Bates On Citizenship

(Edward Bates, another Civil War guy with a beard)

On this date in 1862, Attorney General Edward Bates, an appointee of President Abraham Lincoln, issued an opinion on the following question:

Is a man legally incapacitated to be a citizen of the United States by the sole fact that he is a colored, and not a white man?

The Attorney General's opinion was prompted by an inquiry from Treasury Secretary Salmon Chase.  In turn, Chase's inquiry was triggered by an incident in which federal revenue cutter Tiger detained a schooner because it was commanded by a "colored man", in violation of a statute forbidding persons not citizens of the United States from such positions on American ships in the coasting trade.

The issue arose from a long history and specifically from Justice Taney's opinion in the Dred Scott case.  Generations of legal historians have argued about whether Taney's opinion was an actual holding of the Court, or merely dicta, without legal authority, because it went far beyond the decisional grounds which had resolved the case.  In any event, Taney's declaration that blacks, whether free or slave, could never be citizens of the United States, had practical and political impact.  At a practical level it led President Buchanan's State Department to cease issuing passports to free blacks, and politically it enraged abolitionists and others opposed to slavery, raising the specter that the Supreme Court could eventually force northern states to recognize slavery (read A Second Dred Scott Case? for those implications).

Let's start at the end of Bates' opinion where he brusquely dispatches Taney's opinion.

In this argument I raise no question upon the legal validity of the judgment in Scott vs. Sandford. I only insist that the judgment in that case is limited in law, as it is, in fact, limited on the face of the record, to the plea in abatement; and, consequently, that whatever was said in the long course of the case, as reported, (240 pages,) respecting the legal merits of the case, and respecting any supposed legal disability resulting from the mere fact of color, though entitled to all the respect which is due to the learned and upright sources' from which the opinions come, was ^^ dehors the record,^' and of no authority as a judicial decision.

With that, the Attorney General states with finality:

And now, upon the whole matter, I give it as my opinion that the free man of color mentioned in your letter, if born in the United States, is a citizen of the United States, and, if otherwise qualified, is competent, according to the acts of Congress, to be master of a vessel engaged in the coasting trade.

The path Bates follows to his conclusion is of interest as a matter of legal reasoning, the historical circumstances, and as reflecting commonly held views of blacks by whites, even by those who were against slavery.

Bates starts by noting an immediate problem - the lack of a "clear and satisfactory definition" of "citizen of the United States", and that most cases and opinions dealing with citizenship had "not turned upon the existence and the intrinsic qualities of citizenship itself, but upon the claim of some right or privilege as belonging to and inhering in the character of citizen."

In reading his opinion we must remember that in 1862 we are in a period before the adoption of the 14th  Amendment and the establishment of a citizen of the United States as a uniform federal proposition.  In 1862, citizenship was defined state by state.

Some claimed that the right to vote or hold office, as defined by each state, was an essential element of citizenship.  Bates dismisses this notion, "No more in the case of a negro than in case of a white woman or child".

In the Attorney General's view:

In my opinion the Constitution uses the word citizen only to express the political quality of the individual in his relations to the nation; to declare that he is a member of the body politic, and bound to it by the reciprocal obligation of allegiance on the one side and protection on the other. 

In a long passage, Bates acknowledges the practical realities where most blacks are, in fact, slaves, and its impact on thinking about citizenship.

It occurs to me that the discussion of this great subject of national citizenship has been much embarrassed and obscured by the fact that it is beset with artificial difficulties, extrinsic to its nature, and having little or no relation to its great political and national characteristics. And these difficulties, it seems to me, flow mainly from two sources. First, the existence among us of a large class of people whose physical qualities visibly distinguish them from the mass of our people, and mark a different race, and who, for the most part, are held in bondage. This visible difference and servile connection present difficulties hard to be conquered ; for they unavoidably lead to a more complicated system of government, both legislative and administrative, than would be required if all our people were of one race, and undistinguishable by outward signs. And this, without counting the effect upon the opinions, passions, and prejudices of men.

After writing that;

I have said that, prima facie every person in this country is born a citizen; and that he who denies it in individual cases assumes the burden of stating the exception to the general rule, and proving the fact which works the disfranchisement; 

Bates goes on to discuss specifically whether slavery, color, or race constitute such exceptions.

As to slavery, "whether or not it is legally possible for a slave to be a citizen" is not within the scope of the question Bates is answering, which concerns a free person of color.

As to color, the Constitution contains "not one word on this subject", and goes on;

It has never been so understood nor put into practice in the nation from which we derive our language, laws, and institutions, and our very morals and modes of thought ; and, as far as I know, there is not a single nation in Christendom which does not regard the new-found idea with incredulity, if not disgust. What can there be in the mere color of a man (we are speaking now not of race but of color only) to disqualify him for bearing true and faithful allegiance to his native country, and for demanding the protection of that country? 

From a modern perspective there are two aspects that stand out in this section.  First is the distinction being made between race and color.  Second is the concept that color as a disqualifier is a "new-found idea". 

It's the discussion of race that Bates spends the most time on, and it is here that he makes clear the distinction that some make between color and race.

There are some who, abandoning the untenable objection of color, still contend that no person descended from negroes of the African race can be a citizen of the United States. Here the objection is not to color, but race only. The individual objected to may be of very long descent from African negroes, and may be as white as leprosy, or as the intermixture for many generations with the Caucasian race can make him; still, if he can be traced back to negroes of the African race, he cannot, they say, be a citizen of the United States!

This is the Attorney General's response: 

Our nationality was created and our political government exists by written law, and inasmuch as that law does not exclude persons of that descent, and as its terms are manifestly broad enough to include them, it follows inevitably that such persons, born in the country, must be citizens, unless the fact of African descent be so incompatible with the fact of citizenship that the two cannot exist together. If they can coexist, in nature and reason, then they do coexist in persons of the indicated class, for there is no law to the contrary. I am not able to perceive any antagonism, legal or natural, between the two facts.

The opinion goes on to discuss state constitutions and some state court cases on citizenship and also addresses several other arguments against negro citizenship, one of which is that if negroes can be citizens, one might be elected President!  Bates dismisses that argument:

 . . . those who make that objection are not arguing upon the Constitution as it is, but upon what, in their own minds and feelings, they think it ought to be.

