Category Archives: events

A seldom-told story of the end of WWII

Posted on by
7

This year has been the 75th anniversary of the end of World War II.  We’ve see a lot of publications about the anniversary, including V-J day, Victory over Japan day.  We have yet to see one that tells you the story we are about to tell you.

Most of us probably have seen photographs of General MacArthur signing the peace treaty with Japan in ceremonies on the deck of the USS Missouri.

But few of us probably have seen these pictures:

A few weeks ago my long-time friend, Hugh David Waggoner, called to see if I would be interested in an old trunk full of pictures from World War II that had belonged to a man named R. Sheldon Gentry (his first name was Rusaw, which might explain why he used “R” so he wouldn’t have to explain or repeat “Rusaw.”)  The name rang a faint bell with me but I have not been able to pin down who he was.

The pictures you see above are from the trunk.  The photographs and some 70-plus years old newspaper clippings tell the story behind the famous pictures of the surrender on the Missouri.  This story from that trunk is a story not often told, one I had not heard. So we’re going to tell it today because we doubt many of you have heard it, either.

One of the people in the third picture above is of extremely special interest because without him the war might have gone on longer than it did with consequences of immensely tragic proportions beyond the tragedies that had been occurring since Japan invaded China in 1931, the real beginning of the war.

A word, first, about Gentry, who went into the Army as a Second Lieutenant and came out a Major. He was a decorated photo intelligence officer who wound up with two Presidential Citations and two Legions of Merit among his medals because of his expertise in advising bomber crews about their targets. In fact, he went on several missions and helped guide crews to their targets in the southwest Pacific Theatre as the allies closed the noose around Japan.

Three days after the second Atomic Bomb was dropped, Gentry was in an American bomber fifty feet over Nagasaki assessing the damage.  A few days after that, Japan accepted the surrender terms laid down at the Potsdam Conference by the United States, Britain, and the Soviet Union. The notification was announced on August 15 by President Truman, the same day the Emperor dramatically announced to his nation that he had ordered all Japanese military forces to stop fighting. It also was the day General McArthur was designated the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers.

MacArthur immediately ordered the Japanese Imperial Government to send envoys to Manila on the 17th to put the surrender into effect. The delegation was to travel from Japan in a white airplane with green crosses on the fuselage and wings to the island of Ieshima where they would transfer to an American plane that would take them to Manila. The Japanese were granted some extra time to make preparations for the flight—painting an airplane, for example.  On the morning of August 19, the sixteen-member delegation boarded two re-painted Mitsubishi G4M “Betty” bombers and flew to IeShima (the Japanese called it IeJima or Iye Jima), an island in the Okinawa Prefecture.

The Betty was the main bomber used by Japan, often as a torpedo bomber—as it was at Pearl Harbor. It was fast, 265 mph, could fly 3,250 miles. One of its most notable accomplishments was the shocking sinking of the British battleships, Prince of Wales and Repulse during the earliest days of the war, the first battleships sunk in a wartime air attack. But the plane had no armor and no self-sealing fuel tanks, making it vulnerable to a few well-placed shots.  Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, the commander of the Japanese Navy at Pearl Harbor and Midway, was sought out and shot down in a Betty over Bougainville in 1943.

But that’s straying from our story.

The pictures at the top of this entry were in Gentry’s trunk.  They show the two disarmed Betty bombers, as the Americans called them—Americans gave male names to Japanese fighter planes and female names to the bombers—being escorted by two Army Air Force B-25s.  The second pictures shows one of them landing.

The delegation was met by American officers who escorted them to one of our C-54s for the flight to Manila.   Notice, in the third picture, the man in the white suit, in the center, wearing glasses. He was the only civilian among the seven men who sat at the negotiating table in Manila, across from seven American military representatives who worked out the final agreement in two sessions the evening of the 19th and the morning of the 20th.

In the trunk is the first teletype message that negotiations for Japanese surrender had been completed and Japanese negotiators would arrive later on the 20th in Tokyo.

But things almost did not turn out well.

The man in the white suit at the negotiations was Katsuo Okazaki, a 5,000 meter runner at the Paris Olympics of 1924.  Although MacArthur’s directive was for negotiators only from the Army and the Navy, the Japanese government decided to have a representative of its own with the group and selected Okazaki, the former second secretary of the Japanese Embassy in Washington and then the director of the research bureau of the foreign office.

The surrender flight to Ie Jima had been a nervous trip for those aboard the two bombers. “At that time the Kamikaze corps was still strong.  We had to make our preparations in secret lest the Kamikazes attack us on the way.  It took longer than we expected…

“We flew from Kisarazu airbase,” he recalled in a late 1947 interview with Ray Falk of the North American Newspaper Alliance. “A little after noon we were off Kyushu, Japan’s southernmost island, where we were met by American planes. We had been given the call signal, ’Bataan.’”

(The Battle of Bataan in the Japanese Philippine campaign of 1942 ended with a 65-mile forced march of 75,000 captured American and Filipino troops to concentration camps. The march was infamous for the brutality of the Japanese, who beat bayonetted the starved and weak prisoners who were too weak to walk. Thousands of them died on the march or in the camps.)

“When we called, ‘Bataan! Bataan!’ the American pilots answered, ‘Yes, we are Bataan’s watchdog—follow us…’”

The group returned to IeShima after the Manila conference to find one of their planes was undergoing repairs and split up, with half of the group going back to Japan and the other half waiting to fly back later.

