The Mysteries of History (March 1 Edition)
Salem Witch Trials; Articles of Confederation; Yellowstone; Lindbergh Baby; Peace Corps; Chicano School Walkout; U.S. Capitol Bombed
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” — Spanish-American philosopher George Santayana, 1905
1692 — Salem Witch Trials
image generated using Bing Image Creator on left; public domain image from wikimedia commons on right
It was on this date in 1692 that the first three residents of Salem in the Massachusetts Bay Colony were found guilty of witchcraft. The accusations of people being involved in witchcraft then spread throughout the community like a virus. Even children were tricked into saying they were involved, and some put on trial were found guilty because of the way the witnesses against them were acting (their odd behavior was thought to be somehow brought about by the accused).
Most of the accused were middle-aged women, but males and younger people were also accused, including a four-year-old child.
The hysteria began when two young girls, nine and 11 years old, cousins, experienced fits and “mysterious maladies.” A quack doctor diagnosed these symptoms as stemming from witchcraft. After that inauspicious beginning to the madness that would prevail, people were coerced to bear false witness against their neighbor until the “witch hunt” was on in earnest.
It was only after 19 people (mostly women, but some men, too) were executed by hanging or crushing that a cooler head, that of the Governor of Massachusetts, stepped in and put an end to the local kangaroo court.
Questions: What could have been the cause of the girls’ “fits” and “strange illnesses”? Are there any other possibilities besides witchcraft? What are some figurative “witch hunts” that have taken place in your lifetime (or further back in history) that you are aware of?
1781 — Articles of Confederation
public domain images from wikimedia commons
The Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776, but the Constitution was not adopted until 1788, and America had no President until the following year, 1789. So what happened in the meantime? Who ruled the Country, and what laws did the Nation agree on?
Before the Constitution was ratified, the Articles of Confederation comprised the body of laws the States agreed to abide by. The Articles had been submitted to the States four years earlier (after 16 months of wrangling over wording), but were only finally ratified on this date in 1781, five years after the Declaration of Independence. What took so long? Primarily, the bottleneck was an argument between Virginia and Maryland over land boundaries. Delaware and New Jersey had also been stick-in-the-muds, but it was Maryland’s representatives who whined the longest before giving in, after finally getting part of what they wanted from Virginia.
Questions: In what ways did the Constitution differ from the Articles of Confederation? Was the government more centralized when the Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation, or vice versa? Who had “the last say” (who was “the decider”) in the almost thirteen years between the Declaration of Independence and George Washington’s inauguration as the first President of the United States?
1872 — Yellowstone Becomes First National Park
public domain image from wikimedia commons on left; image generated using Bing Image Creator on right (“yellowstone in the style of Thomas Moran”)
Seeing is believing. Mountain men had told of the splendor of Yellowstone, but some were inclined to consider their descriptions to be fanciful exaggerators or even outright lies. But when photographer William Jackson and landscape artist Thomas Moran made a trek there and recorded their impressions visually, Congress took notice.
On this day in 1872, President U.S. Grant signed the necessary paperwork to set aside the natural wonderland to be preserved in its pristine state (as much as practical while still making it accessible to visitors).
Questions: Have you been to Yellowstone? In which State or States is it situated? What is your favorite National Park? State Park? Local park? Have you read John Steinbeck’s account about his French Poodle’s surprising reaction to seeing a Grizzly Bear in Yellowstone in his travelogue “Travels with Charley”)?