It is useful to understand the timing and historical circumstances surrounding the Bates opinion as well as his own background.

The opinion was issued on November 29, 1862.  Lincoln had issued the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation on September 22 and would issue the final version on January 1, 1863.   Though the Proclamation only impacted slaves in areas still held by the Confederacy it was part of a larger move, often prompted by Congress, to deal with slaves who had escaped into Union lines.  Regardless of intentions when the war began in 1861, the inexorable logic of events was drawing Congress and the Administration down the road of not just ending slavery everywhere in the country under the 13th Amendment but of creating national citizenship, intended to include all regardless of color and the extension of voting rights to black males, done by the 14th and 15th Amendments.

Edward Bates was not an advocate of social equality for blacks.  Born into a Virginia slave holding family, he moved to Missouri after the War of 1812.  Bates became the first state attorney general after Missouri was admitted to the Union in 1820 and went on to serve many years in the state legislature.  Politically he was a Whig, but joined the Republican Party after the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska bill in 1854 (the same bill which caused Abraham Lincoln to become politically active again).  

Though Bates opposed slavery, freeing his last slaves in 1851 and paying for their passage to Liberia, he was not an abolitionist.  At the 1860 Republican convention he, along with Lincoln, Chase, and Seward, was a candidate for the presidential nomination.  After his election, Lincoln asked all three of his competitors to join his cabinet.  Although he supported Lincoln in his wartime actions and in the issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation, Bates remained hesitant about the role freed blacks should play in American society.  He opposed Lincoln's initiative to allow blacks to join the Union army and I have been unable to determine whether he supported the extension of voting rights to male blacks.  Finding himself increasingly at odds with the President, Bates resigned his cabinet post in December 1864 and died in 1869.

In Color

Stuart Humphreys (aka Babel Colour) enhances old color photos.  This is not colorising.  These were color photos when taken, often more than 100 years ago.

The first is along the Dordogne River and an area we drove through this past June.

Tonight I have enhanced for you a truly stunning autochrome by Jules Gervais-Courtellemont, taken on the Bank of the Dordogne, near Beaulieu, in France, 97 years ago. It is a magnificent photograph of an artist at work and original colour (not colourised). pic.twitter.com/lDgvKZimbr

— BabelColour (@StuartHumphryes) August 10, 2022

And this, from Jordan in 1918:

 

Not a Versace photoshoot, this is 102 years ago - on Saturday 3rd March 1918. The Great War rages & photographer Paul Castlenau travelled to what became Jordan to take this autochrome of Fayz Bey el Azm (companion of Emir Fayçal) which I've Babelised for you. It is not colourised pic.twitter.com/MxAR5LDQOx

— BabelColour (@StuartHumphryes) September 22, 2020

Good Counsel

I have no fault to find with those who have proposed a reconsideration of the question of the Mytilenaeans, nor do I commend those who object to repeated deliberation on matters of the greatest moment; on the contrary, I believe the two things most opposed to good counsel are haste and passion, of which the one is wont to keep company with folly, the other with an undisciplined and shallow mind.

via Laudator Temporis Acti

The quote is from Thucydides' account of the Peloponnesian War (431-404 BC), and concerns the Mytilenaean Debate of 427.  Mytilene was a city on the island of Lesbos, and had been an ally of Athens.  After war between Athens and Sparta broke out in 431, the leaders of Mytilene feared that Athens would become more repressive and they reached out to Sparta.  The Athenians discovered the plans to revolt and eventually compelled the Mytilenaeans to surrender unconditionally.

The Athenian Assembly, comprised of all male citizens of Athens, met to discuss the fate of the people of Mytilene.  The assembly quickly voted to sentence all the males of Mytilene to death, while selling the women and children into slavery.  According to Thucydides, the Athenians immediately executed about a thousand Mytilene prisoners who had already been brought back to Athens.

Second thoughts on the punishment arose and the assembly convened for further debate between those who advocated upholding the initial resolution and those seeking a milder solution.  It was Diodotus, ostensibly quoted by Thucydides above, who cautioned the assembly regarding "haste and passion" (alternatively translated as "haste and anger"), advising that the issue should be what was in Athens' best interest and questioning whether the prior day's decision would deter future revolt or make it more likely.

After lengthy discussion, Diodotus' argument carried the day and the assembly voted to execute only the leaders of the revolt.  Though a more moderate approach carried the day, as the war progressed the Athenian assembly made increasingly brutal decisions in dealing with revolts and enemies, and even with Athenian generals and admirals who were seen as failures.

Throughout the History of the Peloponnesian War, Thucydides ponders issues of diplomacy, motivation, and the passions of democracy and the authoritarianism of oligarchy and their relative merits.  As you read the book, you find his commentaries on the human condition remain relevant today.

Sponsian

 (Dacia, in red, from wikipedia)

In 1713, four gold coins, seemingly from the time of the Roman Empire, were discovered in Transylvania, now Romania, and, from 106 AD to the 270s AD, the Roman province of Dacia.  In the 19th century the coins were declared to be forgeries and mostly forgotten since then.  Very recently, scientists at University College London have reexamined the coins, using ultraviolet imaging, visible light, and scanning electron microscopy, and concluded they are from the 3rd century, as reported in this article from The Guardian.

Two of the coins carry images of known Roman emperors, but a third has an image of what the scientists believe is a man named Sponsian (aka Sponsianus). The study authors speculate that Sponsian was a local Roman commander, who during the crisis of the 260s, when Dacia may have been isolated from the rest of the empire, took control of the province and its garrison and began minting coins (Dacia was known for its gold mines).  

(Sponsian coin from The Guardian)

I expect this to be a controversial conclusion and will follow it as various scholars and scientists weigh in.  The Guardian quotes one skeptic at the end of its article:

“They’ve gone full fantasy,” said Richard Abdy, the curator of Roman and iron age coins at the British Museum. “It’s circular evidence. They’re saying because of the coin there’s the person, and the person therefore must have made the coin.” 

How is it even possible that someone named Sponsian, could have ruled a portion of the Roman Empire, yet leaving no historical record other than on a coin, which was thought to be a forgery?  It's a combination of two factors.

