direction, and for his willingness to define the tasks that lie ahead as a shared responsibility among all nations.  Certainly this passage from his UN address makes that clear:

"Some of our actions have yielded progress. Some have laid the groundwork for progress in the future. But make no mistake: This cannot solely be America's endeavor. Those who used to chastise America for acting alone in the world cannot now stand by and wait for America to solve the world's problems alone. We have sought -- in word and deed -- a new era of engagement with the world. And now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges."

There is no more symbolic - and political - Nobel award than the Peace Prize. It is by its very nature a validation of ideals. 

• It has been granted to those who brokered the end of wars (Teddy Roosevelt, Henry Kissinger)
• It has been awarded to  those who by their example kept the world's attention on the need to confront injustice and oppression in brutally repressive societies (Aung San Suu Kyi, Desmond Tutu, Nelson Mandela, Lech Walesa). 
• It has been given in hope to former adversaries whose previous record was anything but peaceful (Yassir Arafat, F.W. DeKlerk, Anwar Al-Sadat).
•  It has recognized those who have dedicated themselves to the alleviation of human suffering (The International Committee of the Red Cross, Mother Teresa, International Campaign to Ban Landmines, Doctors Without Borders).  
• And it has been granted to visionaries and organizations who articulate a profoundly different way of dealing with global conflicts and challenges (The Quakers, International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War,  Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and its most visible proponent, Al Gore). 

If anywhere, it is in this last category where Barack Obama's award may fit, though for me and many others it seems premature.

I believe that the Nobel Committee selects Peace Prize winners as much to make a statement of ideals as to recognize the saints and successful peacemakers among us.  In drawing attention to Barack Obama, it seeks to validate what is still an untried vision, not only for American diplomacy but for international problem-solving and conflict resolution. 

It will remain a very controversial award here at home even as it is lauded abroad,  not only because of concerns that America's interests will be sublimated to those of other nations but also because it is still very early in his presidency and the success or failure of his vision and governance remains to be seen.  There is so much that is symbolic in Obama's presidency and it is too soon for there to be much of substance.  We are leery of mythologizing our sitting presidents - one must have been dead for 5 years before his image appears on a postage stamp - and we like to think that America is a meritocracy and that we earn whatever success and recognition we achieve in life rather than having it given to us preferentially.  Those who oppose affirmative action may see yet another example of it in this award.  Those who are inspired by his presidency will find it affirming.  It is certain that partisan politics will see this award as another wedge issue.

I believe that there is hardly a world leader who carries as much symbolism and upon whom so many fix their hopes and aspirations as Barack Obama.  A symbolic award for a symbolic Presidency may be quite fitting after all.  We can only hope that deeds follow words in the years to come.

More (10/9/2009):  President Obama is certainly a class act:

"I am both surprised and deeply humbled by the decision of the Nobel Committee.  Let me be clear; I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments, but rather as an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people of all nations.  To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize: men and women who've inspired me, and inspired the whole world through their courageous pursuit of peace.  But I also know that this prize reflects the kind of world that those men and women and all Americans want to build.  A world that gives life to our founding documents.   And I know that throughout history, the Nobel Peace prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement, It's also be used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes.  And that is why I will accept this award as a call to action, a call to all nations to confront the common challenges of the 21st century."

American Dreamer

I had my first dream about President Obama last night.  At some point during every presidency of my adult life, I have dreamed about having some casual, one-on-one time with the current president.  In each case, whether I agreed with his politics or not, it made the man more human and accessible.  I am told that such dreams can be interpreted as anxiety dreams, where my unconscious mind tries to influence powers beyond my control. 

I can see that.  Obama was certainly non-threatening in last night's dream.  I said as much to him as we sat together, telling him I thought he was being very approachable and that I felt we could talk about normal stuff, like the Red Sox.  I then mentally kicked myself because he is a White Sox fan, but he just nodded and indicated that we were both wearing the same Fenway colors.  (I also noted that the curl of chest hair at his neckline had gone gray but am not going to try and interpret what that means).  In any case, I do not at any time recall him speaking to me, just that it felt comfortable in his presence.

