Pensacola's Confederate Monument (Part 4): "Proud Pensacola"

Railroad executive and former Pensacola Mayor W. D. Chipley wrote a letter to the editor of the Pensacola News (the predecessor of today's News Journal) to encourage the public to support the effort to raise funds for the construction of a Confederate monument in Pensacola. The newspaper published that letter and commented on it in its April 27, 1890 editorial, writing "This noble and timely appeal of Col. Chipley should meet with a responsive echo in the breast of every true citizen of Escambia county. ...it will not be long 'ere a stately shaft will cast its shadows across the daily paths of the sons and daughters of the dead heroes to remind them of the brave deeds of their fathers, and that a brave people delights to honor the memories of those who died fighting for their country." The monument which had been in the works for a number of years had a champion in the local political hierarchy and the Pensacola News.

The Pensacola News published an almost poetic rendition of the approaching unveiling of the Confederate monument which would bestow honors on the Confederate war dead in a grand ceremony. In its June 17, 1891 issue, the newspaper announced, "To-day they will turn back the pages of history and renew with interest more intense the study of a heroism and self-sacrifice which brought the civilized world amazed to its feet in contemplation thereof; to view again, through the lapse of years, a devotion to home and country that evoked the unstinted admiration of earth's millious; to gaze down a memory-shaded vista, undimmed by a quarter cycle of a centuriate time, to the ensanguined period when their fathers, sons, brothers, friends and comrades yielded up their lives in the championship of a cause they deemed but just, in defense of principles they regard as right. The cause was lost. But green in memory's fond embraces remain the gallant dead and their valorous deeds."

The editorial continued, "Pensacola is proud of herself to-day. And prouder still will this old city of the old South be, when the sunset gun this evening shall announce the conclusion of those holy exercises transmitting to her keeping and guardianship that reminder of the patriotism of the sons of the South, which stands in monumental form with its roots in her very bosom."

It concluded, "Join with us to-day in this ceremony which shall give to posterity as to our contemporaries an evidence of the appreciation in which we hold the valor of Southern soldiers; which shall illustrate our love for the heroes of our lost cause; which shall attest in material form our veneration of the statesmanship and soldiery of the dead Confederacy."

But the Pensacola News wasn't the only Southern newspaper to take such a strong positive position with respect to Confederate monuments. Somehow, these other newspapers managed to endorse the construction of Confederate monuments in spite of having no Governor Perry or White Democrat government appointees to press the issue for them...

These newspapers (and more) published articles that endorsed Confederate monuments between 1885 and 1900:

February 7, 1885 - The Semi-Weekly West Tennessee Whig (Jackson, TN)

April 28, 1885 - The Eufala Daily Times (Eufala, AL)

April 28, 1885 - The Macon Telegraph (Macon, GA)

April 30, 1885 - The Tuskaloosa Gazette (Tuscaloosa, AL)

January 9, 1888 - The Tenneseean (Nashville, TN)

June 7, 1888 - The Jackson Clarion-Ledger (Jackson, MS)

October 16, 1891 - The Memphis Appeal-Avalanche (Memphis, TN)

October 11, 1893 - The Times and Democrat (Orangeburg, SC)

May 5, 1894 - The Charlotte Observer (Charlotte, NC)

July 4, 1897 - Daily Arkansas Gazette (Little Rock, AR)

June 4, 1891 - The Daily Commercial Herald (Vicksburg, MS)

June 4, 1891 - The St. Louis Globe-Democrat (St. Louis, MO)

April 27, 1893 - The Atlanta Constitution (Atlanta, GA)

July 13, 1894 - The Daily Journal (New Bern, NC)

April 26, 1894 - The Chattanooga Daily Times (Chattanooga, TN)

December 7, 1898 - The Montgomery Advertiser (Montgomery, AL)

Next: Part 5: "The Grandest Display"

Pensacola's Confederate Monument (Part 3): "A Monument Wrapped in a Narrative"

The June 29, 2020 News Journal portrayed the renaming of the square and the subsequent placement of the Confederate monument there as owing to the racist motives that inspired the 1885 Florida constitution and the replacement of the elected Pensacola city government with appointees, the "coup." Then, it said that the renaming of the square and the monument was an outcome of and then a part of a post-Reconstruction revisionist story line called the "Lost Cause" narrative.

The article—and the subsequent editorial—advanced the notion that the construction of the Confederate monument was connected to the "Lost Cause" narrative on very little evidence other than the testimony of historians who made broad and sweeping statements about what happened in those days and why, again without evidence other than their word and the fact that these events occurred within the same span of time.

As the Lost Cause narrative goes, Southerners who were vanquished in the Civil War engaged in a revisionist telling of the war's causes and outcome. They didn't deny that the "cause" was lost in the war, but they believed it enjoyed a second life after the war. The Lost Cause is characterized by an overly romanticized depiction of the chivalry and nobility of the Southerner, a denial of the abuses imposed on slaves, and a lofty exultation of its heroic wartime leaders. The theory holds that Southerners who lived and acted within the Lost Cause narrative understood that they lost the war, but that they would win the peace. The proposition was that they would win the peace by suppressing Blacks and imposing their will on them, even though the war was lost and slavery had ended. The theory is stretched further in using the Lost Cause narrative to explain the rationale behind the construction of Confederate monuments.

Without dredging too deeply into the origins and nature of the Lost Cause narrative, let's say that while it was an actual phenomenon, mostly because it was contemporaneously documented, it probably gets more credit for influencing events in history than it earned. It's worth noting that even its presumed originator, Edward Alfred Pollard, stepped back from the more volatile aspects of the narrative as Reconstruction made some of his predictions and aspirations—such as a return to armed conflict and a resumption of slavery—unlikely to succeed. In fact he followed his original "Lost Cause" book, "The Lost Cause: A New Southern History of the War of the Confederates" published in 1866 with "The Lost Cause Regained" two years later in 1868, which was really an entirely "new thought," according to biographer Jack P. Maddex.