“Half an hour before our expected landing time in Japan, the pilot came back and said, ‘I am sorry but we found our gasoline tank is leaking, and we have very little gas left.’ We were flying over water. We didn’t know whether we could reach land. We knew the bomber would not float more than one or two minutes.  Come what may, I was entrusted with all the documents.”

“Fifteen minutes later, the plane crashed, and I made a compete somersault. A second crash and another tumble followed.  I was ready to jump out when the pilot came back and said, ‘Please remain calm and swim ashore.’  We had landed in shallow coastal water.”

The pilot had managed to land the plane near a beach at Hamamatsu, about 285 miles south of Tokyo.

Okazaki went into the water and swam ashore, holding the vital documents above his head. “We couldn’t see where we were for it was so dark,” he continued. “Eventually a full moon rose and we went ashore. Two fishermen from Hamamatsu helped us to get to the Hamamatsu airbase.  The villagers had been reluctant to help us when they saw the plane crash because they thought I was a B-29. We were lucky not to have been attacked as enemies.

“Anyway, we reached Prime Minister Prince Higashi Kuni’s office at 9 o’clock the following morning, only seven hours late.  The cabinet had waited for us all night.

“I can’t imagine what would have happened if I had drowned. General headquarters already was mistrusting us because we were two days late in getting to Manila. What measures the allied armies might have taken are pure conjecture. But they would have been unpleasant. It might have caused the war to continue in view of the fact that our party had to escape from the anti-surrender Kamikaze corps which wanted to continue the war.”

There might have been conjecture on Okazaki’s part in 1947 but there was no conjecture on the part of the allies of 1945 who already had been planning one of the largest amphibious operations in history, Operation Downfall, to start in November.  The second phase would have been launched in early ’46 near Tokyo. Japan knew the invasions were coming but hoped the cost to the allies would be so great that the war would end with an armistice, not a defeat.

The forecasts for casualties varied widely. One estimate from Secretary of War Henry Stimson forecast 400,000 to 800,000 fatalities and as many as four-million total casualties, not counting the 100,000 allied prisoners of war who were to be executed if Japan was invaded.

But for Russia’s late-war invasion from the north and the incineration of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with threats of more such attacks—and a swimmer named Katzuo Okazaki—history might have been a great deal more “unpleasant” as Okazaki put it in 1947.

The first advance party of American soldiers arrived in Japan on August 26 with greater numbers arriving two days later, with the surrender ceremonies taking place on an American battleship in Tokyo Bay September 2. Okazaki was part of the Japanese delegation on the Missouri that day.

And what became of him?

The man in the white suit was elected to the Japanese House of Representatives in 1949. Two years later, Prime Minister Shigeru Yoshida name him Chief Cabinet Secretary and state minister without portfolio. He became Foreign Minister in 1952 and during his three years in that office, signed a Mutual Security Assistance Agreement with American Ambassador John Allison. He retired but was called back to service to be Japan’s delegate to the United Nations from April, 1961 to July, 1963.  He died two years later at the age of 68.

And the Betty bomber, the Mitsubishi G4M1 that carried Okazaki and the others on those historic surrender flights? The Japanese called it the Hamaki, meaning “cigar,” a reference to its shape. Wrecked remains of hundreds of them are scattered throughout Southeast Asia and in the Southwest Pacific. The Smithsonian Air & Space Museum has pieces of one it is slowly restoring. A wrecked one is on display at an air museum in Chino, California.  Two years ago Warbird Digest reported two of the bombers had been recovered from the Solomon Islands for possible restoration. There are no flyable Bettys in existence.

There are more stories in that old trunk, It now resides at the Museum of Missouri Military History at the Ike Skelton Training Center near Jefferson City. We might tell more about Gentry in some later entry.  We haven’t learned much about his post-war years, but his trunk sure has some interesting things about that part of his life and the war he saw and helped fight. Now his trunk and the stories in it are at a place where they will be cared for and appreciated.

 

Playbook

Posted on by
Reply

We offer this observation from a book called “My Fight,” an autobiography written in 1925 by a German World War One veteran who refused to acknowledge his country’s leadership had lost the war and who was  looking for someone else to blame.  This is a 1939 translation by Irish writer and translator James Murphy. You may draw from it anything you wish, or nothing at all.

…It remained for the Jews, with their unqualified capacity for falsehood, and their fighting comrades, the Marxists, to impute responsibility for the downfall precisely to the man who alone had shown a superhuman will and energy in his effort to prevent the catastrophe which he had foreseen and to save the nation from that hour of complete overthrow and shame. By placing responsibility for the loss of the world war on the shoulders of Ludendorff they took away the weapon of moral right from the only adversary dangerous enough to be likely to succeed in bringing the betrayers of the Fatherland to Justice.

All this was inspired by the principle—which is quite true within itself—that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods.

It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.

“My Fight” in German is Mein Kampf. The description of “The Big Lie” has been widely attributed to Hermann Goering, the information minister for Adolph Hitler.  But no attributable source has been found for Goering. But it is attributable to his boss, in this book.

A further discussion of the author of this technique can be found in A Psychoanalysis of Adolph Hitler, His Life and Legend  that was compiled for the Office of Strategic Services during World War Two. (The OSS morphed into the CIA after the war.)

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP78-02646R000600240001-5.

Again, we offer this material without comment.  Make of it what you will.