First is the Crisis of the Third Century, or more specifically, the period between 235 and 284, when Rome had a minimum of 21 emperors, a number that doubles if all pretenders, claimants, and leaders of breakaway provinces are counted (in contrast, the empire saw only 26 emperors in its first 262 years).  Political turmoil, economic disruption, plagues, barbarian raids across the Rhine and Danube, and the new Sassinid Empire in Persia all contributed to the confusion and instability.  Stability was only restored when Diocletian became emperor in 284, but his restoration involved refounding the empire on a more centralized and bureaucratic basis, with increased taxation and a larger army, and with the Roman Senate finally completely disabled and removed from power. For more, read Diocletian Has A Very Good Day.

Second is the lack of surviving historical sources for the period.  Roman history first comes into view with the works of Polybius, written in the third quarter of the second century BC, and then bursts into full daylight in the last decades of the Republic in the first century, with Caesar's Gallic Wars, the works and candid letters of Cicero, and other writers of the time.  This continues into the early empire in the first century AD, with writers like Sallust, Livy, Tacitus, and Pliny the Elder, and Younger.  They all had their perspectives and need to be read carefully but they were vivid writers who give us full pictures of many of the characters of that era.  Historical writing and letters start to decline in the second century, and then in the third and fourth centuries were are left with little.  There is Cassius Dio, writing probably in the 230s, the works of Ammianus Marcellinus, writing in the third quarter of the fourth century, whose early history of the empire has mostly disappeared, leaving us mostly with a brilliant account of events from 364 to 378, many of which Marcellinus witnessed.  And we have the Historia Augusta, a purported history of the emperors, including those of the 3rd century, probably composed around 400, but which has at least at much fantasy as fact.

The result is that for the third century crisis we are left with a general outline with many details missing.  We know, or think we know, the major events, but have little insight into details or of the characters of the emperors and generals of the time, unlike the personalities of the late Roman Republic who remain so vivid two thousand years later.

We know Dacia was troubled during this period.  The province had been vulnerable since its creation, a salient on the far side of the Danube, exposed on three sides to barbarian incursions, and requiring a strong Roman garrison.  As the threats grew across the empire, that garrison was weakened, leaving the province even more vulnerable to attack.  We have a couple of brief mentions of barbarian attacks in those years and then, sometime between 271 and 275, the Emperor Aurelian withdrew the remaining garrison from the province, establishing a new border along the Danube.  Beyond that, we know almost nothing.  And the same is true for many other parts of the Empire.

Could Sponsian be real?  Maybe.  During this period there were many shadowy figures and events.  A semi-independent Dacia, with a leader, supported by local communities, seeking protection from invasion is plausible.  The breakaway Gaullic Empire of Postumus from 260 through 274, though on a larger scale, presented the same scenario, once repeated later in the century with the secession of Britain from 286 to 293 under Carausius.  Even during the end of the empire in the west, we have the shadowy Roman state in Northern France, governed by Syragius, of whom we know very little, other than it outlasted the last Roman emperor in the west, not falling until 486.

Added: After posting I came across this article just published in Antigone, a very good journal of classical history and thought.  Though the author points out that we only recently became aware of Domitian II, another usurper during the same time period, he believes it is absolutely clear that the Sponsian coins are forgeries.  I have no idea who is correct but will definitely follow the story.

Seeing The Real You At Last

Another Dylan cover for you, this time from Bettye Lavette in 2018, with a song from Dylan's 1985 album Empire Burlesque.  Very different from the original and Lavette has tweaked the lyrics a bit.  Great style.

Well, I thought that the rain would cool things down
But it looks like it don't
I'd like to get you to change your mind
But it looks like you won't.

From now on I'll be busy
Ain't going nowhere fast
I'm just glad it's over
And I'm seeing the real you at last.

"I Don't Need To Be Beautiful"

Came across this story on Harold Russell, who lost both his hands in a training accident during WW2 and then, in his only acting role, appeared as a disabled veteran in the great film, The Best Years Of Our Lives, winning an honorary Oscar for his affecting performance.   I wrote about the film in the post Five Came Back. The author writes of his recovery:

Given a choice of steel hooks or plastic hands, he took the hooks. They were articulated; each tip had two gleaming prongs that allowed him to grasp objects. "I don't need to be beautiful," Russell said.

The movie was also a breakthrough:

At a time when people with physical disabilities were never seen in movies, except as monsters or freaks, Best Years showed Homer going through life as normally as anyone else plucking a cigarette from a pack, dialing the telephone, and, yes, gently sliding a wedding ring on his fiancee's finger.

There are many memorable scenes in the film.  This is one most people remember.

Standing In The Doorway

Been spending a little time listening to covers of Bob Dylan songs.  Some great stuff out there.  This is Jenny Lewis doing Standing in the Doorway from Dylan's 1997 album, Time Out of Mind.  It's a demo she did in 2019.

Operation Uranus

On this date in 1942, the massive Soviet counteroffensive, codenamed Uranus, was launched north and south of the city of Stalingrad, beginning the final phase of a battle that began on August 23, 1942 and would end on February 2, 1943.  For the prior twelve weeks, the German Sixth Army had tried to crush the last of the ferocious Red Army resistance within the city, while relying upon its Romanian, Italian, and Hungarian allies to protect its long flanks running across the open steppes outside the city.

The Soviet build up had gone undetected by the Germans, and the timing and scale of the counteroffensive caught the Nazis off guard.  The undermanned and outgunned armies of the allies crumbled and, by November 23, the Sixth Army was encircled, an encirclement frantic German efforts to break ended in failure.  Combined with Hitler's refusal to allow the Sixth Army to attempt to break out, it spelled doom for the 210,000 surrounded soldiers.

(from encyclopedia brittanica) 

(from wikipedia) 

Stalingrad was the deadliest battle of the bloodiest war in human history.  Perhaps appropriately, the two sides were the most brutal regimes in modern history.  Total casualties may have reached two million, including Germany and its allies, and Soviet military and civilians, of whom more than 750,000 were killed.

The scale of the battle and of the Soviet victory was so overwhelming that the Communist regime was able to suppress public and historical knowledge of its failed counteroffensive around Moscow, codenamed Mars and initiated at the same time as Uranus, with 300,000 Red Army soldiers killed, wounded or missing.  It was only with the collapse of the Soviet Union that a full account of Mars became available.