Maddex reported that in the latter book, Pollard withdrew some of his earlier positions. He wrote, "Showing new respect for President Abraham Lincoln and the northern masses, he called their intentions for Reconstruction moderate and acceptable. He endorsed all of Johnson's programs including the suppression of the Confederacy, his military occupation of the South, his insistence on emancipation and repudiation of Confederate public debts, and his excluding of many 'rebels' from general amnesty. Secession, Pollard now argued, had been a legal nullity, and the northern conquest had been 'a government merely recovering its own territory and re-asserting its authority over its own subjects.'" Moreover, Pollard "renounced the 'two nations' premise" that held that the North and South conflicts were essentially conflicts of cultures constructed upon different economies, a difference between economies and cultures shaped around a free-labor workforce versus a slavery workforce.

Thus, much of what has been made of the Lost Cause narrative had been repudiated by its author by 1868 and even more so later. That left only the politicians and newspapers to advance its discredited precepts.

It also seems that too much is made of some of what have been described as features of the Lost Cause narrative such as the claim that the war was lost due to the South being overwhelmed by the North's troop strength, wealth, and resources. That likely arises out of Lee's farewell address after the surrender at Appomattox in which he wrote, "After four years of arduous service marked by unsurpassed courage and fortitude, the Army of Northern Virginia has been compelled to yield to overwhelming numbers and resources." It is unlikely that Lee would have written that his army was overcome because of the South's inferior courage, tactics, and leadership because he simply wouldn't have believed it was true and he wouldn't have said it under those circumstances if it was. At times, the use of the Lost Cause narrative to explain events seems to reflect a resentment over the fact that the South wasn't sufficiently supplicant, which ironically mirrors the sentiments of radical Republicans in the late 1800s.

They over-exert their efforts to assign a vile motive to understandable behaviors like Lee's assertion that the South lost the war because it was out-manned and out-resourced by the North or the South's desire to honor its war dead as heroes. They split hairs to say that monuments honor a Lost Cause because, they say, they pay tribute to discredited principles when, in reality, they pay tribute to soldiers who died heroically for causes and principles that they believed were just. The true sentiment is actually etched into the Pensacola monument and it's recorded in the words of the men who spoke at its dedication.

The News Journal's determination to prove that linkage is illustrated in the June 29, 2020 Pensacola News Journal article in which the newspaper claimed, "A 1904 book on Confederate monuments published by the Confederated Southern Memorial Association preserves part of an 1890 fundraising letter sent by William Chipley, a Pensacola politician and former Confederate officer... The letter quoted Perry's wife noting the location of Lee Square in front of the school where the monument should be placed aimed at educating future generations about the 'Lost Cause.'" Then, the article accurately quoted Chipley's letter although the aspersion had already been cast when it characterized his motives as being aligned with the Lost Cause narrative, "Coming generations will learn, with their daily lessons, to honor our beloved dead." In telling it that way, the June 29 News Journal article said that honoring the South's "beloved dead" was synonymous with the racist Lost Cause narrative.

The book cited by the News Journal was titled "History of the Confederated Memorial Associations of the South," published by the Confederated Southern Memorial Association in 1904. The words "Lost Cause" were used only four times in the entire book, always in reference to the war itself, not to the romantic vision of the post-war South that the News Journal described, and certainly not in reference to the Pensacola Confederate monument. Not once.

Again, if we go to a primary source, in this case page 6 of the April 27, 1890 issue of the predecessor of today's Pensacola News Journal, the Pensacola News, we see that in Col. Chipley's fundraising letter dated April 22, 1890, he didn't quote Mrs. Perry as the News Journal said; he made a suggestion to Mrs. Perry "...That work be commenced at once in the center of R. E. Lee Square in front of public school No. 1 where coming generations will learn with their daily lessons to honor our beloved dead." Again, the words "Lost Cause" were neither used nor implied in his letter.

The theory that the Lost Cause narrative had significant implications on policies that included the decision to build Confederate monuments throughout the South is an example of the tendency that historians have to encapsulate complex events in simple terms that make the digestion of the conclusions that surround them more palatable to an audience that isn't particularly inclined to conduct its own research. Where these "nutshell" approaches are lacking, however, is in their failure to fully consider and reflect the nuances of context and compound factors that tend to reveal the motivations of those who made history. When they're not overdone, these captions on history can be useful; but when they are overdone, they can distort our understanding of history.

The June 29, 2020 News Journal article theorized that the Lost Cause narrative was tied to post-Reconstruction racism in the South and that the honors that were bestowed upon the South's war dead and other heroes was associated with both the Lost Cause narrative and racism. Without citing specific causal evidence, the News Journal article connected those three elements merely by virtue of the fact that they occurred within the same period of time. Historians and journalists alike are cautioned not to assume that because two or more events occur at the same time, one necessarily causes the other, but that seems to have happened here.

If the Lost Cause narrative theory was validly applied in the recent reporting on the Pensacola Confederate monument and the connection of the narrative to the construction of the Confederate monument was also validly applied, the News Journal's June 29, 2020 article and July 4 editorial were silent in mentioning the pivotal role Pensacola newspapers played in advancing the narrative and in reconciling the fact that the evidence of corruption that the News Journal cited in the June 29 article didn't line up with the way events were recorded in Pensacola newspapers while the monument's construction was being considered.