-0-

Book Club—VIII

Posted on by
Reply

In this, our last entry in this series, we turn to the last few words of The Soul of America by Jon Meacham, who writes, “For all of our darker impulses, for all of our shortcomings, and for all of the dreams denied and deferred, the experiment begun so long ago, carried out so imperfectly, is worth the fight. There is, in fact, no struggle more important and none nobler, than the one we wage in the service of those whose better angels who, however besieged, are always ready for battle.”

We conclude with the words John F. Kennedy would have spoken in Dallas on November 22, 1963 had he not been murdered on the way to a luncheon at the Trade Mart. They are as timely today as they were then, perhaps even more timely now because so much of what he warned against has come about,

Ignorance and misinformation can handicap the progress of a city or a company, but they can, if allowed to prevail in foreign policy, handicap this country’s security. In a world of complex and continuing problems, in a world full of frustrations and irritations, America’s leadership must be guided by the lights of learning and reason — or else those who confuse rhetoric with reality and the plausible with the possible will gain the popular ascendancy with their seemingly swift and simple solutions to every world problem.

There will always be dissident voices heard in the land, expressing opposition without alternative, finding fault but never favor, perceiving gloom on every side and seeking influence without responsibility. Those voices are inevitable.

But today other voices are heard in the land — voices preaching doctrines wholly unrelated to reality, wholly unsuited to the sixties, doctrines which apparently assume that words will suffice without weapons, that vituperation is as good as victory and that peace is a sign of weakness…

The United States is a peaceful nation. And where our strength and determination are clear, our words need merely to convey conviction, not belligerence. If we are strong, our strength will speak for itself. If we are weak, words will be of no help…

In today’s world, freedom can be lost without a shot being fired, by ballots as well as bullets. The success of our leadership is dependent upon respect for our mission in the world as well as our missiles — on a clearer recognition of the virtues of freedom as well as the evils of tyranny…

Only an America which practices what it preaches about equal rights and social justice will be respected by those whose choice affects our future. Only an America which has fully educated its citizens is fully capable of tackling the complex problems and perceiving the hidden dangers of the world in which we live. And only an America which is growing and prospering economically can sustain the worldwide defenses of freedom, while demonstrating to all concerned the opportunities of our system and society…

We, in this country, in this generation, are — by destiny rather than by choice — the watchmen on the walls of world freedom. We ask, therefore, that we may be worthy of our power and responsibility, that we may exercise our strength with wisdom and restraint, and that we may achieve in our time and for all time the ancient vision of “peace on earth, good will toward men.” That must always be our goal, and the righteousness of our cause must always underlie our strength. For as was written long ago: “except the Lord keep the city, the watchmen waketh but in vain.”

We watchmen go to the polls next Tuesday. May we be worthy of our responsibility. And may our better angels prevail.

 

More History Than We Could Have Imagined 

Posted on by
Reply

We have been reminded from all sides that this year’s election is historic. Whether it is as historic as some of the rhetoric has tried to portray it will be determined by the passage of time, as time’s context defines history. But it is, at least, unique.

Especially for Missourians.

We might be—probably are—participating in a huge first step of a transition from polling place to mailbox or other ways of casting votes. While mail-in voting was approved by the legislature as a one-off experience in this pandemic year, this bell has been rung and it can’t be UNrung. It is hard to believe lawmakers here and throughout the country will not revisit this issue, smooth out its rough spots, and move to make remote voting in one form or another a regular practice.

Resistance can be expected. But the arrow is in flight and while its course might become longer than anticipated, it will not be diverted.

More locally, what we are seeing in Missouri this year has never happened before or has happened only once. For example—-

Governor Mike Parson is not running for RE-election. He was Lieutenant Governor when Eric Greitens resigned, moving him into the big office. This is the first time Missourians have been faced with a sitting governor running for election since Lilburn Boggs, who as lieutenant governor replaced Daniel Dunklin, who resigned after becoming Surveyor General of Missouri and Illinois. Boggs, who is best known for issuing the extermination order against the Mormons, was elected to a full term in 1836.

(As a side note, all of this occurred a decade after an unusual gubernatorial succession circumstance put one man in the governor’s office with no opponent. Our second governor, Frederick Bates, died in 1825. Lieutenant Governor Benjamin Reeves had resigned earlier to help survey the Santa Fe Trail.  Senate President Pro Tem Abraham Williams, a one-legged shoemaker from Columbia, assumed duties as governor and under the constitution in effect at the time, called an election.  John Miller defeated three other candidates. Miller ran for a full term in 1828 and to this day is the only governor elected without opposition.  He served the longest continuous term until a constitutional change allowed Warren Hearnes to succeed himself in 1969.)

Never before have we had so many people seeking election to statewide offices they already hold but were not elected to hold.  Parson, Lieutenant Governor Kehoe, Attorney General Eric Schmitt and Treasurer Scott Fitzpatrick were not elected to their present offices. But  Mike Kehoe was headed back to private life as a term-limited senator and Fitzpatrick was facing ouster from the House because of term limits. When Parson moved up to governor, he promptly appointed Kehoe as Lieutenant Governor. Schmitt was elected State Treasurer then was appointed by Parson as Attorney General when Josh Hawley ended Claire McCaskill’s U. S. Senate Career.  Fitzpatrick, the outgoing House Budget Committee Chair, was appointed by Parson as Schmitt’s successor as Treasurer. The only statewide office holder who is running for RE-election, not just election, is Secretary of State Jay Ashcoft, who has stayed where voters put him four years ago.