The Soviet counteroffensive around Moscow in December 1941 was the moment when it was clear that Germany would not be able to conquer the Soviets.  The Battle of Kursk, in July 1943, was the moment from which point the German army would be constantly retreating until the end of the war.  But Stalingrad was the military turning point and, more importantly, the psychological turning point.  It was then that Hitler and the top military commanders knew they were doomed, absent the availability of "miracle weapons", and when Stalin and his high command knew victory was inevitable.

Aspects of the battle and the greater German-Soviet conflict can be found in two prior posts:

The Annotated "Roads To Moscow", based on the 1970s Al Stewart song, tells the entire story, including the crushing of the hopes of returning Soviet soldiers that their wartime efforts would lead to a less harsh post-war country.  Stalin had other ideas.

Life and Fate is the title of one of the 20th century's greatest novels, by Vassily Grossman, who was at Stalingrad (and later in the war, among the Red Army troops first entering Auschwitz).  

Operation Uranus was the capstone of the turnaround in Allied fortunes in Europe since the summer of 1942 when the Germans were rolling through the steppes of south Russia, crossing the Don, and advancing into the wild lands north of the Caucasus Mountains, and approaching the Caspian Sea.  

In North Africa, Rommel had routed the British, capturing Tobruk (and causing a crisis for Churchill's government which faced a vote of confidence in Parliament) and advanced into Egypt, reaching El Alamein, less than 70 miles from Alexandria, and threatening the Suez Canal.  The rest of North Africa seemed secure for the Axis, under the rule of Vichy France and Western Europe was securely under German occupation or influence. 

While Japan had suffered a stunning setback at Midway in June 1942, its vast territorial empire, reaching the borders of India, occupying the most prosperous parts of China, threatening Australia, and occupying most of the island chains of the Pacific seemed invincible.

By the time of Operation Uranus, the strategic situation was already changing.  In late October, the British, New Zealanders, and Australians of Montgomery's 8th army defeated Rommel at El Alamein, and the Germans began a slow, but steady, retreat into Libya.  Then, on November 8, American, British, and Canadian forces landed in Morocco and Algeria, and began racing towards Tunisia.  North Africa, which had seemed so secure for the Axis, was quickly crumbling.

In the Pacific, a small force of Marines had landed at Guadalcanal in the Solomon Islands, and was holding its own against increasingly desperate Japanese attempts to dislodge them.  This was the first successful allied ground defense against Japan since its attacks began in December 1941.  But it was still touch and go; after the naval battle of Santa Cruz in late October, the United States was reduced to two operational carriers in the entire Pacific.  For the longer-term the industrial might of America would proved the decisive factor.  By June 1944 the American fleet supporting the invasion of the Marianas included 15 aircraft carriers, carrying new, fast, and maneuverable planes that destroyed Japan's naval air force.

The Banshees

Went to a movie theater today for the first time since early 2020 and saw The Banshees of Inisherin.  Very good and very dark, in some ways even darker than In Bruges.  The film looks lovely, shot on two islands off the west coast of Ireland, which is good because the story deals with some dark emotions, though often injected with humor.  Brendan Gleeson, Colin Farrell, Kerry Condon, and Barry Keoghan are splendid.

The movie is set in April 1923 and there are occasional references to the ongoing Irish Civil War, at least twice we can hear gunfire and explosions across the passage separating the island from the Irish mainland.  I realized that at least one of the themes of the movie was as commentary on that Civil War, which occurred between June 1922 and May 1923, and left bitter scars on Irish society that took decades to erase.

The Civil War occurred because of an oath.  From shortly after the end of WW1 until the summer of 1922, the Irish rebels had fought a non-conventional war in order to end several hundred years of English occupation.   Britain eventually agreed to negotiate and after months of talks in London an agreement was reached (Winston Churchill was one of the British negotiators).  While it was short of full independence for the entire island (leaving six northern counties in Britain) and created what was to be called a Irish Free State, within the British Empire and, most importantly, requiring an oath of allegiance to King George V, as the King in Ireland, not King of the United Kingdom.  It was this oath that led to a split within the Irish revolutionaries, the Free Staters supporting it, however reluctantly, and seeing the Free State as the first step towards inevitable independence, while the Irish Republican Army saw the oath as a repudiation of all its principles.

War broke out between the factions in late June.  It was brutal, devolving into murders and executions.  The Banshees starts with a seeming inconsequential conflict over not much of anything and escalates from there, despite the wishes of the principals, as they are carried along by sticking by their principles.  Prior to the Civil War, two rebels, Michael Collins and Harry Boland, were very close friends but Collins was Chairman of the Irish Provisional Government of the Free State and supported the oath, while Boland opposed the treaty with England.  On July 31, 1922 Boland was shot by Free State soldiers attempting to arrest him and died the next day.  Collins attended his funeral.  Three weeks later, Collins was dead, killed in an ambush.  All over an oath.  An oath that ended friendships, that led to friends killing friends, that led to decades of bitterness, and delayed economic development.  An oath that meant nothing in the longer-term.  Under the 1931 Statute of Westminster all British dominions, including the Irish Free State, became effectively independent and the oath of allegiance was dropped by the Free State shortly thereafter, without reaction from Britain.  In 1937 a new constitution was adopted, in which the Irish Free State disappeared to be replaced by the nation of Ireland, a constitutional Republic.  By its setting in the midst of the Civil War, I think writer and director Martin McDonagh, also considered Ireland's leading playwright, meant to make that statement. 

But there are other themes also running through the film, and the interview with Gleeson and Farrell below explores one of them, as does this movie review. Worth seeing.  Just be ready for it.

NOTE:  It turns out the downside of being back in a movie theater is having to watch so many awful trailers, all played at top volume, and varying in quality from boring, to "seen it before", to repellent.

At The Fillmore East Again

Part 2 of our trek back into an ancient land, going through the rest of the Fillmore East program from May 16-17, 1969.  Part 1 can be found here.

Joshua Light Show worked the lights for both of Bill Graham's venues in San Francisco and New York.  Never was much into the whole aura and mystique of the light shows.  The Musician's Classified is a real view into how things worked back then.  Tried tracking some of the names but couldn't find anything verifiable.