Next: Part 4: "Proud Pensacola"

Pensacola's Confederate Monument (Part 2): "Conflicting Stories"

Again, we can agree that no one currently on the Pensacola News Journal's staff would take the kind of racist stances that it did in its 1905 and 1935 articles, so let's turn to the question of whether the News Journal reached too far in its June 29, 2020 article when it drew connections between the racist activity that was cascading through the South—and in some parts of the North and West—after Reconstruction and the construction of the Confederate monument in Pensacola.

The first link in that alleged connection occurred when Florida Governor E. A. Perry replaced the elected city governments of a number of Florida cities with appointed members of provisional local governments in what the June 29, 2020 News Journal article characterized as a "coup." The News Journal reported that "Perry revoked Pensacola's city charter in 1885, along with other Florida cities, and created state-appointed city governments made up completely of white Democrats." Then the newspaper cited a historian who said, according to the paper, that the action was a coup d'etat to end Black participation in local government and fill city governments with white supremacists. That statement in this context leaves the implication that replacement Pensacola city commissioners F. C. Brent, W. D. Chipley, George W. Witherspoon, Edward Sexaner, W. H. Hutchinson, John Burns, and S. S. Harvey were white supremacists, even if they didn't say it outright.

However, the February 21, 1885 issue of the Pensacolian newspaper published the text of the Governor's proclamation that stated that the basis for the replacement of the elected commissioners was that the city was $200,000 (approximately $6 million in today's dollars) in debt and had defaulted on the interest it owed. Whether the city's debt was legitimately the reason for replacing the commissioners or was a convenient excuse for ejecting African Americans from office in Pensacola wasn't mentioned in the Pensacolian newspaper, nor was the proclamation that authorized the change of city government mentioned in the June 29, 2020 News Journal article.

But the Pensacolian editorial staff did address the change of leadership and the debt a month later in its March 21, 1885 issue when it wrote of the new commissioners, "All right-thinking people must acknowledge that the present is infinitely preferable to the past," even as it noted that the move to replace the elected commissioners wasn't popular among a majority of the citizens. It also referenced the fact that the new commissioners were "at the outset, confronted with a heavy, interest-bearing debt" that they should dispose of without hardship to Pensacola's citizens.

So, either today's Pensacola News Journal mischaracterized the Governor's replacement of the commissioners in 1885 as a "coup," or the Pensacolian deceived the public about the matter in 1885.

The second link in the alleged connection was Governor Perry's involvement in the writing of the 1885 Florida constitution. In its June 29, 2020 article, the News Journal wrote, "Perry oversaw the writing of a new state constitution that got rid of the one written during Reconstruction, and the new constitution enabled a poll tax and other policies designed to disenfranchise Black citizens." Throw in the Pensacola "coup" that the News Journal alleged and that's how the newspaper characterized Governor Perry's first six months in office.

It's true that the 1885 constitution authorized a poll tax as a requirement for voting (Article VI, Section (8), required racial segregation in schools (Article XII, Section 12), and prohibited marriage between "a white person and a person of negro descent" (Article XVI, Section 24). 

But to draw a connection between that and the decision to build a Confederate monument seems to be a bit much since of the thirty-eight states that required poll taxes in 1923, all but eleven of them were in Northern and Western states. Also, segregation policies were not only common in the South, they were widespread in the United States, and in 1896, segregation was ruled constitutional in schools, churches, and public transportation in the U. S. Supreme Court 's Plessy v Ferguson decision.

So, if the writing of poll taxes and segregation into the Florida Constitution of 1885 led to the construction of the Confederate monument in Pensacola, it didn't seem to have the same effect in Northern and Western states that had the same kinds of provisions.

The third link in the alleged connection was the renaming of Florida Square to R. E. Lee Square. In its June 29, 2020 article, the News Journal reported, "The state-appointed commissioners who ran the city government of Pensacola entered office and began renaming one of the most prominent points in the city from Florida Square to Robert E. Lee Square after the Confederate general in 1887 — the name it still bears today."

The article gives the impression that the new commissioners were seated then they immediately turned to the work of renaming the square, but in truth, they had a debt to resolve when they entered office and the square wasn't renamed for another two years after they took office.

Then, as the posting of the ordinance in the July 2, 1887 issue of the Pensacolian newspaper recorded, the commissioners renamed the square, which at the time was at the northern edge of developed Pensacola, "R. E. Lee Square" at the same time that it renamed three streets, citing as the reason for doing so the fact that the existing names were all duplicates in Lee’s Map. As the city grew during those years, they named and renamed several streets. (Today's residents who are confused by the multiple names assigned to the same thoroughfares might wish the 1887 commissioners' successors had renamed more streets.)

The 1885 map of Pensacola shows that there was a Florida Square where today’s Lion’s Park is located between 12th and 13th Avenue south of East La Rua Street. The map (right) doesn't show a Florida Square where the current Lee Square is although there was one there in 1887.

In spite of the theory of a racist motive behind renaming of the square on Palafox Street for a Confederate military hero and the subsequent erection of a Confederate monument there, history suggests a different motive.

As the June 29, 2020 News Journal article accurately stated, the location was "one of the most prominent points in the city" and it "overlooked downtown Pensacola from one of the highest spots." But the fact that it was one of the most prominent points in the city was because it overlooked downtown Pensacola from one of the highest spots. It is those two factors that help explain why it was renamed for a Confederate military hero. The city commissioners could have chosen any open space in Pensacola—like the other Florida Square—so why the Palafox Street location?