I usually keep my personal politics apart from what I write in this blog.  Perhaps Obama was on my mind because of the consternation in some vocal quarters regarding his upcoming speech to America's schoolchildren.  The message to work hard and stay in school is hardly partisan, but apparently having it come from the President is perceived that way by many who oppose his politics.  The AP reports:

"As far as I am concerned, this is not civics education — it gives the appearance of creating a cult of personality," said Oklahoma Republican state Sen. Steve Russell. "This is something you'd expect to see in North Korea or in Saddam Hussein's Iraq."

I'm calling bullshit.  It gives the appearance of respecting the office of President and of encouraging students to dedicate themselves to learning and to being good citizens (things that partisan politics on either side lost track of long ago).

Public school is one of the bastions of our democracy.  Every single day, my children salute the flag and pledge allegiance, which is an indoctrination in civics and patriotism that few of those crying foul about the President's address find objectionable. I am not concerned in the slightest that my children may have the opportunity to listen to the President speaking directly to them about personal responsibility and developing their full potential.  I would not object to that message from any President.  I have the opportunity and responsibility as a parent to discuss what they heard and thought when they come home.

President George W. Bush asked America's children to donate a dollar to help the children of Afghanistan as we went to war in October of 2001: a far more overtly political message to our youth.  His father gave an address to America's schoolchildren that this transcript shows is exactly in line with what Obama intends to do next Tuesday.   A presidential address of this sort is not unprecedented, nor out of line with the respect usually accorded to Chief Executives of our nation since generations of American schoolchildren were taught to venerate Washington.  One can only conclude that it is an objection to this President, and what he represents, that is behind the calls to keep children out of school in districts that have elected to show the speech, and the decision by others not to show it at all.

I want my children to appreciate that there are many sides to the issues they will face in life, and particularly that there is more to history than what they are taught in school.  I want them to be critical and informed consumers of information.  The teachable moment in this case is sadly not about the President's message, but the reaction to it from those unwilling to trust their children to listen to it thoughtfully and discuss with them afterward what they heard.  Respect for the office even when you oppose the politics of the officeholder is a traditional value that has been abandoned in American politics.  There is nothing liberal or conservative about that dereliction.

The real risk here is that by speaking directly to schoolchildren, President Obama becomes more accessible to them, and with that familiarity perhaps more acceptable as well.  Then he may appear in their dreams, and we know what that leads to...

Bog Turtle Disease Alert

The federally Threatened bog turtle faces a new threat in the northern portion of its contiguous range.  On August 5th, the USFWS issued an advisory bulletin that an unusually high number of dead and apparently diseased bog turtles have been reported from four states, including New York and Massachusetts.  I received the alert by email from a colleague and the full bulletin is reposted here. 

"...The number of bog turtles found dead in their wetland habitat (2 to 4 dead turtles in each of four wetlands in NY and MA) exceeds that which is typically reported.

In some cases, dead bog turtles have been found entirely intact, with no obvious cause of death.
On several live bog turtles, a grayish or whitish substance and/or discoloration has been
documented on the skin of the head, neck and limbs, as well as on the claws. In some cases,
these appear as skin lesions. Scute sloughing and loss of claws and toes has also been observed.
Based on data collected at a Massachusetts site, the symptoms appear to worsen over time.
At this time, the causative agent(s) of the observed symptoms has not been identified..."

This is extremely troubling news.  When I was with The Nature Conservancy, bog turtle conservation in Massachusetts, Connecticut and part of Eastern New York was a major focus of my work.  The bog turtle is at the extreme northern extrent of its contiguous range in Massachusett.  The USFWS Recovery Plan for the bog turtle's northern population identies just three bog turtle sites in the Commonwealth, but two of them are considered good sites and are under conservation management.  I am intimately familiar with both of these, and know that if one has lost 2-4 adults to a new threat the viability of what would otherwise be considered a strong and vital population is in grave peril.   Past research indicates that the loss of just one breeding adult a year at these sites would be enough to tip the balance toward extirpation.

