‘Bridge to nowhere’ dead — so build the bridge!

By Joel Thurtell

Matty Moroun’s “bridge to nowhere” is gone.

The state of Michigan tore down Pier 19, the tangible sign of Matty’s “plan” to build a new privately-owned “twin” to his antique international bridge across the Detroit River.

Now, Matty wants voters in November to tell Gov. Snyder the state and Canada and private investors can’t built a public bridge to replace Matty’s monopoly span, the Ambassador Bridge.

What is the connection between the demise of Pier 19 and Matty’s ballot proposal?

Well, when was the last time you heard Matty talk about “twinning” his antediluvian Ambassador Bridge?

Matty’s “plan” to build a replacement for the aging Ambassador never was more than a puff of smoke.

Pier 19 was a bluff, matched by an equivalent piece of concrete propaganda on the Canadian side, where another set of supports ends abruptly because Matty lacked permission from Canada to complete this literal bridge to pointlessness.

On the US side, the city of Detroit owns the land Matty needed to complete his new bridge in Detroit. He tried to swipe the property after 9/11.

He got away with it, too.

Until somebody blew the whistle on his scam.

Matty needed Riverside Park if he was going to build his bridge. He stole part of the park in 2001. He built a fence around public park property, hung out his “Homeland Security” signs and was on track to bluff his bridge across the river. He had the felon mayor, Kwame Kilpatrick, in his pocket. For seven years, nobody said a word.

Except, of course, for those pesky Canadians.

They just don’t seem to read Matty’s script, do they?

And this blog.

So what, then was the “twin”?

Nothing more than a card in the deck Matty had rigged?

Or was there a time when he might have bullied that bridge into reality?

Now, the state has razed Pier 19.

End of charade.

Matty can’t bluster about his twin.

So now he’s floating another brazen idea: Enlist the people to do his dirty work.

Bluff voters into upholding his family’s monopoly over traffic between the US and Canada at Detroit.

Dupe voters into rejecting the public bridge.

Wow! Wouldn’t that fix the uppity governor who tangled with a billionaire?

If the voters back Matty, he’d be sitting pretty atop his monopoly.

No new bridge of any kind.

What does he care?

Old bridge or new, he rakes in the cash.

What can he lose? He’s a billionaire. He can afford to buy the ballots of Michigan voters just as he bought the votes — or non-votes — of Michigan legislators.

Just as the “twin” was flim-flam, so is Matty’s threat of a referendum. First, how’s he gonna get 300,000 people to sign petitions? By now, many people know him for the rich faker that he is.

What’s he gonna do — pay people to sign?

At ten bucks a signature, the cost would be three million smackers — a bargain for a billionaire.

Matty knows buying votes is illegal.

Whereas, pumping millions into lying advertisements is perfectly legal.

But frankly, the ballot proposal is just another piece of Moroun legerdemain.

It’s no more real than Pier 19. Matty is scamming.

Playing head games.

He must be desperate. For most of the first decade of this century, he had it all his way. His squatting on Riverside Park — the location for the US end of his bridge of dreams — had gone unremarked by media and thus by the public.

Now, he’s very much in the public eye. His only hope is to pervert public perceptions.

Matty needs to fool the public — and especially the media — into believing that voters’ disapproval of a public bridge in November would be the last word. “No” means no.

The reality is that “no” in a referendum does not mean “no” to a public bridge.

Whether it’s “yes” or “no,” it gives Matty something to sue about and keep courts and journalists blathering about for years.

Every day, week, month and year of monopoly survival he can generate for his antiquated bridge is another day, week, month and year of tolls he rakes in from a poorly-maintained, overworked bridge that should have been replaced years ago.

The reality, though, is all in perception.

Just as Gov. Snyder doesn’t need the Legislature to approve a new bridge, so there is no need to wait for the outcome of a ballot proposal that may never occur.

The deadline for ballot petitions is July 7.

According to my JOTR Weatherscope, July 7 will be a fine day to break ground for the New International Trade Crossing.

By November, the governor would have his own version of Pier 19 to show voters.