Many Pensacolians are aware that Lee Square sits atop Gage Hill, named for British Revolutionary War General Thomas Gage. General Gage was the British Commander-in-Chief in America during the early days of the Revolutionary War when the British began tightening the screws on the Colonists. When the British occupied Pensacola between 1763 and 1781, General Gage built Fort George on the hill because it overlooked Pensacola and its vulnerable fortifications. From its vantage point on the hill, the fort protected the old Spanish fortifications that the British had refurbished for the defense of Pensacola. When the Spanish overwhelmed British forces during a siege in 1781, the Spanish assumed control of the fort and renamed it Fort San Miguel (St. Michael). Then, during the War of 1812 Battle of Pensacola in 1814, the fort was targeted by General Andrew Jackson who led his army against the British and Spanish who were holding Pensacola. Finally, with the British making a hasty retreat from Pensacola, the Spanish surrendered Fort San Miguel to Jackson.

The spot on which Florida Square then R. E. Lee Square was situated was more than a patch of grass; it had been a site of military significance for more than 120 years by the time it was renamed R. E. Lee Square in 1887.

Next: Part 3: "A Monument Wrapped in a Narrative"

Pensacola's Confederate Monument (Part 1): "'A Dose of Tough, Yet Crucial Medicine'...but for Whom?"

Across the Nation, monuments and statues of all sorts are being removed. In Pensacola, Florida, the City Council has voted to relocate the city’s monument to Confederate war dead from Lee Square. 

The Pensacola News Journal has made quite an effort of laying before the public the case for removing Pensacola’s Confederate monument from its pedestal in R. E. Lee Square. Beginning with a June 29, 2020 article bearing the title, “A ‘coup’ led by white supremacists led to placement of Pensacola’s Confederate monument,” a title that conspicuously foretold the News Journal’s position on the subject, the newspaper based its provocative point of view on the opinions and logic of historians it cited in the article and on its own editorial conclusions.

Concerned about gaps in the reporting of the history of the monument, I decided to conduct my own investigation. The result is a series of eight thoroughly researched articles with footnotes and references linked throughout that reveal that the motives behind the construction of the monument weren’t quite as they’ve been described.

Before we begin, however, I’d like to prepare the reader for the fact that this series doesn’t advocate for either removal or retention of the monument. It simply clears the air on the history of the monument so others can develop well-informed positions on it. Any action—or inaction—with respect to the monument should be taken for the right reasons.

There’s another reason for telling the history accurately. There are people embedded in the history who have descendants and who have life stories that should be told truthfully. We can’t presume to possess the authority to be the voice of social justice if it means being unjust toward others or their memories in the way we go about that.

One area where the article came up short in its exhaustive expose of the racist proclivities of public officials, Confederate soldiers, and common citizens was in not revealing to its readers the role the news media played in promoting those activities and in propagating what some historians know as the “Lost Cause” narrative and tying it to the monument. But the news media itself was the mouthpiece for those racist policies, and the narrative that it today says inspired those policies.

Why is that important? Because the newspapers were right there for it all and they had a primary record of the events as they unfolded. Rather than rely substantially on the assumptions of others about the origins of the statue, it could have looked back to its own archives and in the archives of the other newspapers of the time. They could have gone to the primary sources and placed the entire story in its full and accurate context. But they didn’t. They had a unique insight into the events of the time, but they didn’t refer to it.

For instance, the June 29, 2020 News Journal article tied the timing of Confederate veteran commemorations at Pensacola’s Confederate monument to the Pensacola city government’s passage of a 1905 ordinance that segregated the city’s public transit system, including its streetcars. The News Journal wrote, “In the 20 years after the monument was installed...Pensacola passed an ordinance segregating its public transit system in 1905.” The article continued, “All the while commemorations of Confederate veterans were held at the monument.”

However, two articles published three weeks apart in 1905 told the story of the boycott quite differently than the June 29, 2020 article did.

The first 1905 article reported that while some African Americans supported legislation that segregated streetcars, others did not. The newspaper observed, “A number of negroes have been noticed on the cars, but in each case when they are seen by persons of their own race they are subjected to taunts and cries of ‘Jim Crow.’ This, however, has no effect upon the more intelligent class of negroes, who are satisfied that the company will provide accommodations sufficient for them.” The article was no less than a full-throated endorsement of racial segregation on public transportation. A mistake? Yes. It helped create an air of legitimacy for segregation. But more insidiously, that part of the June 29, 2020 article gave the reader the impression that somehow there was a close connection between the segregationists and the Confederate veterans who attended commemorations at the monument.

The second 1905 article, published in the News Journal on April 27, 1905, described the Memorial Day commemoration held at the Confederate monument very differently than the newspaper implied in its June 29, 2020 article. The 1905 article appeared under the headline “Heroes of Confederacy Honored in Pensacola” with subheadings “Admiral Evans Sent Flowers,” and “W. A. Blount, Jr. Delivered an Eloquent and Appropriate Address.” The article reported that the event was attended by senior naval officers from visiting U. S. Navy ships. “Seated upon the stand, with the others, were the following officers from the fleet now in the harbor: Admiral C. H. Davis, Admiral Royal B. Bradford, with their aides; Capt. Raymond P. Rodgers, of the Kearsarge; Captain Benj. F. Tilley, of the Iowa; Captain W. S. Cowles of the Missouri; Captain Edward D. Taussig of the Massachusetts; Captain H. G. O. Colby of the Olympia.”

Three week later on May 20, 1905, Pensacola News Journal carried an article in which the paper reported on the black boycott of city streetcars that arose out of legislation that segregated streetcar transportation service. 

Then in another attempt to link two events simply by virtue of the fact that they occurred at about the same time in history, the June 29, 2020 News Journal article noted, “In the years after the monument’s placement, as city politicians instituted a white-only primary for Democratic politicians and white supremacy was quoted again and again as the goal of the political establishment, celebrations and memorials for Confederate veterans were held at the monument.” Connecting two unassociated events like that creates a logical fallacy.