The 2001 rare species recovery plan records what was known at that time about the threat posted to wild bog turtle populations by disease (my emphasis added):

    "...At present, there are no substantiated reports of disease affecting a wild population of bog turtles, although at one site in Columbia County, New York (J. L. Behler, pers. comm) the number of dead turtles is cause for concern; eight dead bog turtles were collected during three visits to the site in 1988 and 1989 ( A. breisch, in Mt. 2000).  A sick turtle removed from that population and held for several years in captivity tested positive for upper respiratory distress syndrome (URDS) upon necropy (J. L. Behler, pers. comm.).  Although this could indicate a health problem within that communication, it is also possible that the turtle contracted this disease while in captivity.  Disease issues have the potential to become a much larger threat to wild bog turtle populations as they are subjected to more handling by researchers or if manipulation of turtle populations is undertaken through the deliberate release into the wild of bog turtles from other areas, zoological collections, or those seized by law enforcement activities.  It should be noted that thorough health screening of wild-caught bog turtles has not been a standard practice of researchers, although it may be warranted (Smith in iitt. 2001)..."

I do not know for certain whether all four sites where increased mortality and apparent disease have been observed coincide with those where there has been more handling by researchers, but it is highly likely at least at the first site where such observations were made, because very few people besides researchers even know where the turtles are or would know to report what they had observed to the proper authorities.  In the Massachusetts case, only researchers have legal access to the sites.

There is additional publically available data concerning the possibly diseased bog turtle site in new York mentioned in 2001 rare species recovery plan.  Beacham's Guide to the Endangered Species of North America (2000) identifies the respiratory disease at that site as Mycoplasma:

"...Of additional concern is the recent (1997) discovery of Mycoplasma (the bacterium that adversely affects the desert tortoise) at a bog turtle site in New York. This disease has the potential to cause significant declines in bog turtle populations. The site where Mycoplasma has been discovered has been identified as one of the best remaining New York sites and lies in a valley with additional, extant sites leading to the possibility of spread of the disease through a significant portion of the remaining bog turtle range in New York State..."

The USFWS disease alert makes no mention of Mycoplasma and instead describes different symptoms.  That is what is most alarming about this new threat.  An unknown and highly lethal pathogen will take time to analyze, let alone isolate causes and develop a meaningful response. Bog turtles do not have any time.  their populations are too small.

Consider that in 2006, a new disease affecting little brown bats in New York was first described for science. Three years later,  white nose syndrome is causing up to 90-100% mortality in bat caves from the White Mountains of New Hampsive to sw Virginia.  It has affected between 500,000 and 1,000,000 bats of several different species.  There is still no absolute cause for this disease, nor a cure.  One theory is that human activity may have been an initial vector for the spread of the fungus.

I suspect that the reason this new turtle disease has not yet been reported in Connecticut is that no researcher has been to our few remaining (and much poorer quality) bog turtle sites to check. There has not been a live turtle reported from a couple of these places in years.  I am aware that several years ago, one Connecticut turtle was found by a passerby and taken to a public beach where it was spotted by a knowledgable person and ultimately returned to the site where it belonged.  My understanding is that this turtle was later found dead.

This leaves open a difficult question.  Should researchers visit other bog turtle sites to determine whether they, too, have evidence of increased mortality and apparant disease?  Or should they refrain from doing so, given the potential that their activity could be contaminating clean sites?   The felt soles of waders are known sources of introducing the microscopic alga  Didymosphenia geminata or "Rock Snot" to trout streams.  Unless soaked for at least 40 minutes in hot water at least 113° F (45° C) - or for 30 minutes with a 5% solution of dishwashing detergent - what keeps a researcher dry may be killing the very things they care for.

A Well Regulated (Private) Militia

Connecticut, "The Land of Steady Habits", is not known for being particularly radical when it comes to governance.  It is decentralized into 169 towns without regional government.  Traditionally they have been united in their devotion to home rule and the conviction that they are unique communities, distinctly different from their neighbors.  Even within towns there are semi-autonomous boroughs, postal districts and villages with which residents more closely identify than the parent community. 