1932 — Lindbergh Baby Kidnapped
public domain images from wikimedia commons
The following is what I wrote about it almost twenty years ago, in my book “Still Casting Shadows: A Shared Mosaic of U.S. History — Volume 2: 1914-2006”:
It has been said that “It’s lonely at the top.” Fame can exact a heavy toll. Sometimes the price paid is not worth the accolades and the material amenities. Charles Lindbergh and his wife learned this vicious lesson the hardest way imaginable. “Lucky Lindy” had been at the top of the world since 1927, when he made the first solo Transatlantic flight. This year, though, the lives of Charles and Anne Morrow Lindbergh were shattered. Their baby was kidnapped and killed. Although asserting his innocence to the end, Bruno Hauptmann, a German immigrant arrested six months after the misdeed, was eventually convicted of the crime and executed. The Hearst newspaper syndicate, known for its yellow journalism, knew a sensational story when they saw one. They first persuaded Bruno’s wife to fire their original lawyer, who was convinced of Hauptmann’s innocence, and paid for a replacement lawyer, who was an incompetent alcoholic. A nice gesture on the part of the newspaper? Hardly. With their man in place, they were assured exclusive scoops to sell papers. An apparent snow job suppressed evidence of Hauptmann’s guiltlessness in the matter, while “proof” against him was manufactured and bought. There is probably nobody alive today who can say for a certainty whether Bruno Hauptmann was guilty or innocent. But whether Hauptmann was the guilty party or not, the text of a ransom note the Lindberghs had received—purportedly from Hauptmann—raises some questions. The diction and spelling used in the letter seem almost like a parody of an evil and rather dull-witted German. Here is the letter:
Dear Sir. We have warned you note to make anyding public also notify the police now you have to take consequences—means we will have to holt the baby until everyding is quite. We can note make any appointment just now. We know very well what it means to us. It is (is it) realy necessary to make a world affair out of this, or to get your baby back as soon as possible to settle those affair in a quick way will be better for both—don’t by afraid about the baby—keeping care of us day and night. We also will feed him according to the diet. We are interested to send him back in gut health. And ransom was made aus for 50000 $ but now we have to take another person to it and probably have to keep the baby for a longer time as we expected. So the amount will be 70000 20000 in 50 $ bills 25000 $ in 20$ bill 150000 $ in 10$ bills and 10000 in 5$ bills Don’t mark any bills or take them from one serial nomer. We will form you latter were to deliver the money. But we will note do so until the Police is out of the cace and the pappers are qute. The kidnapping we prepared in years so we are prepared for everyding.
Rather than appearing genuine, this reads more like a letter written by someone who knows a little German and wants the reader to think he is a native German speaker having difficulty writing in English. For example, the letter writer uses “anyding” for “anything” (phonetic spelling of approximately how the word would be pronounced by a German; “gut” for good, which is the German equivalent; and “made aus” for “made out” (“aus” is German for “out”). This all seems reasonable enough, but anyone knowing even just a smidgen of German would be able to come up with these type of affectations. On the other hand, some of the other words used are suspect. As an example, the use of “nomer” instead of number or the corresponding German word Nummer. Why would the writer of the letter use such a construct? The German word is pronounced “NEW mer,” and so you would think if he were to misspell the English word “number,” it would be as “numer,” not “nomer.”
Note also the word “note,” used for “not.” This too is odd, because the German language, which is very consistent and precise in pronunciation, does not normally add silent letters to the end of words. The word “note” would be pronounced “NOTE-uh” in German. Why would a genuine German spell it that way? It doesn’t seem to hold water. And then there’s the case of the word “case” spelled “cace.” The letter “c” is not used in German to reproduce an “s” sound, as it often is in English. The only possible exception to this is when it is used between the letters “s” and “h,” such as in surnames such as “Schmidt.” The letter “K” is always used for a “hard c” sound, and “s” is always used for a “soft c” sound. So it seems bizarre that a German would spell case “cace”; “kase” would be a much more likely misspelling. Also, the spelling of the word “papers” as “pappers” doesn’t correspond with German spelling or pronunciation. “Pappers” would be pronounced “poppers” in German; a phonetic spelling of “papers” would be spelled “pepers” or perhaps “pehpers,” but certainly not “pappers.” A similar argument could be made for spelling “later” as “latter.” Another (intentional?) misspelling which seems fishy is “quite” and “qute” for “quiet.” Again, it seems strange that a German would add a silent letter (“e”) to a word. It would be more likely that he would use the German word “still” (meaning “silent”), which has a similar meaning in English and could have been used in conversation with an American without causing undue confusion—in other words, using “still” for “quiet” would probably simply sound to an American like slightly odd diction, but would have nevertheless been understood by them. The last sentence of the letter is especially interesting. It reads, “The kidnapping we prepared in years…” The German equivalent of what would really have probably been written to convey this meaning would have been “auf Jahre,” which literally translates as “on years,” not “in years.” Strangest of all, the part about the letter that simply does not “ring true,” is that the sentence structure is that of a native speaker of English. If Hauptmann really struggled with the English language as much as the diction and spelling would lead us to believe, why was the sentence structure he used so English-like, and un-German-like? Nevertheless, all that having been said, there are two elements of the letter which do seem “genuine”—they are either that, or display a “job well done” on the part of the forger of the letter: First, the use of the word “also,” which is a “false friend” between the German and English languages (a “false friend” is a word used in two languages—and pronounced similarly or the same—but which has different meanings). In German, “also” means “thus” or “therefore.” In the letter’s first sentence, it states “We have warned you note to make anyding public also notify the police now you have to take consequences…” This could be understood with the meaning of the English word “also,” but makes more sense considering the German meaning. A very clever forgery, or an indication that it really was someone who knew German well who penned the missive? Also arguing for genuineness is the phrase at the end of the letter, where it states that they will feed the baby “according to the diet.” This sounds clumsy in English, but natural in its German equivalent. A German would say in this instance “nach dem Speiseplan” which, literally translated, is “according to the diet.” Based on the contents of the letter alone (disregarding any other evidences establishing guilt or innocence), I can only say that while I don’t know who kidnapped and killed the Lindbergh baby—or why—I am not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that it was Bruno Hauptmann.