 

Bill Graham was a tough guy and took on everybody.  Graham, Jewish and born in Germany in 1931, was one of of six children. His father died two days after his birth, and as conditions worsened his mother placed the two youngest, Bill and a sister, in an orphanage, from where in 1939 he was one of a group of Jewish children exchanged with Christian children in a French orphanage.  From there he reached the U.S. (his mother was killed at Auschwitz), where he was placed in a foster home.  Drafted in 1951, he fought in the Korean War, receiving the Bronze Star and Purple Heart (for his wounds).  Graham died in a 1991 helicopter crash returning from a Huey Lewis & The News concert.  Here he goes after the New York Times.

 

The upcoming shows for the Fillmore East, demonstrating the eclectic selection of acts.  Imagine hearing Woody Herman & His Orchestra, followed by Led Zeppelin.  If you can't, listen to Woody & Company on the Ed Sullivan Show.  My mom was a fan and I saw the Herman and his band perform sometime in the 60s at a local high school.  Seats at the Fillmore cost $3, $4, or, if you wanted to splurge, $5.

 All the basics for the venue: rules and the crew, "The Fillmore East Family".  Best reminder of a long ago time: "Public Telephones are located in mezzanine (upstairs) lobby."

 You may have noticed on the upcoming Fillmore East schedule a June 1969 appearance by Chicago, at the bottom of a three act bill.  The album pictured here is from The Chicago Transit Authority, the same group.  CTA, an unusual double album from a new band, was released in April 1969, prompting threatened legal action by the real Chicago Transit Authority, leading the band to change its name.  The first album was a best seller and spawned four hit singles.  Hey, let's attend some free seminars and workshops on music in Oakland, California.  It'll be cool, Country Joe McDonald, Elvin Bishop, Mike Bloomfield and Jerry Garcia will be there!

Never heard of Ford Theatre before seeing this program.  According to Wikipedia, "Their sound was similar to other Boston-based psychedelic rock bands of the era, but more genuine", whatever that may mean.  This was their second, and last, album.  Ford Theatre disbanded in 1971.

We are here at the beginning of the brief rise of Delaney & Bonnie Bramlett.  This is their second album and it created a lot of buzz in the industry and if you were reading Rolling Stone.  Eric Clapton spotted them and they were signed to be the opening act for Blind Faith's US tour in 1969.  Clapton ended up preferring to perform onstage with Delaney & Bonnie and when they put together a big tour in 1969/70 under the name of Delaney & Bonnie and Friends, Clapton usually appeared with them.  Others joining the tour at times included Duane and Greg Allman and George Harrison.  This is D&B at their peak, performing in December 1969, with Clapton, Harrison as well as Rita Coolidge, Bobby Keys (sax on many of the Rolling Stone albums of that period), and Carl Radle, Bobby Whitlock, and Jim Gordon, the last three going on to form Derek & The Dominoes with Clapton.  D&B did alright for a couple of years, and then things fell apart due to drugs and Delaney's apparent abuse of Bonnie.

I don't know about you, but Royal Rags definitely sounds to me like the place to go to find things you'll only wear or use once.

 

Channel One was a comedy group active between 1967 and 1971.  Chevy Chase was a member at one point.  You can find out more about them here, and they even have a Facebook page.

 

Liberty Records had been around since 1955 and before the British Invasion featured artists like Eddie Cochran, Bobby Vee, Jan and Dean, and The Chipmunks.  They survived the transition and several of the albums and artists featured on this page made it big.  The 5th Dimension had its first big break with 1967's Up, Up and Away and this album, The Age of Aquarius, was a monster seller.  One single, Laura Nyro's Wedding Bell Blues, topped the charts, but it was dwarfed by the success of Aquarius/Let The Sunshine, which topped the charts for six weeks in April and May of 1969 and became the best selling single of the entire year.  You could not escape the song, from the Broadway show Hair, even if, like me, you wanted to.

You heard about Johnny Winter in Part 1.  Canned Heat had a brief but very successful run until its two leaders died of drug overdoses.  Traffic's Last Exit, a band I am still a fan of, was supposed to be its last, but it reformed a couple of years later and had another successful run.  Albert Collins was a talented blues guitarist.

I'm glad they're telling me who Clarence Carter is because I don't have much of a recollection.

 

Well, this is a useful combo.  Fusion was a music magazine published in Boston from 1967 to 1974.  Don't know anything about it, but they published stuff by Lester Bangs, so respect must be paid.  I like the implied endorsement by John Lennon.  And glad to know Zotique Limited was there to meet my astrologically guided choices in books, clothes, and gifts, if I had any interest, ever, in astrology.  Didn't then or now.

 

Vanguard Records was a folk/jazz label.  This was jazz guitarist Larry Coryell's first album and he went on to release more than two dozen over the course of his career.  I had the Country Joe & The Fish album.  It wasn't very good; my favorite song remains Sweet Martha Lorraine, from their first album.  Buffy Sainte-Marie had a long career and is still active.

The Joan Baez record was dedicated to her then-husband serving jail time as a draft resister.  Baez had a wonderful voice, but she approached every song with the same intensity, always sounding like she was giving a musical lecture, so never cared for her.  And I'll never forgive her butchery of The Band's The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down.

Sweetwater had a music school?  Strobe lights were cool back then.  My buddies and I "liberated" some things and built our own strobes to operate while our band played.  The House of Oldies was apparently different from Village Oldies, though the stores were only a block apart on Bleecker Street.

The Band's second album would be released on September 22, 1969.  It was, and remains, a perfect album.

Three more nearby stores and The Edwin Hawkins Singers.  Based on 1755 hymn by an Englishman, rearranged in gospel style by Edwin Hawkins, Oh Happy Day became a surprise international hit after its release in April 1969.  Hawkins was choir director at the Ephesium Church of God in Christ in Berkeley, California, where the song was recorded.  Lead singer Dorothy Combs Morrison was still active as of 2019.

The dirigible set off on its maiden voyage in January '69.  You know the rest.