The last time a sitting statewide office holder was elected, not re-elected, was 1996 with the election of Bekki Cook as Secretary of State.  She had been appointed to succeed acting Secretary Dick Hanson after the Missouri Supreme Court removed Judi Moriarty from office. Hanson, incidentally, served in the office only a few days and as far as we know holds the record for shortest time in office of any statewide official.

Cook did not see re-election but four years later was the Democratic nominee for Lieutenant Governor. She lost to fellow Cape Girardeau resident Peter Kinder who went on become the only person to serve three full terms as Lieutenant Governor—a record unlikely to be broken if Amendment 1 is unfortunately approved next week.

President Trump’s repeated refusal to say he would assent to a peaceful transfer of power if he loses recalls an instance in Missouri when the legislature refused to allow such a transfer. Democrats had a stranglehold on state offices and on the legislature in 1940 when Republican Forrest Donnell was elected Governor.  In those days, the Speaker of the House proclaimed the official winners of statewide elections and Speaker Morris Osburn refused to certify Donnell’s election. The loser, Democrat Larry McDaniel, and state Democratic Party Chairman C. Marion Hulen claimed voting irregularities made McDaniel a winner by 30-thousand votes, not the 36-hundred vote loser. The Missouri Supreme Court finally ordered Donnell be sworn in—six weeks late, and to serve until a recount showed he had lost. The recount became a disaster for McDaniel, who withdrew his challenge without consulting Democratic leaders who had urged him to fight.

The event is unlikely to be repeated. A new state constitution adopted five years later made the Secretary of State, not the Speaker of the House, the person who certifies election results.

Many who read these observations already have cast their ballots and already have contributed to this historic election.  Thousands more will go to polling places next Tuesday to do their parts.

It’s not often that so many people make so much history.  We hope you will have or already have done your part.

 

God and the election

Posted on by
4

(Since July, 1997, the Reverend Doyle Sager has been the lead pastor of the First Baptist Church, next to my First Christian Church—and across the street from the First Methodist Church—a few blocks from the Missouri Capitol.  Whenever I stop at the cafeteria in the basement of the Capitol, I see if there’s a new edition of Word and Way, a monthly Baptist magazine because I enjoy Doyle’s thoughtful essays.  He wrote one a year ago, in the October, 2019 edition, that is appropriate for these last few days before a major election.  We’re passing it along today instead of our usual meditation from Dr. Frank Crane because it strikes us as eminently appropriate to our times.)

NATIONALISM & THE TRIBAL GOD IT CREATES

More than anytime in our recent history, America is struggling to discern the difference between patriotism and nationalism. This summer I attended the annual gathering of the Baptist World Alliance in Nassau, the Bahamas, interacting with believers from approximately 50 nations. As always, it was a beautiful experience of cultural immersion—all sorts of languages, all shades of skin color, and all kinds of beautiful Caribbean costumes. Back in my room late one evening, I made a journal entry about a Christ who is bigger than our Western culture and sectarian politics.

But instead of worshipping a Cosmic Christ, many have settled for a tribal deity who suits our tribal behavior. The result? A nationalism which places country above God and uses religion to justify any means.

Observe carefully: Most genocides are religion-based. These pogroms christen violence in the name of their god. Conveniently, a tribal god hates what we hate and loves what we love. In contrast, the true Lord God of Hebrew and Christian scripture is larger than our nationalism. Isaiah, Jonah, John the Baptist, and Jesus all bear witness to a God who strides above the nations and will not be domesticated for our parochial purposes.

History offers many warnings. By the mind-1930s Germany’s body politic had been infected with Hitler’s toxic fascism. In protest, Karl Barth and others crafted the Barmen Declaration, a bold witness offered by those who loved their country enough to tell it the truth (an essential ingredient in true patriotism).

For our purposes, two points from the Barmen Declaration are particularly relevant. Number three: “The message and order of the church should not be influenced by the current political convictions.” And number six calls for the rejection of “the subordination of the Church to the state…” In other words, the Church is not the errand boy for any politician or party.

Nationalism loves to delete unpleasant portions of its history, bending and weaponizing its myths to align with its purposes. Patriotism, on the other hand, is willing to face harsh truth in order to be liberated from the past. Karl Barth often marveled at the human capacity for self-deception. It never occurs to us that God might be opposed to us. We always see God as the guarantor of our values, our way of life and our tribe. What if we’re wrong? What if God isn’t pleased?

Here’s a challenge: Read in detail the tragic massacre of Native Americans at Sand Creek and Wounded Knee. Also consider a lesser-known national sin, the Rock Springs massacre.  After the sweat and toil of thousands of immigrant Chinese had made possible the completion of the transcontinental railroad, white Americans decided they had no more use for the foreigners who were taking up space and being hired for jobs that whites needed. Tensions rose and a riot broke out in present-day Rock Springs, Wyoming. Enraged miners killed at least 28 Chinese and injured 15 others. Seventy-eight Chinese homes were burned. One local newspaper defended the killings. A grand jury refused to bring any indictments. No one was ever convicted for the slaughter.

Our church recently hosted a community worship service commemorating the 400th anniversary of the arrival of the first enslaved Africans in America.  The service was a painful time of truth-telling, as blacks and whites together reflected on our country’s nightmare and our dreams. We cannot undo the past, but we can tell ourselves the truth in order to make tomorrow better.