Questions: Do you think “they” got the right man? If not, what is your theory? Why is Charles Lindbergh no longer considered to be the hero he once was to the American people?
1961 — Peace Corps Established
public domain image from wikimedia commons
President John F. Kennedy created the Peace Corps on this day in 1961 by issuing an executive order. The idea wasn’t original with him, though: the Peace Corps was based on the Point Four Youth Corps, an organization that was the brain child of a Wisconsin politician, Henry Reuss.
Kennedy narrowly defeated Richard “Tricky Dick” Nixon in the 1961 Presidential race. His proposal of the popular Peace Corps may have been the tipping point that propelled him past Nixon.
In his inaugural address, Kennedy alluded to the Peace Corps and uttered what was probably his most famous phrase (albeit based on a borrowed idea) when he said, “To those peoples in the huts and villages of half the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required—not because the communists may be doing it, not because we seek their votes, but because it is right. … ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.”
The Peace Corps is still active (as of today, anyway), with volunteers serving in dozens of countries.
Questions: Do you know anybody who has served in the Peace Corps? If so, where did they serve? What did they do? Would you like to serve in the Peace Corps? Where? Doing what?
1968 — Chicano School Walkouts in East L.A.
public domain image from wikimedia commons
During the first week of March, 1968, twenty-two thousand Chicano students walked out of schools in East L.A., not because they were bored with education, but to protest the poor conditions in their schools: Class sizes were larger than average due to a dearth of teachers, and the money spent on their education was less than in schools whose demographics skewed white.
In one case, when a walkout was called for at Garfield High School, school administrators attempted to prevent the students from leaving, and police arrived outside in riot gear to keep them inside.
The organizers of the walkouts (or “blowouts” as some called them) demanded, among other things, curriculum changes and the desegregation of Los Angeles schools. The L.A. Board of Education agreed to these demands, but apparently didn’t think it through (or so they tried to imply), for they failed to implement the changes, making the excuse that they lacked the funds to do so.
Questions: If somebody had agreed to do something for the members of the Board of Education, but later backed out, saying they couldn’t afford to keep their promise, do you think the Board members would have accepted that as a reason for trying to wiggle out of their commitment? Did the protesters ultimately get what they wanted from the Board of Education?
1971 — U.S. Capitol Bombed
public domain images from wikimedia commons
The anti-imperialist, anti-racist Weather Underground, aka Weathermen, was a radical group active from the late 1960s to the late 1970s. They protested against government policies they considered to be unjust. Their violent M.O. involved arsons and bombings. Although destructive, nobody was killed as a result of these forms of protest, because the group always warned people far enough in advance for them to get away safely.
Note that not all Weathermen were men, by any means; One woman who was a member, Naomi Jaffe (pictured above right on her FBI wanted poster), explained the Weathermen’s philosophy this way: “We felt that doing nothing in a period of repressive violence is itself a form of violence. That’s really the part that I think is the hardest for people to understand. If you sit in your house, live your white life and go to your white job, and allow the country that you live in to murder people and to commit genocide, and you sit there and you don't do anything about it, that’s violence.”
On this date in 1971, the Weather Underground bombed the U.S. Capitol, an act that caused much structural and monetary damage but, as usual, no human casualties. The government action that prompted the bombing of the Capitol was its massive bombing of Laos in connection with the Vietnam War.
Ironically, perhaps, the only people killed by Weather Underground bombs were three Weathermen themselves (two men and one woman), who lost their lives in a blast while they were constructing bombs in Greenwich Village in early March of 1970. One of the two survivors of the blast was Kathy Boudin, who is also pictured above (her given name is misspelled in the wanted poster).
Questions: From which Bob Dylan song did the Weathermen take their name? Did Dylan ever have a public reaction to his lyrics being appropriated by this radical organization? How many members of the organization served time in prison? How many, if any, died in prison? Did any of them ever express regrets over their “youthful indiscretions”? Are any of the former members still alive? What did they do with their lives following the disbanding of the group?