Unlike Matty, Canadians would be hard at work on their side of the bridge.

The outcome of Matty’s vote?

Irrelevant.

 

 

 

 

Posted in Me & Matty | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Newspaper Red Squads — again

By Joel Thurtell

Scary news coming from reporters. Newspaper publishers — you know who you are! — are actively searching through journalists’ social media accounts in search of comments critical of news bosses and expressions of political opinion.

Sorry to say, lots of journalists are cowed by this cowardly management behavior.

But they should not be scared by the bosses’ snooping.

What the bosses are doing is illegal. It violates Michigan’s Bullard-Plawecki Employee Right to Know Act.

I’ve written about this before.

I called it the “Red Squad” mentality of some news managers.

Here is a June 6, 2008 blog column I wrote in 2008, around the time an arbitrator told bosses at the Detroit Free Press they were wrong to forbid employees donating money to political parties.

That ruling came after The Newspaper Guild defended my $500 donation to Michigan Democrats in 2004.

By Joel Thurtell

Who ever heard of newspapers running red squads?

Sound crazy?

Well, in their effort to impose behavioral conformity on newsroom workers through loosely-thought-out rules known as “ethical guidelines,” news managers have actually been doing the same kind of political surveillance that once was the domain of police agencies.

I’ve had experience with both kinds of repression, and in my case, the private form of enforced political behaviorism was the most onerous. I didn’t know till years later that I was under a haphazard form of state police surveillance, but I found out very fast that my politics were being watched when my newspaper editors got wind that I donated money to a political cause.

A little background: Sometime around 1970, when I was a history grad student at the University of Michigan, a friend invited me to a meeting of the International Socialists in Ann Arbor. I remember little of the meeting except that the discussion was boring, but the chicken curry was great.

It turns out something else was going on at that meeting besides curry chicken and a soporific lecture by a Yugoslavian economist. Somebody was jotting down names. Including mine. I never joined the International Socialists, but a list of IS members dated July 7, 1970, had my name on it. The list made its way from the International Socialists to the files of the Ann Arbor Police Department. From there it migrated to the Michigan State Police Intelligence Division in Lansing. This outfit was better known as the state police red squad. I later learned from a former state police red squad detective that the state police hired informants to infiltrate political groups in Ann Arbor. I suspect a paid informant passed that membership roster to the cops.Years later, people sued and a court ordered the dismantling of local and state police red squads. As part of the dismemberment of the state police bureau, notorious for keeping tabs on the Boy Scouts, churches and law-abiding citizens including onetime Gov. John Swainson, the files were distributed to those whose names and alleged political affiliations were in it. I have copies of the two pages that were my state police red squad file.

But government police agencies aren’t the only organizations that keep tabs on people’s politics. Big surprise: Companies do it, too.

For the second time, I found myself the subject of a red squad operation. It happened last year when I ran afoul of a custom-made Detroit Free Press ethics policy banning staffers from donating money to political parties. Custom-made for me, a reporter for the Gannett-owned Free Press at the time.

This time it wasn’t the International Socialist party I was accused of belonging to. I was in trouble for giving money to one of the two mainstream political parties, in my case five hundred smackers to the Michigan Democrats in 2004. My contribution was no secret. It’s on the Michigan Secretary of State website. Nothing happened in 2004. Nothing happened in 2005. Nothing happened in 2006. But after an MSNBC report mentioned my contribution and those of other journalists in June 2007, a top Free Press editor warned me if I made further political donations, I would be disciplined and possibly fired.

Like latter-day red squad dicks, editors made a record of their finding and of our email correspondence and placed it in my personnel file. Now, I believe I have a constitutional right to eat chicken curry with the International Socialists if I want to, and it’s none of the government’s business. I also believe I have a right to support political causes, including the Democrats, and it’s none of the Free Press’s business. I told the MSNBC reporter that my donation didn’t violate the Free Press ethics guidelines of 2004 back when I wrote the check to the Dems. Nor did it violate the Free Press/Newspaper Guild’s contract, which has a professional integrity section. “Whatever the Free Press policy is, I actually have my own policy about that,” I said. I’m a citizen of the United States. I have a right to support whatever candidate I like.”