Without fail, history bears witness to an ironic truth: Nationalism always leaves us more enslaved, not more free.  This is true because tribalism always shrinks us—a smaller world, more selfish goals, deeper fears and more distrust of the other. And a small-hearted tribe always needs a very small, angry, god.

Recent brain science research has revealed that we become like the God we worship.  Contemplating a loving God strengthens portions of our brain where sympathy and reason track.  Contemplating a wrathful God empowers the limbic system, which is filled with aggression and fear. Brian McLaren comments, “The God we choose to love changes us into his image, whether [that God] exists or not. (A New Kind of Christianity, p. 279).

Everyday, Americans get to decide; Do we choose a god who is a mascot for our shameless nationalism? Or do we choose the one who is above all rulers and authority and who calls us to healthy, thoughtful patriotism.

(Reverend Sager was diagnosed in mid-August with Stage IV lung cancer. He recently finished a round of chemotherapy and posted on his web page that the results were encouraging. We pray for his recovery.)

 

The worst in us is never far away

Posted on by
1

It’s comfortable to think the virulent racism of long ago is no longer part of our lives.  But it is.  It’s hidden and when it exposes itself it does so with such vengeance that witnesses might be left gasping.

More likely it’s white witnesses who are left gasping by the searing viciousness that is not so surprising to black people, even today in our supposedly accepting society. And I suppose it shouldn’t have been the surprise that it was in this time of increasingly-public white nationalism.

It happened last week at a meeting of a city council committee considering whether to remove a rock with a bronze plaque on it saying Confederate General Sterling Price decided in 1864 not to attack Jefferson City.  I had thought it was a fairly benign thing a few months ago when people asked me about it.  But the more I have looked into it, how it wound up where it is, who Price was, and what his brief siege was about, the more convinced I am that the continued presence of this marker is a blot on my town.

Some brief background: General Sterling Price was a former Missouri governor who had three times sworn loyalty to the United States and vowed to defend it from enemies, foreign and domestic.  But in 1861 he turned his back on those oaths and became one of those enemies who sought to destroy our nation as it then existed. In the fall of 1864 he led a last-gasp effort to recapture Missouri for the South, leading a rag-tag army of 12,000 poorly-equipped soldiers, thinking he might be able to capture St. Louis (impossible because it was full of Union troops), Jefferson City (where Confederate Governor Thomas C. Reynolds who was traveling with him could be sworn in as the legitimate governor of a now-Southern state) and then Westport and in the process turn the tide in the 1864 election and get rid of Lincoln so a truce could be arranged that would preserve the South and its slaves.

The United Daughters of the Confederacy, a group aligned with the Ku Klux Klan at the time the marker was presented in 1933 (its webpage makes it clear it no longer subscribes to its past attitudes), wrote the language on the bronze plaque.

We won’t go into a lengthy discussion of why some people think the marker should be removed but, in short, the idea is that the values behind its presentation are not the city’s values, does not reflect the true history of what happened here, and it casts a shadow over the lives of many African-Americans who see it as a symbol of a time when black people were told they had a place in this town and it wasn’t where white people were.

A woman named Jackie Coleman, who I did not know about until a couple of weeks ago, was among the list of people who shared with the city council their thoughts about “the rock” as it is called. She said she was “appalled” that the marker was on city property because, “It’s not what Jefferson City is about.”  A little later she told the council, “I know discrimination. If you don’t want to get rid of the rock you are saying you don’t care about me.”  The council took no action but referred the issue to two of its committees.

At the Public Works Committee meeting last Thursday I suggested the council pay more attention to what she and others said about their experiences in Jefferson City—and the experiences of their ancestors—more than the council pays attention to the philosophical arguments about history that people like me were making, valid though they might be.  While most of the argument is about Price, the KKK, the UDC, the proper telling of history, etc., the feelings of Jackie Coleman and others who spoke with her are about LIFE and how the marker casts a shadow over them, even now.

She spoke right after I did last Thursday and I was gratified that she found my remarks good. I hope I was not the only person stunned in the council chamber by what came next.

Before I tell you about it I want you to understand that there are some words that we have become too cautious in using when their use is most valuable in understanding what a circumstance is.  Some words are so brutal and so cruel that referring to them as “the –word” relieves us of confronting the remorseless attitude behind them.  I am going to use one of those words and by now you know what it is.

Jackie read an unsigned letter she received after the City Council meeting saying, “What is wrong with teaching our youth about history, that the Civil War was not fought over slavery but over state rights. People like you are causing a racial divide.”   She said the letter called her a nigger or referred to niggers thirteen times. It concluded, “Why don’t you just move and leave our nice town. I don’t belong to the KKK but you are an example of why it should exist.”  She told the committee the rock created that letter. “This is an offensive rock to me. We have to call it what it is,” and she concluded, “A citizen of Jefferson City getting a letter like this is appalling.”

Of course the letter was unsigned. Flaming bigotry has never counted courage as one of its qualities. If the writer thought he or she could intimidate Jackie Coleman, that person is stupid along with being a coward.

One of the points I hope I made with the committee—and that I will make again at the full council meeting if given a chance to speak—is that the Capital City of Missouri has no business protecting a symbol that excites cowards such as this letter-writer to prove once again that the worst we can be is never far away.

The rock must go. But I’m afraid its shadow will remain, not visible but resentfully lurking beneath the surface waiting to erupt.

And that, to use Jackie’s word, is appalling.

Just doing his duty

Posted on by
Reply

A warning:  When we composed this examination of current events, we did not realize it would generate a second chapter.  Today, chapter one.