What’s more is that in an April 27, 1935 editorial, the News Journal callously and crudely endorsed the plan that prevented African Americans from being influential as a bloc and playing a part in determining the balance of power in Pensacola politics thus suppressing the power of their vote. In making their case, the editors wrote in the 1935 editorial, “No one objects to the Negro voting. Large numbers of them use the ballot intelligently.” The editorial went further in its conclusion, reflecting the mindset of many, particularly in the South, who saw races of people as “having their place” and of course, needing to know their place in a segregated society. “Pensacola is a city of white folks. Negroes have their place. A great majority of them are good citizens. But, when we are selecting men who are to govern us, we do not want any balance of power to be in the hands of the colored people. Nor do we believe they want it.”

That sentiment was shared in at least one other Southern newspaper nearly 50 years before. In an editorial in the October 16, 1889 issue of the Memphis (TN) Avalanche, the editor wrote, “The Republicans will please take notice that the white people of the South do not intend to submit to be governed by negroes in any manner whatsoever...God Almighty never intended, the framers of the Constitution never intended, that the descendants of African slaves should rule America or any part of it.”

How does that sentiment survive among educated and enlightened editors after so long? How does that mindset continue to exist 70 years after a war that resulted in so many American deaths and the destruction of so much American property, a war that produced constitutional remedies that were designed to correct that very behavior? And how does an article like the one in the June 29, 2020 issue of the News Journal use episodes in history to allege and imply racism on the part of others and then tie them to the Confederate monument without referencing primary sources as proof of that?

Again, while it was cramming events together to claim a racist connection to the monument, the newspaper failed to tell about the one indisputable connection to both: its own.

When News Journal’s failure to acknowledge its own role in those events was pointed out to the newspaper, citing those two examples, the newspaper, to its credit, followed with a July 4, 2020 editorial titled, “Pensacola, and this paper, have histories of failing to deliver moral justice. Time to do better.“ that explained that the original article was about all the corrupt violation of the civil rights of African Americans in those days “and more — the corrupt government, the theft of rights, the abuse of power, the executive overreach, the deep-seeded hate, and yes, the erection of the monument on Palafox, a piece of stone intended to dignify, sanitize and whitewash all the treasonous sentiments and corrupt behavior of those who had unjustly seized power in this city.” The editorial then confessed that it was among those in Pensacola’s past that were legally and morally wrong in that they “ignored many of those gross injustices, empowered or excused corrupt officials and at times, advocated for policies that stripped rights from black citizens. From derisive and inaccurate language in news stories to editorials that argued on behalf of restricting black Pensacolians’ right to vote, this newspaper was tragically and fundamentally wrong on some of the most important moral and civic issues of the day.”

That “mea culpa” was a necessary and important part of the discussion if we’re to be serious about understanding and improving on our history although it still held to its original distorted telling of the motives behind the monument. The editorial rightfully gave the newspaper the “dose of tough, yet crucial medicine” that it had earlier prescribed for others who needed some reflection, but it failed to swallow the entire spoonful.

Certainly, no one currently on the newspaper’s staff participated in those wrongs and they would no doubt take a decisive opposing stance on the matter if it arose today. However, the newspaper has not reconciled itself to the fact that as its reporting was biased in the past, it seems that it remains that way today and as before, it uses its megaphone to lift its message and agenda to the ears of people who might be influenced by it to do the wrong thing.

Next: Part 2: "Conflicting Stories"

"The Essential Question" and the Decision to Resume Classes in the Fall

In a July 7, 2020 press release, the National Education Association (NEA), the largest teachers' union in the United States, joined with four other education political advocacy groups, including the national PTA, to demand a plan for reopening schools from the White House (http://www.nea.org/home/76362.htm).

The release asserted that "The White House and the CDC have offered at best conflicting guidance for school reopening, and today offered little additional insight. Without a comprehensive plan that includes federal resources to provide for the safety of our students and educators with funding for Personal Protective Equipment, socially distanced instruction, and addressing racial inequity, we could be putting students, their families, and educators in danger."

Three things stand out in that statement:

The first is the fact that the administration of public education in this country is conducted by states and local school districts, not the federal government. State and local boards of education across the country are at work now considering the safest ways to proceed with school in the fall term and they're doing so with the aid of federal funding.

The second is that although the information coming out of Washington, D.C. has been inconsistent at times, one thing should be clear to everyone at this point: we can mitigate the spread of the virus by maintaining a safe distance, sanitizing surfaces, and wearing masks in close quarters that, by now, everyone should already have on hand. For those that don't have masks, resources exist for ensuring a safe learning environment in schools.

And the third is that the inclusion of "addressing racial inequity" in the list of the NEA's concerns over reopening schools in the fall has a distinctly political air. It appears to be intended more as tanglefoot than a sincere plea for a federal lifeline. That is absolutely the wrong approach for education advocates to take at a time when they should be considering the essential question: "What is the best way to ensure this generation of children doesn't get left behind in their mental, physical, and nutritional development?" They should consider that essential question and get busy lending their expertise to the effort. The fact is that inequities of all sorts would be exacerbated by a failure to resume school in the fall.

The press release reminds me of a video that our school superintendent showed administrators during a leadership conference a few years ago. In the video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrSUe_m19FY), a man and a woman are on an escalator, seemingly on their way to an important meeting when the escalator suddenly stops with them on it. They call out desperately for help as though there is no way to go further unless someone - anyone - gets that escalator going again. They behave as if they're at the mercy of the situation, not subject to their own initiative and ability to take action to resolve the problem.

We have the power to handle our circumstances; so, rather than incite discontent among state and local education union affiliates and PTAs, and generate fear among teachers and parents, the NEA and the national PTA and their affiliates should get busy working with school district administrators to address the essential question. Again, the essential question is "What is the best way to ensure this generation of children doesn't get left behind in their mental, physical, and nutritional development?"