Nice to see Swingin' England weighing in.  London Records was the home of the Rolling Stones in the 60s.  Didn't know AUM or The Deviants at the time.  You all know The Moody Blues and they were well known to us at the time.  Savoy Brown had some success in the late 60s and early 70s.  And then we come to Ten Years After and guitar whiz Alvin Lee.  Their current release was Stonehenged, which sounds like the inspiration for Spinal Tap, but the band really didn't break out until its performance at Woodstock in August (that triple screen gimmick from the movie is really annoying), followed by a couple of hit albums before crashing in 1973-4.  The band's biggest hit was I'd Love To Change The World, with its delightfully ambiguous lyrics and meaning, from their 1971 album A Space In Time.

Civilized People

Another twitter account I enjoy is that of the British actor, Michael Warburton, which consists mostly of movie clips, many good-natured or humorous.  This clip is neither.  A memorable scene from The Dark Knight, the finest of superhero movies; thought provoking in every aspect, challenging all notions of means vs ends, of where one follows the rules and when one breaks them, and leaving it for us to decide. Heath Ledger is so unsettling and disturbing as the Joker because there is a grain of truth in much of what he says though it is surrounded by rot; you can see how a skilled manipulator operates.  I noticed that three times during the film the Joker describes the incident resulting in his facial disfiguration, and each time he tells a different tale.  He tells the tales to gain sympathy but he is only doing so to manipulate emotions; consistency is not important.  As the Michael Caine character says elsewhere in the film, "some men just want to watch the world burn".  The question for the rest of us is what do we do when faced with those people.

Other memorable lines from this scene:

"I'm not a monster, I'm just ahead of the curve"

"You have all these rules, and you think they'll save you"

The last brings to mind Anton Chigurh's question in No Country For Old Men, "if the rule you followed brought you to this, what use was the rule?".

“When the chips are down, these uh, these ‘civilised’ people will eat each other.”

THE DARK KNIGHT (2008)#HeathLedger #ChristopherNolan

pic.twitter.com/u59kqQKyAM

— Michael Warburton (@MichaelWarbur17) November 8, 2022

For a more upbeat Warburton tweet and a palate cleanser, here is Aretha Franklin from 1964, before she found commercial success after her 1966 move from Columbia to Atlantic Records.

 

ARETHA FRANKLIN

EVIL GAL BLUES (1964)

pic.twitter.com/KUIE3sHfN4

— Michael Warburton (@MichaelWarbur17) November 9, 2022

At The Fillmore East

 

A couple of years ago, the thoughtful THC Daughter surprised me with the program from the Fillmore East for the weekend of May 16-17, 1969.  The acts for that weekend were It's A Beautiful Day, Sweetwater, and headliners The Who, with the U.S premiere performances of their new album Tommy, which was released on the 17th.  My daughter tracked it down because I'd attended one of those shows - the early one on May 17 - but I had no recollection of ever seeing the program before.

The Fillmore East was located at 105 2nd Ave in New York City in the run down area known as the East Village.  Opening its doors in March 1968 and closing in June 1971 it was the premiere rock concert hall in the city, a counterpart to the Fillmore West in San Francisco, both operated with an iron hand by promoter Bill Graham.

The format was very different from concerts today.  Most of the time there were three acts on the bill and they played two sets each night for two different audiences.  You went to the early show or the late show.  I attended three concerts at the Fillmore and it was the early show each time because we had to take the train in from Norwalk, CT, arriving at Grand Central, and then taking the subway downtown.  Even going to the early show we didn't arrive back in Norwalk until at least 1 am.

I first attended the Fillmore on the last weekend of November 1968 - Jefferson Airplane with opening act Buddy Guy.  The Airplane was a much heavier sounding band live than on recordings and Buddy Guy was spectacular, coming off the stage and marching down one of the aisles, playing the guitar behind his back. The 86 year old Guy is embarking next year on his Damn Right Farewell Tour.

The last night of the Fillmore in June 1971 I went to see Albert King, J Geils Band, and The Allman Brothers (with the original lineup).  Going in, I was most interested in J Geils, and they did a terrific set, but the Allman Brothers were simply on a higher plane, particularly at the end, playing Hot 'Lanta, In Memory of Elizabeth Reed, and Whipping Post (here's a post I did about that night).

So, with that, let's take a peek inside this relic for a look at the music, art, and culture of the late 60s.

Announcing the release of The Youngbloods new album, Elephant Mountain.  I was already a fan of the band, owning their previous album Earth Music.  Elephant Mountain features their greatest song, Darkness, Darkness.

The Electric Circus was a smaller venue in the East Village.  If you like the blues you'll recognize many of these names like Muddy Waters, John Lee Hooker (both of whom I saw perform), Rev. Blind Gary Davis, Big Mama Thorton, Slim Harpo, and Otis Rush.

 

Next up are three stores near the Fillmore; OM, Thulcandra "Holy Things for Your Head & Body", and Kasbah.  They came with the times, and when the times were over, so were they.

 An ad for Pinball Wizard, the first single off Tommy, already a hit in the U.S. 

Ah, the Village Gate, a renowned jazz club.  Imagine seeing a double bill of Richard Pryor and the Miles Davis Quartet!  Or Dizzy Gillespie and Theolonius Monk.  The Majestic Men's Store features a guy in a cape.  Capes were big then.  Okay, I'll fess up - I had a cape.  In the lower right is a mysterious ad with options to call The Scene or Steve Paul.  Paul was the owner of The Scene, a popular New York club as well as managing guitarist Johnny Winter.

 Speaking of which, here's Johnny Winter and his just released first album.  There was a big buzz about Johnny and he had a good run as a hero blues guitarist though his brother Edgar hit it bigger with 1973's Frankenstein.  I'm not sure how well the line "A White Flame Ignited by Black Blues" would play today.

 The magnificent Joe Cocker!  His debut album, With A Little Help From My Friends, came out in April 1969.  I still remember the first time hearing his cover of the Beatles song.  It was thrilling and amazing.  On Sgt Pepper the song was an enjoyable and catchy ditty sung with elan by Ringo.  In Cocker's hands, and in 3/4 time, transformed into a desperate plea for help.