I, for example, live in Canaan within the Town of North Canaan (locally known as Canaan) and distinct from East Canaan, also in North Canaan.  The Town of Canaan is locally known as Falls Village and contains South Canaan which only appears on maps and does not rate a post office address.  There is no West Canaan in either Canaan, but there is a Sodom.  I hope that is clear.

Connecticut is, for New England, a more conservative State than most of the others: at any rate a lighter shade of blue. It also has legislation within its regulations that I would think would be the envy of any number of deep red states elsewhere in this great country of ours.  Connecticut allows groups of five people or more to establish private military units.

CGS § 27-101 allows for the creation of private militias  “for the purpose of drilling or maneuvering with firearms or other dangerous weapons…or for the purpose of giving or acquiring military training or experience."  Given that this is Connecticut and not Idaho, those organizations taking advantage of this opportunity have tended to be black powder artillery units.  The 1st Litchfield Artillery Regiment has been active since the 1960s and while it does not have a web site it has been a fixture at artillery shoots and town parades.  According to the State's records;

This company first filed with the secretary of the state on July 23, 1964.  It is based in Litchfield.  Its membership is limited to veterans (mostly wartime veterans but they can vote to admit nonwartime veterans).  Members must also be U. S.  citizens, have a good knowledge of Connecticut history and appreciate its ancient traditions, and be deemed worthy of admission by members.

The stated objectives of the company are to:

1.  preserve the tradition of horse drawn artillery by instructing young men in its history and in the operation of field guns and to become proficient in the maneuvering and firing of horse-drawn artillery by drills and training;

2.  participate in state functions, such as those on Memorial, Veterans, and Independence Days;

3.  act as an escort to the governor at inaugural parades or other times he requests;

4.  help the governor uphold the laws;  and

5.  participate in ceremonies at the request of the Connecticut Historical Commission.

The company is headed by a commanding officer (colonel).  Other officers include lieutenants and majors.  In its 1996-97 statement, the company reported 13 members.

It is worth noting that this regiment is more than a reenactment unit.  It can be called into service to defend the State, presumeably against a foe that would be intimidated by smoothbore muzzleloading artillery (and who wouldn't be?).  They also provide a wicked starting gun salvo for the local road race. 

At Litchfield's recent 4th of July celebration, the regiment appeared in summer campaign dress  from the Indian Wars of the 1870s-1880s.  I remember watching them fire cement-filled beer cans at targets in an old gravel pit in South Amenia, NY when I was a lad, and ever since, have wanted my own brass 12 pounder.  Now all I need is four friends with the same dream (and considerable start up capital) and the Cannon Company of the Canaan Home Guard will proudly preserve our town and traditions from any of our neighbors with irridentist tendencies.

Obama on Gates: Black Humor

Here is an excerpt of President Obama speaking extemporaneously last night about the arrest of Henry Louis "Skip" Gates in his own home -

"There was a report called into the police station that there might be a burglary taking place. so far so good. Right? I mean, if I was trying to jigger in -- well, I guess this is my house now so it probably wouldn't happen. Let's say my old house in Chicago. Here I'd get shot."

The transcript doesn't do the delivery justice.  It was a jaw dropping moment at the end of a press conference in which the President responded at great length to questions about his Health Care reform effort. Obama is a skilled communicator but he does not give terse, scripted replies typical of politicians, and this violates a fundamental tenet of media communications: the more you say, the more opportunity your words have to come back to get you.  No doubt his handlers cringed, and indeed his subsequent remarks that the Cambridge police acted stupidly have been picked up and flogged in the electronic media.   It is also part of what makes him such an engaging speaker and, for many, a sympathetic figure.

But for me, the most astonishing part of his remarks is contained in the above excerpt.  Whenever the President talks about race, he is very careful to make it a broader matter than the stark dichotomy of black and white.  He appears at pains to ensure that this most uncomfortable aspect of American life and society is approached as part of our national experience rather than the special interests of one group or another.  

"...what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there is a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately. And that's just a fact..."