A lot of people are getting all hot and sweaty about President Trump’s push to get his Supreme Court nominee confirmed by the Senate before the election so she can rule on any lawsuits about the legitimacy of the election that reaches it. He is convinced the only way he can lose is if there is massive voter fraud and he has lawyered-up to file a lot of lawsuits. Addressing that demagoguery is not our purpose here today.

Let’s talk about the process a little bit because it’s been a while for most of us since our political science classes in high school or college and with all of the shouting and finger-pointing going on, a bit of a refresher course might be in order.

First, the president said last week, “I have a constitutional obligation to put in nine judges—justices.”

Well, yes and no. Article two, section two of the United States Constitution says the president “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint….judges of the Supreme Court.” Note that it does not say how soon after a vacancy occurs the President must act.  It also does not say an incumbent President must act.

Article three, section one says, “The Judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme court and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme court and inferior courts shall hold their offices during good behavior and shall at all times receive for their services a compensation which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.”

Now, there’s something we don’t hear discussed often.  These judges shall hold their offices “during good behavior.”  We went to Congress.gov to see what that means because most of us, your faithful observer included, who had not observed that qualification before and wonder what that means.

For those of you who think the only thing we have to do is read the Constitution to solve all of our problems, this is an example of the flaw in that argument.  One of many.

Congress.gov says, “This standard, borrowed from English law, ensures that federal judges hold their seats for life, rather than set terms or at the will of a superior. The applicability of the Good Behavior Clause to the removal of federal judges has been the subject of debate; in particular, whether the phrase elucidates a distinct standard for removal apart from the high crimes and misdemeanors standard applicable to the impeachment of other federal officers. While this question has not been definitively resolved, historical practice indicates an understanding that the Good Behavior Clause protects federal judges from removal for congressional disagreement with legal or political opinions.”

If you think the noise we are hearing about the president’s appointment is loud, imagine what would happen if Congress had the power to remove Supreme Court Justices with whom the majority of Congress disagreed? Why would it have to be the whole Congress, even?  The Senate is the chamber that confirms nominees to these offices.   The Senate giveth; the Senate taketh away.

Nothing is written that prohibits Congress from doing that. What is written is the power of the House to impeach federal public officials (Article one, section two, clause 5).  As we know, after the House files charges (impeachment), the trial is held by the Senate (Article one, section 3, clause seven). Not all federal officials can be impeached (Article two, section four, which also defines the misconduct that can lead to impeachment).

But impeachment is not expressly mentioned in Article three, the judicial article. Instead of listing specific causes for impeachment of Supreme Court Justices, the Constitution speaks of “good behavior,” and that, says Congress.gov, “is widely understood to provide the unique nature of judicial tenure.”

One interpreter of that standard said in 1983, “The nation’s founders so insulated the job against political pressures because they believed the mission of the federal courts requires a high degree of independence in the third branch. The security of life tenure, the Constitution’s framers thought, would encourage resistance by the federal branch to popular moods of the moment not properly expressed in laws, and would promote the fidelity of federal judges to the enduring values embodied in our fundamental instrument of government.”  The observation was given in the John R. Coen Lecture Series at the University of Colorado School of Law by United States Circuit Judge Ruth Bader Ginsberg.

Your observer has diverted himself from the theme of our discussion but the diversion, we hope, has helped understand the special nature of the third arm of our government.

Back to the president’s statement that he has a Constitutional responsibility to “put” nine judges on the U. S. Supreme Court.

Not really.  The word “immediate” is not in the Constitution. The words “without delay” also are not in it.

He can only do it if the Senate agrees to let him do it.  That’s where the Advice and Consent language kicks in.  He also is not required to make sure the court has nine justices. The number nine is not mentioned in the Constitution and the president’s fellow Republicans a few years ago had no qualms about leaving the court with eight judges for fourteen months so that the next president could make the appointment.  Did that hamstring our judicial system?

No, it did not. In fact we have found eight cases dating to 1973 in which the court tied, sometimes because of a vacancy but most often because one of the Justices did not take part in the decision for one reason or another.  Eight cases in 47 years hardly hamstrung the judicial system.  So there is no Constitutional requirement that the president appoint a ninth Justice.  He is not prohibited from doing so a few weeks before an election, either.  Nor is he prohibited from leaving a vacancy indefinitely.   But when he does suggest someone, the Senate is mandated to provide its blessing before that person can put on the robe.

In fact, there is nothing in the constitution requiring nine members of the U.S. Supreme Court, as you could see by reading the provisions at the top of this offering. We will get to that next week.  We will mention that the number of members of the U. S. Supreme Court is set by Congress, which is why we’re hearing Democrats say they’ll try to expand the court to keep it from swinging unacceptably (to them) to the right.

“Packing” the court, as it’s called, has its perils.  What happens if Congress decides a 9-3 court is too radical?  Would it raise the number of 19?  Lower it back to 9, kicking some judges off the bench in the process?

It is obvious that the contemporary situation is a dangerous one—not in terms of whether the potential new court member swings the court far to the right but whether the handling of the nomination by the president and his party will lead the Democrats to do something that spreads the chaos of the Legislative and Executive branches to the judicial branch, where calmness in determining the validity of our laws should prevail.

—at least, in a more perfect world.