 Never heard of the Silver Apples, apparently a 60s electronic music band.  I like the passive-aggressive promotional approach with an added touch of pretentiousness; "Silver Apples is not a sound one can jump right into, but rather takes cultivation. I personally have passed the "what the hell is that??" point and gotten to where I can listen and dig what they are saying . . . "

The Newport Jazz and Folk Festivals would take place in July, a month before Woodstock.  Look at the lineups!  Jazz featured Miles Davis, Gary Burton, Mothers of Invention, James Brown, Anita O'Day, Sun Ra, Jeff Beck, Roland Kirk, Jethro Tull, while at the Folk Festival you could see Van Morrison, Johnny Cash & June Carter, Everly Brothers, Joni Mitchell, Arlo Guthrie and Muddy Waters.  And look at the ticket prices!

 Sly & The Family Stone.  So much great music over a four year period before Sly's drug problem got the best of him.

 

Four stores in St Mark's Place which was Hippie Heaven.

 

Interesting combo on this page.  Village Oldies, "The Really Heavy Record Shop", with a photo that has nothing to do with its business (can't remember seeing anyone actually wearing that "dress"), along with an ad for the new Grateful Dead album, another commercial failure (deservedly) for the band.

WNEW FM.  That brings back good memories.  Find out why.

And now the lineup for the weekend.

 

The Who, The Who.  Best rock band I saw in concert.  I'd never heard anything like the sound this band generated.  I wrote in an previous post about their performance that night:

One of the best shows I've ever seen.  They opened with some of their older material, then ripped right through the entire Tommy album, and then started a wrap up.  It was astonishing, Keith Moon in constant motion on the drum kit, looking like he had no bones in his arms, Townshend windmilling on the guitar, and Entwhistle's thundering bass.

As the band and the audience grew more frenzied we noticed smoke in the theater.  Some type of announcement was made to exit the place but we ignored it.  Then we saw a guy in a suit wander onto the stage, grab a microphone and start to talk.  Roger Daltrey pinned his arms back and Townshend walked over, all the while continuing to play his guitar, and kicked the guy in the privates.  Actually, it sounds better when Daltrey tells it, which he does in his recently released autobiography, Thanks A Lot Mr Kibblewhite:

" . . . this bloke jumped up onto the stage and grabbed the microphone off me.  I grabbed it back and told him to fuck off, but he kept struggling.  As we were wrestling with it, I noticed Pete crossing the stage toward us, doing a Chuck Berry duck walk.  Perfectly on beat, he kicked the bloke in the balls, then I grabbed the mic, and we finished the song." 

The next thing I remember dozens of New York City policemen flooded down the two aisles, the side doors flew open, and they pushed us out along each row and onto the street.

It turned out the building next door caught fire and they were worried about the Fillmore catching fire.  We didn't care.

Daltrey and Townshend were arrested for assaulting the guy grabbing the mic, who turned out to be a plainclothes police officer.  

 

Sweetwater?  I remember absolutely nothing about them.

 

This band, which I'd never heard, played a gorgeous set, with soaring, graceful ballads from their debut album which would be released in June, like White Bird and Hot Summer Day, all illuminated by the electric violin of David LaFlamme. 

More coming in Part 2.

Moonlight On The Lake

I first encountered the work of English artist John Atkinson Grimshaw via the twitter account of Darrell Epp, which is full of fascinating and interesting cultural tidbits.  I so enjoy his use of light.

Folk Song

A beautiful ballad from Jack Bruce's third solo album, Harmony Row (1971), a wonderful recording and commercial failure. Jack is on bass and piano, as well as vocals.

Baked Alaska

In preparing my Changing Climate post, I read again my prior climate change posts and thought one deserved an update.  In a 2015 post, Controlling The Narrative: Climate Change, I took a Washington Post science writer to task for a misleading article linking forest fires in Alaska to climate change, in the course of which he mischaracterized the data on temperature increases in that state.

I knew the article was incorrect the moment I read it because, since the early 2000s, I'd been following Alaska climate trends via the website of the Alaska Climate Research Center (ACRC) of the University of Alaska.  That had been prompted by a misleading article in the New York Times about Alaska climate trends.

In both cases, the newspaper narrative used convenient start and end dates to support its claims.  I've seen these tactics used by both climate change alarmists and self-proclaimed debunkers.  Always look beyond the start and end dates to see if trends change.  You can read the linked post for more detail on why the WaPo article was misleading and learn about the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO).

However, it is another part of the post that requires an updating as I've continued to occasionally check in on the ACRC.  In the 2015 post I noted:

I have one observation of my own regarding the ACRC data. On the second chart, notice that Barrow — which lies on the Arctic Ocean, much further north than the other Alaska weather stations — has noticeably warmed since 1976 in contrast to the rest of the state. Carbon dioxide greenhouse gas warming theory predicts that the greatest temperature increases will initially be seen in the Arctic and Antarctic, so the Barrow data is intriguing. I’m not familiar with temperature trends in other areas of the Arctic, so can’t tell you whether this change is due to a local anomaly or is part of a broader trend. However, in the Antarctic there is no warming trend, with the exception of the Antarctic peninsula which extends farther north than the rest of the continent. It’s something I’d like to know more about but won’t trust anything Mooney [author of the WaPo article] might write about it.

I like predictions that can be falsified.  Unfortunately, too many climate claims can't be.  More rain than normal? Climate change!  Less rain than normal?  Climate change!  Less snow than normal? Climate change!  More snow than normal?  Climate change!  The list goes on and on. But the prediction for larger temperature increases at the poles can be falsified.

It turns out that since 2015, the warming trend at Barrow (now called Utqiagvik) has not only continued, but accelerated.  From 1949 through 2020, the town's annual temperature has increased by 7.5 degrees, and by 10 degrees in the winter.  The annual increase is almost 2 degrees more than any other town in the state and almost twice the average increase for the entire state.

The change is even more dramatic if measured from 1976.  During this period, average state temperature increased by 3.3 degrees but Utqiagvik has increased 12.4 degrees, including by nearly 20 degrees in the autumn and 13 degrees in the spring.  As mentioned in the 2015 post, I have not conducted detailed research on Antarctic data or on other Arctic regions, but the Utqiagvik data is consistent with warming theory.  The ACRC notes that temperature increases have been the highest across the regions closest to the Arctic Ocean:

The most significant temperature increases have occurred along the North Slope, the Arctic Coast, and the adjacent Arctic Ocean from the Beaufort to the Chukchi Sea.