As we consider courses of action, we should recognize that our public school students gained relatively little ground educationally during the second semester of the 2019-20 school year. They not only need to return to school in the fall semester of the 2020-21 school year, they need to be challenged to make up lost ground so they remain on grade level pace. They certainly can't afford to fall another semester behind so that the most vulnerable among them end up a full year behind.

We  should also remember that families, particularly lower income families, depend heavily on the school system. If their children aren't in school in the fall, they'll have greater difficulty progressing and they'll likely be at greater risk for contracting the virus as they socialize freely where protective measures aren't as prevalent.

Keeping children out of school in the fall isn't even necessary as many school districts are offering choice options for parents which would permit them to opt for in-person or remote classroom education or for virtual education. Oddly, some parents don't even want the choice; they'd rather there be no schooling in the fall at all. That is an unfathomable rejection of a viable solution in light of the essential question.

I suppose some find it easier to live in fear and do nothing, but what isn't so easy is living with the result. School districts that cave to the pressure to keep schools closed in the fall will find that the coin has another side when they're held to account for the resulting lack of educational development among our youth later on. We can't afford to do nothing, and studies reveal that it's not necessary or practical to do so (https://nbcnews.to/2Zx3YGu) (https://video.foxnews.com/v/6172059072001).

Certainly, as we work through the solutions, we'll become very well aware that we're in uncharted waters. We'll learn, and then we'll learn some more, and we'll improve processes as we go. That's the nature of progress. Some will be tempted to make 20/20 hindsight judgments later on what went wrong and what should have been done differently, but to them I say, "offer your insights and solutions to improve the process now or let those who are working through this challenge do their work."

Finally, we can't allow ourselves to be overwhelmed by our challenges to the extent that we fail to find ways to cope and adapt and to teach our children to do the same. What we are willing to do for our children today will reflect on us as parents, public officials, and citizens well into the future. Just as courage and selflessness characterized what we now know as "The Greatest Generation," we risk allowing fear and dependency to characterize our generation unless we assert ourselves at this watershed moment. In times like these, what our children learn from us, they will remember about us.

The Henry Letters: A Case for Impeachment?

Founding Father James Madison is sometimes called the "Father of the Constitution," and rightfully so. He authored 29 of the 85 articles that comprise the Federalist Papers, written to argue the case for a constitutional form of government. After nearly four months of strenuous debate, deliberation, and compromise, Madison sat down and drafted the U. S. Constitution to replace the Articles of Confederation which many considered inadequate and a confederacy to be a weak structure for the newly independent United States.

His words live on today as his name was mentioned 17 times during the testimony of three Constitutional experts before the House Judiciary Committee hearing on the impeachment of President Trump on December 4, 2019.

One of those experts reminded us of a speech that Madison delivered at the Constitutional Convention on July 20, 1787 when he said that impeachment was "indispensable" “for defending … ag[ain]st the incapacity, negligence, or perfidy of the Chief Magistrate.” Madison told the assembled delegates to the Convention that an American president might "pervert his administration into a scheme ... or ... betray his trust to foreign powers," warranting consideration for impeachment.

As Madison contemplated the impeachment of a future president while he drafted the Constitution, maybe he imagined a scenario where a president might find himself in a desperate struggle in a domestic and foreign crisis and then might resort to dramatic means to achieve his objectives on behalf of the nation. Maybe he foresaw a scenario involving the offensive trade practices of a powerful nation or a foreign nation's arousal of unrest and even treasonous impulses in the  American countryside.

In that scenario, Madison might have envisioned that events could develop where American ships, cargo, and crew would be seized, as was entirely realistic in those days, and that in response, the United States might unsuccessfully attempt political solutions and embargoes to stop it. But then, let's say that the embargoes hurt American businesses more than they damaged the nations they targeted which deepened the divisions among Americans and made an easy solution even more challenging for the president. Let's assume that Madison contemplated that eventually, the president might decide that war would be the only effective solution but that gaining approval from Congress to go to war would be a difficult sell among partisans who believed that the president had ulterior motives.

Then, let's say that Madison imagined a situation where a president in his political frustration might eventually come to rely on a former foreign spy at the encouragement of an official of yet another nation to provide him evidence of treason among his political opponents that included a dramatic plan for several states to secede and align with the enemy.

But what if the president failed to confirm the motives and the validity of the evidence that the spy provided him? What if the president took that evidence and used it to go to Congress to solidify his allies and stir up anxiety to help make the case for going to war and undermine his political opponents? What if the evidence that the spy provided him turned out to be fraudulent? What if only a few months after providing Congress that evidence, he succeeded in getting Congressional approval for a declaration of war?

Then, what if that war made its way to American soil as it did during the War of 1812, a mere 25 years after Madison delivered his Constitutional Convention speech and, as in the War of 1812, what if enemy forces attacked American settlements throughout the countryside and then burned Washington - the White House, the Capitol building, and other government buildings - to the ground? In Madison's time, that was certainly a possibility. How would Americans and the Congress view a president's drive to go to war in light of that disaster?

Is that the kind of scenario that Madison would have anticipated would rise to the level of an impeachable offense committed by a president? At what point would a president's reliance on the unvetted documents from a former foreign spy that alleged a broad conspiracy designed to tip the scales toward war amount to "negligence or perfidy" (untrustworthiness) or a "scheme" to "betray his trust to foreign powers" as Madison described it in his speech to the Constitutional Convention?

Madison might not have actually anticipated a scenario such as that when he was drafting the Constitution and while he was making the case for congressional impeachment powers because if he had, he might have foreseen those very events occurring during his own presidency 25 years later.