We conclude by submitting that the arguments made in the Merritt Garland case are specious and do not apply in the current case. The public’s decision in 2016 to have a president and both houses of the Congress represented by one party does not give that party a license to act with impunity in the current instance, especially since that party has seen a reduction in its overall congressional numbers in the intervening election although gaining two seats in the Senate in 2018. The argument is a red herring.

The issue, created in the Garland case, is whether one party can act one way prior to an election and then four years later, act another way even closer to an election. Any discussion beyond that is political gymnastics. The people’s will seems to be changing, as seen in the change of party power in the House and concerns by Republicans that their control of the Senate after November is in jeopardy. The surveys indicating the public mood continues to change this year further weakens the argument that what was sauce for the goose in 2016 should not be sauce for the gander because of 2018.

But, let’s face it.  Senate Republicans don’t give a tinker’s dam what one old man on a quiet street in Middle America thinks.

Next week we’ll be back with some more history and a look at the court’s future, which could become worse for liberals and might not get back to 5-4 for a decade or more.

Book Club—III

Posted on by
Reply

Our book club looks at Jon Meacham’s discussion of presidential leadership, or lack of it, and a single phrase that is used often.

Franklin D. Roosevelt’s statement, “We have nothing to fear but fear itself,” has been mentioned by our president as a justification for telling us we had nothing to fear from the coronavirus while knowing for some time that it is a fearsome thing.

Meacham’s The Soul of America spends a chapter on Roosevelt and the competing interests seeking power during The Great Depression.

As often happens on both side of the aisle, a noble phrase is cherry-picked from its context and used to justify an action (or inaction).  But when the quotation is seen in context, the meaning of it becomes entirely different.  Such is the case with “nothing to fear.” It hardly is an excuse to do nothing in the face of great danger.

The phrase was spoken at the beginning of FDR’s first inaugural address on March 4, 1933:

I am certain that my fellow Americans expect that on my induction into the Presidency I will address them with a candor and a decision which the present situation of our Nation impels. This is preeminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Nor need we shrink from honestly facing conditions in our country today. This great Nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper. So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself–nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory. I am convinced that you will again give that support to leadership in these critical days.

The leadership message is completely different—is it not?—when the line is put back in its proper place. Knowing history, not just knowing a sentence from it, could have changed an arc of our history in 2020.

After RGB 

Posted on by
Reply

Ruth Bader Ginsburg didn’t make it to the end of the Trump administration as she had hoped.  Her dying wish reportedly dictated to her granddaughter was that she not be replaced before the election.  It appears that’s not going to be realized either.  Our president has belittled her last opinion, in fact, claiming without evidence that it was something composed by Adam Schiff or Nancy Pelosi, or Chuck Schumer, three of his favorite Democratic punching bags.

Your observer of the three branches of government for most of his life fears a 6-3 U. S. Supreme Court, regardless of any perceived partisan tilt, and thinks a 5-4 court is best regardless of any such tilt.  The law is a matter of constant fine-tuning, often on small points of difference. Progress under the law is best accomplished with a surgical instrument rather than with a hammer.  The length of time members of the court are allowed to serve is a crucial factor in whether equality under the law is balanced for the long-term welfare of the country. Rulings from a 5-4 court seem more likely to represent arguments based on law rather than decisions based on ideology.  And when ideology shapes the legal standards under which we all much live, the opportunity for Inequality seems more likely to grow.

It is clear that Senate leader Mitch McConnell’s desire for an immediate vote on an immediate appointment is more focused on ideology than on the law, more focused on power than on principle.  Our nation is best served when the differences between conservative and liberal are narrow, forcing participants to focus on principle rather than power, more on law than on ideology.  It is as true in our appellate court system as it should be true in our legislative halls.

Super-majorities breed arrogance, distract from the principle of service, and place value on power.  And unchallenged power is inimicable to a republic.

Senator McConnell, who argued in February, 2016 that President Obama’s choice for the U.S. Supreme Court, Merritt Garland, should not get a hearing, let alone a vote, because court vacancies should not be filled during an election year, now has constructed some gymnastics to justify contradicting his argument against Garland.

Whether the process can be rushed to completion before the election is held is unclear. The process usually takes longer than the time between now and voting day. But it appears Senator McConnell will push that process.

The filling of this vacancy has instantly changed the presidential campaign and can instantly change campaigns for the U. S. Senate, including McConnell’s.  When the confirmation vote nears, we’ll see if some senators facing close contests might want to wait until after the election rather than rush to a vote before.

As if we voters don’t have enough to think about.

“May you live in interesting times” is a supposedly ancient Chinese curse—although scholars have found no such expression in Chinese.  There is, however, a Chinese phrase from a 1627 collection of short stories: “Better to be a dog in times of tranquility than a human in times of chaos.”

It appears we’re going to have a 6-3 court.  That doesn’t guarantee that the most conservative issues will be rubber-stamped, as we have seen from time to time when the court has surprised us with a ruling when a swing judge develops. Now, however, it’s going to take TWO swing judges when the court’s liberals prevail, a mountain too steep to climb most of the time. But the court’s own history indicates 6-3 is not always going to be a given.

Sometimes, however, being a dog, especially in times of chaos, is appealing, too.

Book Club II

Posted on by
Reply

We continue our book club meeting

Jon Meacham’s The Soul of America recalls times similar to our own as proof that our nation can rise above events and recurring trends to establish new levels of greatness.  One of the heroes of his narrative is a president we don’t think about very often.