He does this both to be disarming and to traverse a path strewn with ancient minefields, and this was the one part of his remarks where he turned to humor to find a way forward.  In fact, it was the only humorous moment in the entire evening, and yet it was humor with an edge.  When he said that "this is my house now so it probably wouldn't happen", everyone in the room laughed at the recognition that they were, in fact,  in the White House and Mr. Obama lives a life unlike any other citizen, let alone any other African American.  The idea of him somehow breaking into the White House because he forgot his keys was absurdly funny, and had the effect of making the most powerful man on Earth seem more like the rest of us.  When the President's remarks become self-referential, it reveals something of the man behind the office.

And in the very next breathe he upped the ante.

"Let's say my old house in Chicago.  Here I'd get shot." 

People didn't know whether they should gasp or laugh and so they squirmed and did both.  The idea of the secret service shooting the first African American president for breaking into the White House takes racial profiling to a chilling level of absurdity.  As with all quick witted humor it may also be unintentionally revealing.  The threat of presidential assassination is something all of our chief executives live with every day but with this president it is also the fear that cannot be named: that the better angels of our nature that elected the first African American to our highest national office will be cast down by our darkest demons. 

The White House is not the only place where a black man with every right to be where he is could be shot as a result of racial profiling.  Obama probably wasn't thinking about Amadou Diallo when he made that quip, but it occurred to Lawrence Bobo when writing in The Root about the arrest of Henry Louis Gates that:

"I think (he) could have been physically injured by this police officer (if not worse) had he, in fact, stepped out of his home before showing his ID. Black Americans recall all too well that Amadou Diallo reached for his identification in a public space when confronted by police and, 42 gun shots later, became the textbook case of deadly race-infected police bias."

The rest of his response to the Gates controversy acknowledged that "...race remains a factor in this society. That doesn't lessen the incredible progress that has been made. I am standing here as testimony to the progress that's been made. And yet, the fact of the matter is that, you know, this still haunts us."   Even if it hurts too much to laugh at the joke, it is refreshing to hear these words said from that podium.

Status Quo Ante

One of the bloggers at my cousin's Tigerhawk proposes that as with poker there should be an ante in war:

"If the country of Freedonia (with apologies to Groucho Marx) is attacked by the neighboring country of Youristan and several of its allies, and Freedonia successfully repels the attack, and pushes back the attackers deep into their own territory, and captures and holds some of the key strategic ground from which the attack was launched, why is it a bad thing that Freedonia maintains control over a small segment of that ground? Shouldn't there be some kind of ante in war, such that the leaders of Youristan know that if their aggression is ultimately unsuccessful, that some physical ground will be lost? It seems to me that an ante acts as somewhat of a reality check on planned aggression -- if the Youristani leaders understand that their payoff matrix is a little more negative, they might be less inclined to attack in the first place."

The rest of the post segues into the real world case of Israeli settlement of occupied territory, and rather than follow down that mine-strewn path I got thinking about the original premise, and in particular about the idea of an ante in war.  In fact, there is a strong historic precedent for resolution of conflicts to the status quo ante bellum.  Our War of 1812 was one such, and it is worth considering that this war commensed with a US Declaration of War followed by a failed invasion of Canada.  The British promptly repulsed our bungled incursion and went on to seize Detroit.  By the logic of the case made at Tigerhawk regarding Freedonia and Youristan, the British would have been justified in keeping Detroit and other occupied territory as a deterrant against US aggression (yes, I know from our perspective it was all about the British impressing seamen, restricting trade and supporting hostile Indians on our frontier, but there are other ways to spin it). 

British negotiators at the Treaty of Ghent did make a strong case for just such an outcome based on the principle of uti possidetis: namely, that each side would keep whatever teritory it had gained.  US success on Lake Champlain gave America a stronger hand to negotiate peace based on the status quo ante (with the Battle of New Orleans happening in any case after the fact). The point is that one can always come up with a causus belli that casts aggression as defense or vice versa. 