As the calendar turned to the year 1812, President Madison and his party generally came to lean toward declaring war against the British because political solutions and embargoes designed to halt their practice of capturing American ships and cargo and pressing American sailors into service weren't working. The President's political opponents, the Federalists, had opposed the Embargo of 1807 during Jefferson's administration and wanted no part of the growing interest in going to war with Britain, even as the British were alleged to have been stirring up Indian unrest on the frontier.

The embargoes lacked bipartisan support and were losing steam among the American people, in large part because they hurt American commerce more than they damaged the British. The embargoes were devastating domestically at a time when the New England states were establishing themselves as ports and centers of trade and while American pioneers settling in the Ohio Valley relied on that commerce for survival. War seemed to President Madison and his political allies to be the only answer, but his opponents believed that war would damage the fragile American economy even worse than British aggression toward American shipping and the American embargoes had.

Meanwhile, a man by the name of John Henry had completed service as an American military officer and had begun writing articles as a propagandist for the Federalist Party that were critical of the American republican form of government. We remember that in first quarter of the 19th century, the debate over the adoption of the Constitution was still fresh and there was still a belief among fiercely independent Americans that the United States should have remained a confederation rather than a constitutional republic. They feared and distrusted a strong federal government.

In time, Henry's writing came to the attention of Sir James Craig who was a British military officer and the Canadian Governor-General. The British and their representatives in Canada were concerned about Jefferson's and Madison's ambitions with regard to Canada at that time. Seeing an opportunity amid rising tensions, Sir Craig hired Henry as a spy to determine the extent to which other Americans shared his dissatisfaction with the American government. Henry reported to Craig frequently and at one point wrote that if there was war between the United States and Britain, the New England states, in alignment with Federalist sympathies, would break away and join the fight against the Union. As a reward for his work on Britain's behalf, Craig promised Henry that he would be named to an office in Canada once his work was finished. Henry continued to gather and provide information, but then Craig died before he could deliver on his promise to Henry.

Undeterred, John Henry traveled to Britain to petition the crown for his reward, but he was unsuccessful so he left for home feeling deceived and abandoned by the British government. On his return trip to the United States from London, he happened to meet a French count, Edouard, Comte de Crillon, to whom he told the whole story. Crillon was apparently moved and suggested that Henry sell his documents to the American government. Henry agreed so Crillon approached the American Secretary of State James Monroe on Henry's behalf with a proposition to sell the documents to the Madison administration. 

The documents included the secret instructions that Henry had received from Sir Craig and copies of the letters that Henry wrote in the performance of his spying mission. However, Henry had doctored the documents to omit names of his Federalist friends and he deleted other entries. He also added material that indicated that Henry had become aware of plots for states to secede from the Union.

President Madison agreed to purchase Henry's documents - "The Henry Letters" - for $50,000, the entire budget that Congress had approved to fund the secret service. Crillon agreed to compensate Henry further by granting him his ancestral estate in France. Then after the sale, Henry secured transportation on an American warship out of the country to France so he could claim his newly acquired estate.

On March 9, 1812, President Madison took Henry's papers which made the scandalous allegations against the Federalists and Great Britain and delivered them in a special message to Congress. He claimed that while the United States was negotiating in good faith with the British, they were secretly using a spy to destroy the Union.

Many believed that the allegations were false while others became quite agitated and concerned over them. Ultimately, the Henry Letters were found to be fraudulent and Madison's strategy failed. Nonetheless, three months later the United States was at war with Britain in a war declaration that was and remains the most narrowly decided in American history.

President Madison was later heavily criticized for not vetting the fraudulent documents that Henry sold him before using them to steer the Congress and the American people toward war.

John Henry came out on the short end of things as well. It turns out that the French count who encouraged him to sell his documents to the President and from whom he acquired the estate in France was a fraud. He wasn't a French count and there was no estate. It was suspected but not proven that the "count" worked for Napolean who used the scheme to distract the British with involvement in a war with the United States while Napolean invaded Russia. Crillon had not only duped Henry but also President Madison and Secretary of State Monroe.

We often look to the words of historical figures to provide us insights relevant to current events, but we frequently fail to recognize that history is much more than snippets and quotations. It's a story that involves real people who make real and imperfect decisions and choices. Those imperfections should inform us that the snippets and quotations are meaningful guideposts and aspirations, but they can also imprison us in destructively narrow thinking when we mischaracterize them or fail to consider their context and design.

I wonder how Madison himself would have fared as president today.

A Long Flight Home

My father-in-law, Simon J. Kittler is nearly 89 years old. When I look at him today, I’m reminded that all around us, we see old people whose days of impassioned vigor have been replaced by a gentler pace and whose youthful boldness and audacity have been replaced by a wariness of even the next step they take out of concern that they might fall. When we look at them and take stock of their years, it’s difficult to imagine that among them are great heroes who gave so much of themselves and were once willing to sacrifice everything.

My father-in-law is one of those people.

He grew up in a troubled household in Michigan, but was able to secure a Congressional appointment to the United States Naval Academy in 1949 as a member of the Class of 1953. He was one of four brothers who received congressional appointments to the Naval Academy. After he was commissioned as a second lieutenant on June 5, 1953, he was able to fulfill a dream inspired by his childhood employer and mentor to lead a platoon of Marines in Korea. 

Once he returned to the United States in October of 1955, he entered flight training in Pensacola, Florida and upon completion of training in October of 1957, he earned his gold aviator wings.