Calvin Coolidge, a Republican who served 1923-29, is sometimes referred to as “Silent Cal” because he supposedly was a man of few words.  But he was a man of many words when he spoke to the national convention of the American Legion on October 6, 1925.  In an era when the Ku Klux Klan had been revived and when it had claimed just two years earlier to have 227 of its members in the House of Representatives, 27 in the Senate, and that President Harding had been sworn in as a member in the White House Dining Room (a claim dismissed by the following Coolidge administration as “too ridiculous to discuss”) Silent Cal was vociferous in his repudiation of the KKK and its “100% Americanism,” part of which appears in Meacham’s book. We are going to look at a longer excerpt today.

Whatever tends to standardize the community, to establish fixed and rigid modes of thought, tends to fossilize society. If we all believed the same thing and thought the same thoughts and applied the same valuations to all the occurrences about us, we should reach a state of equilibrium closely akin to an intellectual and spiritual paralysis. It is the ferment of ideas, the clash of disagreeing judgments, the privilege of the individual to develop his own thoughts and shape his own character, that makes progress possible. It is not possible to learn much from those who uniformly agree with us. But many useful things are learned from those who disagree with us; and even when we can gain nothing our differences are likely to do us no harm.

In this period of after war rigidity, suspicion, and intolerance our own country has not been exempt from unfortunate experiences…But among some of the varying racial, religious, and social groups of our people there have been manifestations of an intolerance of opinion, a narrowness to outlook, a fixity of judgment, against which we may well be warned. It is not easy to conceive of anything that would be more unfortunate in a community based upon the ideals of which Americans boast than any considerable development of intolerance as regards religion. To a great extent this country owes its beginnings to the determination of our hardy ancestors to maintain complete freedom in religion. Instead of a state church we have decreed that every citizen shall be free to follow the dictates of his own conscience as to his religious beliefs and affiliations. Under that guaranty we have erected a system which certainly is justified by its fruits. Under no other could we have dared to invite the peoples of all countries and creeds to come here and unite with us in creating the State of which we are all citizens.

But having invited them here, having accepted their great and varied contributions to the building of the Nation, it is for us to maintain in all good faith those liberal institutions and traditions which have been so productive of good.

The bringing together of all these different national, racial, religious, and cultural elements has made our country a kind of composite of the rest of the world, and we can render no greater service than by demonstrating the possibility of harmonious cooperation among so many various groups. Every one of them has something characteristic and significant of great value to cast into the common fund of our material, intellectual, and spiritual resources. The war brought a great test of our experiment in amalgamating these varied factors into a real Nation, with the ideals and aspirations of a united people. None was excepted from the obligation to serve when the hour of danger struck. The event proved that our theory had been sound. On a solid foundation of a national unity there had been erected a superstructure which in its varied parts had offered full opportunity to develop all the range of talents and genius that had gone into its making. Well-nigh all the races, religions, and nationalities of the world were represented in the armed forces of this Nation, as they were in the body of our population. No man’s patriotism was impugned or service questioned because of his racial origin, his political opinion, or his religious convictions. Immigrants and sons of immigrants from the central European countries fought side by side with those who descended from the countries which were our allies; with the sons of equatorial Africa; and with the Red men of our own aboriginal population, all of them equally proud of the name Americans.

We must not, in times of peace, permit ourselves to lose any part from this structure of patriotic unity. I make no plea for leniency toward those who are criminal or vicious, are open enemies of society and are not prepared to accept the true standards of our citizenship. By tolerance I do not mean indifference to evil. I mean respect for different kinds of good. Whether one traces his Americanisms back three centuries to the Mayflower, or three years to the steerage, is not half so important as whether his Americanism of today is real and genuine. No matter by what various crafts we came here, we are all now in the same boat. You men constituted the crew of our “Ship of State” during her passage through the roughest waters. You made up the watch and held the danger posts when the storm was fiercest. You brought her safely and triumphantly into port. Out of that experience you have learned the lessons of discipline, tolerance, respect for authority, and regard for the basic manhood of your neighbor. You bore aloft a standard of patriotic conduct and civic integrity, to which all could repair. Such a standard, with a like common appeal, must be upheld just as firmly and unitedly now in time of peace. Among citizens honestly devoted to the maintenance of that standard, there need be small concern about differences of individual opinion in other regards. Granting first the essentials of loyalty to our country and to our fundamental institutions, we may not only overlook, but we may encourage differences of opinion as to other things. For differences of this kind will certainly be elements of strength rather than of weakness. They will give variety to our tastes and interests. They will broaden our vision, strengthen our understanding, encourage the true humanities, and enrich our whole mode and conception of life. I recognize the full and complete necessity of 100 per cent Americanism, but 100 per cent Americanism may be made up of many various elements.

If we are to have that harmony and tranquillity, that union of spirit which is the foundation of real national genius and national progress, we must all realize that there are true Americans who did not happen to be born in our section of the country, who do not attend our place of religious worship, who are not of our racial stock, or who are not proficient in our language. If we are to create on this continent a free Republic and an enlightened civilization that will be capable of reflecting the true greatness and glory of mankind, it will be necessary to regard these differences as accidental and unessential. We shall have to look beyond the outward manifestations of race and creed. Divine Providence has not bestowed upon any race a monopoly of patriotism and character.

Meacham writes that after the speech, Rev. Henry Hugh Proctor of the First Congregational Church of Atlanta and a graduate of Fisk College (now a Historically Black College or University) called the speech “the bravest word spoken by any Executive in threescore years. It wounded like Lincoln.”