These same years since 2015 have also shown a continued elevated temperature increase across the state as shown in this ACRC chart:

The ACRC has this note regarding the above chart:

The stepwise shift appearing in the temperature data in 1976 corresponds to a phase shift of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation from a negative phase to a positive phase. Synoptic conditions with the positive phase tend to consist of increased southerly flow and warm air advection into Alaska during the winter, resulting in positive temperature anomalies.

Changes in the PDO have major impacts on Alaska weather, and it is unpredictable when it next changes to a negative phase in which it brings cold air advection into the state.  However, the northerly parts of the state which have seen the greatest temperature increases in recent years may be the least impacted region by a change in the PDO.

Opinions

The Supreme Court recently held oral arguments on the affirmative action programs of Harvard and the University of North Carolina which, at least in the case of Harvard, where I'm familar with the data, has increased black and hispanic admissions while significantly limiting Asian admissions.  I expect the Court will overturn the diversity rationale first expressed by Justice Powell in the Bakke case (1978) and then made an explicit holding of the Court in the 2005 Grutter case, which provided cover for academic institutions to unleash the scourge of Division, Intolerance, and Exclusion (DIE).  While I believe that to be the correct constitutional conclusion, the reality is that the Court's ruling will not make a difference to the admission practices of the elite colleges and universities most committed to DIE.  There are quite a few potential ways to work around the Court's anticipated ruling in order to achieve the same goals which, in turn, will trigger more litigation.

Reading the transcript of the arguments led me to reread the opinions in Bakke and two aspects jumped out to me.

The first was Justice Powell's explanation of the purpose of "diversity", why it was important in the educational environment, and thus a permissible factor in admissions.  Excerpts:

The atmosphere of "speculation, experiment and creation"—so essential to the quality of higher education—is widely believed to be promoted by a diverse student body. As the Court noted in Keyishian, it is not too much to say that the "nation's future depends upon leaders trained through wide exposure" to the ideas and mores of students as diverse as this Nation of many peoples.

Thus, in arguing that its universities must be accorded the right to select those students who will contribute the most to the "robust exchange of ideas," petitioner invokes a countervailing constitutional interest, that of the First Amendment. In this light, petitioner must be viewed as seeking to achieve a goal that is of paramount importance in the fulfillment of its mission.

"The law school, the proving ground for legal learning and practice, cannot be effective in isolation from the individuals and institutions with which the law interacts. Few students and no one who has practiced law would choose to study in an academic vacuum, removed from the interplay of ideas and the exchange of views with which the law is concerned."

Ethnic diversity, however, is only one element in a range of factors a university properly may consider in attaining the goal of a heterogeneous student body. 

What is striking about Powell's rationale is that it appears no longer applicable in education, particularly in the elite colleges and universities.  His assumption is that ethnic and racial diversity, in and of itself, is an element in creating the "robust exchange of ideas".  Precisely the opposite is currently happening in academia.  What is important for students (and faculty) is complete conformity to a rigid set of ideas based upon race and gender being the sole lenses through which human experience and knowledge should be viewed.  Applicants, students, and faculty are increasingly being forced to pledge adherence to every element of the new creed, and dissent is immediately punished.  Classroom discussion, student group activities, outside speakers are all subject to a stifling conformity.

In light of the state of 21st century academia, Powell's concept of "diversity" has simply been nullified. On that basis alone, Grutter should be overturned.

The second thing that stood out was Justice Marshall's opinion.  Marshall's opinion is concerned solely with the situation of the Negro (his word) and the history of discrimination, pre- and post-Emancipation, experienced by that group.  After a lengthy recitation of that history, the Justice concludes;

 . . . these differences in the experience of the Negro make it difficult for me to accept that Negroes cannot be afforded greater protection under the Fourteenth Amendment where it is necessary to remedy the effects of past discrimination.

It is a view I have sympathy with, though the argument carries less power in 2022 than in 1978.  The unique aspects of the descendants of the freed slaves, and the discrimination they faced nationwide consistently until the post-Second World War era are at the heart of this.  In the July 2022 post Justice You Shall Pursue, I wrote about an interview with Charles Fain Lehman:

Two thoughts prompted by the interview:

The first is whether the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (CRA) was a mistake in not limiting its scope to the problem we were trying to remedy - the exclusion of black Americans from the full scope of legal rights of citizenship, as well as their de facto exclusion from large parts of American life.

During the debates over the 14th Amendment after the Civil War, an alternative was proposed simply stating:

All national and State laws shall be equally applicable to every citizen, and no discrimination shall be made on account of race and color.

It was overwhelmingly defeated in the Senate and instead we ended up with the more complex and legally ambiguous version of the Amendment we have now, in which we are still debating what "due process of law", "privileges and immunities of citizens" and "equal protection" mean 150 years later. 

The one sentence version was doomed to defeat because, at the time, white Americans would not accept social equality for blacks, but in the long-term I think it would have served us much better.  Was the same true of the CRA, which I've always considered one of the two greatest federal legislative achievements of the 20th century (the other being the 1965 Voting Rights Act)?  It is something recent events have led me to question. (1)

(1)  My point is not whether other groups should have civil rights, but perhaps we would have been better served focusing on the unique circumstances of those involuntary brought to America, held in servitude, and their descendants.  Whatever other groups may have faced, the degree, extent, and duration of discrimination against these people is unparalleled in our history.

Ironically, the elite academic institution focus on diversity has led to a highly disproportionate percentage of black admissions to be of first and second generation African immigrants or biracial applicants.  In some cases, as with Barack Obama, applicants fall in both categories.  This has been noticed by some black organizations who have called for preferences for those descended from slaves, in order to correct this imbalance. 

Unfortunately, all this is a diversion from the real issue - the failure of K-12 education to develop a pipeline of students for the institutions of higher learning.  The result is that the elite institutions are competing against each other for a small pool of black applicants.  Expanding that pool should be the focus.  There are a lot of theories about why this has happened but, unless and until it is solved, this issue will remain with us in one form or another.

On a side note, until rereading the case, I had not realized that arguing for the University of California was Archibald Cox, of Harvard Law School, and the Special Prosecutor fired by President Nixon in the Saturday Night Massacre of October 1973.