His first assignments as an aviator were with VMA-211 then with VMA-225 as an A-4D Skyhawk pilot, stationed in Edenton and Cherry Point, North Carolina. While he was on a deployment in the Mediterranean on board the USS Essex (CVA-9) during her final carrier deployment, the crew of the Essex and the 17 pilots of VMA-225 collaborated on an unprecedented achievement that possibly remains unduplicated to this day. On January 23, 1960, VMA-225 qualified all 17 of its pilots as Centurions when every pilot in the squadron completed his 100th arrested carrier landing of the deployment on the Essex on that day.

Then, in July of 1963, he completed a stint as an instructor in the Air Support Division, training forward air controllers (FACs) at Coronado, California which he later said was a great help to him when he needed to call in fire support missions in Vietnam.

Then, in what would become a pivotal event in his career, he underwent helicopter transition training with HMM-362 in Santa Ana, California in preparation for service in the Vietnam War, known by many as “the helicopter war.” With his transition training complete, he was promoted to Major and joined the newly formed HMM-365 in August of 1964 to fly the UH-34D, which he later referred to as “one helluva war bird.”

Just a couple of weeks after his wife, Peggy, gave birth to a baby boy, his namesake Simon Scott, he deployed with his squadron to the Republic of Vietnam in October of 1964. As thousands of others have done since the early days of our Republic, he left his wife, new son, and two daughters, 6 year old Angela and 2 year old Christina, behind in California.

Once in Vietnam, he and his squadron went to work immediately, flying combat missions daily. Within a month of arriving in Vietnam, then-Major Kittler “volunteered to undertake a vital resupply and medical evacuation mission to an isolated Vietnamese outpost located in an area infested with insurgent communist Viet Cong forces. The flying conditions were exceptionally hazardous due to typhoon conditions in the general vicinity, a ceiling of less than three hundred feet and a steady rainfall which severely limited visibility. As leader of a two aircraft flight, (he) fearlessly led the way through intense enemy small arms fire to land at the obscured landing zone. After discharging his supplies and taking aboard several wounded Vietnamese soldiers, (he) again displayed calm courage and superior aeronautical skill as he led the flight through enemy fire and further deteriorating weather conditions to deliver his wounded passengers to a field hospital.”  For his heroism that day, he was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross Medal.

While Major Kittler was flying that mission and risking his life to save the lives of others, tragedy was settling onto his own home that same day half a world away where his newborn son, Simon Scott, passed away in his crib. Any sense of relief and satisfaction that he felt over having succeeded in that treacherous mission was quickly overwhelmed by the weight of profound loss and mourning as he boarded a plane to return to the United States to be with his family.

With his son buried and his family consoled, he returned to duty with his squadron in Vietnam where he resumed flying combat missions in support of U. S. Marines, the South Vietnamese Army, and U. S. Special Forces.  Then on July 12, 1965, he “participated in an emergency medical evacuation and troop withdrawal of an isolated patrol which had been ambushed and surrounded at night. The landing zone, surrounded by Viet Cong, was under a crossfire from three automatic weapons, which made it virtually untenable. In spite of heavy enemy ground fire, unknown landing zone conditions and lack of visibility due to darkness, (he) ... landed and assisted in the evacuation of the patrol,” saving eighteen lives in the process.  For his actions that day, he was awarded a second Distinguished Flying Cross Medal for heroism.

Then, Major Kittler again transitioned to a new aircraft in 1967, this time to the OV-10 Bronco as a member of VMO-5 before returning to Vietnam in May of 1968 as officer-in-charge (OIC) and pilot in a VMO-2 detachment. Within just a few hours of the squadron’s Broncos arriving in Vietnam from the Philippines, he became the first pilot to fly the OV-10 aircraft in combat. Operating out of Marble Mountain in Vietnam, he flew both the OV-10A and the UH-1E Huey on direct combat support missions for Marine forces.

When he was promoted to Lieutenant Colonel in October of 1968, he was transferred to the 1st Marine Aircraft Wing (MAW) G-3 in DaNang to serve as assistant operations and assistant plans officer. While in that assignment, he continued to fly combat missions in the OV-10 and the TA-4 on “Steel Tiger” forward air controller (FAC) missions along the Ho Chi Minh Trail until 1969 when he returned to the United States.

Following his promotion to Colonel in July of 1975, he assumed command of the 31st Marine Amphibious Unit (MAU)/Task Group (TG) 79.5. He then served as commanding officer of the Marine Corps Air Reserve Training Detachment (MARTD) in El Toro, California from 1977 to 1980. Finally, Colonel Kittler took command of the Naval ROTC Unit and served as the Professor of Naval Science at the University of Missouri in 1980 before retiring from active duty in September of 1982 with 30 years of service.

During his distinguished Marine Corps career, Colonel Kittler saw service in the Korean War as a ground officer then participated in 15 major combat operations as an aviator in Vietnam. Among his many decorations and awards are the Legion of Merit for valor, two Distinguished Flying Crosses for valor, 22 Air Medals, the Meritorious Service Medal, two Combat Action Ribbons, and numerous unit citations and campaign and service medals.

After his retirement from the Marine Corps, Colonel Kittler went to work in program management at McDonnell Douglas in Long Beach, California, working on the T-45, A-4, A-3, and the KDC-10 aircraft.

Ultimately, he settled in Pensacola, Florida, returning to his aviation roots where he was able to watch his two grandsons grow, enjoy seeing them play baseball and excel in school, and witness them eventually becoming Marines like their father and grandfathers before them. All along, he inspired them through his love, example, and wisdom.

From his childhood and throughout his adult life, during the high points and the low, through critical moments of life and death, and in periods of peace and extraordinary trial, he has been buoyed by his Faith, his family, his country, and his unwavering loyalty and service to them all. Always a humble and composed warrior, he has embraced life with good cheer and selfless personal courage.

We don’t know how much longer we will have him with us here, but as he nears the end of his long flight home, we know that we will have him and his legacy forever in our hearts and minds.