There is no simple formula for deterrance of aggression based on the possible costs of failure.  All this kind of ante really amounts to is the certainty that it is better to negotiate from a position of strength than weakness and better to win to lose.   And in practice, this is really no different than the threat of massive retaliation by a stronger adversary to deter a weaker.  "Peace through strength" has been resoundingly challenged since the end of the Cold War by the reality of asymetrical warefare by non-state actors who have less skin in the game and the potential to achieve disproportionate effects.

The true ante in war is its cost in life and health and capital and frequently territory, but also less tangible things like personal and group identity and self determination. 

Yale Farm Golf Development Proposal Withdrawn

In an unexpected development in the more than six year saga over the potential development of a world class golf course in North Canaan and Norfolk, CT, the developers have withdrawn their application.  Citing the collapse of America's economy" , they said that  as “painful as it is to give up the fight (we came to quite enjoy it) it is the only prudent course of action. ” They conceded in a letter to the State DEP on Monday that a $25 million investment for the project “could no longer be justified.”

This has been a divisive plan since 2002 when a partnership of Slade Mead, representing the family members who inherited the 780-acre, 17 parcel property; David A. Tewksbury; and Roland A Betts decided to pursue the project.  Initially described as a membership community with associated residences, the eventual permits filed were only for the golf course.

The fight over the development of this property became bitter and partisan, with million expended in legal and design costs by the applicants and by interveners opposed to the project as excessive and needlessly detrimental to water quality and other conservation values.  For some it boiled down to landowner rights verses the interests of conservationists, who made several serious offers that were not accepted to buy out the developers and conserve the vast majority of the land in a limited development proposal.

The property could still be developed into as many as 34 approval not required lots, and there are five residences currently on the site.  The same economic factors that contributed to the non-viability of the golf course proposal also apply to large residential subdivisions in our area at the moment.  There is also considerable bad blood between abuttors and proponants of the golf development.  I believe that there still could be a financially attractive limited development conservation outcome, but only if those with site control wish to consider such a plan.  In the last paragraph of their withdrawal letter, the developers say:

"The Mead family has owned the Yale Farm property for over 90 years, Roland & Lois Betts have had a home in Clayton Corners for 27 years and David Tewksbury has had his home abutting the Yale Farm property for 16 years. All of us are keenly disappointed to have reached this conclusion. We all love the Berkshires. The permitting process is not without scars and strained friendships but the economy dictates that is time to turn the page."

Let us hope that the next chapter can include a solution that works for the owners of this property to meet their needs and is consistant with conserving its primary conservation values.  I am certain there is bitter disappointment, and not a little anger and frustration with the conservation community, but if the economy was the true rationalle for wirthdrawing the project, then perhaps another serious conservation proposal, regardless of who may be backing it, can be treated as business, rather than personal.

The 4th Estate Drops the Ball; There are Lots of Examples of Piracy Against US flagged Vessels Since the Barbary Pirates

(image courtesy of ICC Live Piracy Map) Captain Richard Phillips has been freed from captivity, and the Somali pirates who had held him for several days in a lifeboat in the Indian Ocean have now either been been slain or captured themselves.  

Many press reports have claimed that this was the first act of piracy against a U.S. flagged ship in over 200 years, or at least in modern times.  This is far from accurate.   In fact there are more recent incidents of piracy in the historic record: some that are much more recent.

"Don" Pedro Gilbert of the pirate ship "Panda" attacked the US flagged ship "Mexican" in 1832, torturing the captain and crew into revealing where they had concealed a chest containing $20,000 in silver coins.  Surviving crewmembers of the "Mexican" testified against Gilbert, who was hanged in 1835: the last man executed for piracy in the United States.

150 years later, pirates were still attacking American flagged ships.

In 1984, a US Navy chartered vessel the "Falcon Countess" was attacked by six pirates armed with knifes in the Straits of Malacca and robbed of $19,000.  The U.S. flagged Ranger was attacked off Singapore in 1991 and likewise robbed of $23,000. 

In 2000, American Stephen M. Gartmann was killed aboard his yacht Sea Lion off Rio Dulce, Guatemala. 

So these other cases don't count?  Or would it be more accurate to say that fact checking, along with our illusions that pirates no longer sail the seas, is another casualty of our times?