With help from Detroit Local 22 of The Newspaper Guild, I challenged the Free Press on their ban of political donations. An arbitrator last month set aside the Free Press prohibition, declaring it “null and void.” That means staffers at the Free Press can make donations to any legal activity or organization they like.

I have since learned that what the Free Press did was illegal. Editors made and kept a file on my political activity. That”s a violation of Michigan’s Bullard Plawecki Employee Right to Know Act. The language of the Act is broad and covers more than just politics. It forbids employers from collecting and keeping records of workers’ associations, publications or activities that take place outside work. It covers all employers, both government and private, and it applies to all kinds of work, not just journalism.

Here’s what Section 8 of the Employee Right to Know Act says:

(1) an employer shall not gather or keep a record of an employee’s association, political activities, publications, or communications of non-employment activities, except if the information is submitted in writing by or authorized to be kept or gathered, in writing, by the employee to the employer. This prohibition on records shall not apply to the activities that occur on the employer’s premises or during the employee’s working hours with that employer that interfere with the performance of the employee’s duties or duties of other employees.

In Michigan, according to this statute, no employer may monitor or keep records of workers’ extracurricular activities of virtually any kind, including political activities. In my case, there is no question that a record of my donation to the Democrats was made. Placing that printout regarding my political donation into my personnel file violated the Bullard Plawecki law. There is a remedy.

According to Section 11 of Bullard Plawecki:

If an employer violates this act, an employee may commence an action in the circuit court to compel compliance with this act. The circuit court for the county in which the complainant resides, the circuit court for the county in which the complainant is employed, or the circuit court for the county in which the personnel record is maintained shall have jurisdiction to issue the order. Failure to comply with an order of the court may be punished as contempt. In addition, the court shall award an employee prevailing in an action pursuant to this act, the following damages:

(1) For a violation of this act, actual damages plus costs.

(2) For a willful and knowing violation of this act, $200.00 plus costs, reasonable attorney’s fees, and actual damages.

Journalists should take note of two things. First, the arbitrator in my political donation case ordered the Free Press to scrap a rule banning political donations. That ruling is a precedent that can be used in similar labor contract cases nationwide, and it provides guidance in non-contract cases. It’s also a powerful jab at news organizations’ efforts to regulate non-work-related behavior of staffers.

Secondly, in Michigan, any news organization — indeed any employer — with or without a labor contract that tries to ban political activity could be in violation of state law if it tried to enforce its policy. It could be subject to court sanctions if it monitors, tracks and records employees’ outside political activities.

The Bullard Plawecki law is a shield not only for journalists, but for all workers with opinions and a will to act politically.

Contact me at joelthurtell(at)gmail.com

Posted in Arbitration, Joel's J School | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Tail bites man

Peppermint Patti

Peppermint Patti

Die Welt is alles, was der Schwanz ist.

— Ludwig Wittgenhund, Tractatus Dogico-Philosophicus

By Peppermint Patti

Do two-leggers ever think, Sophie, about what they’re saying?

I mean, engage gray matter before opening yap!

What does that mean, “the tail wagging the dog”?

So typical two-legger.

Two-legger-think.

I could write a book!

Absurd.

Do two-leggers ever — EVER!! — try to think like a dog?

Tail wagging the dog, indeed!

Almost as bad as “man bites dog”!

But let’s not get ahead of ourselves.

The idea of a tail wagging a dog — ludicrous.

Does a tail think?

Does a tail have will?

Volition?

Does a tail know right from wrong?

If you put in front of a tail —

Well, there you see how dimwitted the very concept is. Who would think of putting something BEFORE a tail?

The only way to approach a tail is AFTER the thing.

As I was about to say, if you put AFTER — by which I mean BEHIND — a tail, say, a bush-tail (aka a squirrel) and a floater (aka a bird), would the tail know the difference?

All tails are the same to a tail.

A tail is without meaning unless attached to its owner, whether it be a dog, a groaner (by which I mean the anathema two-leggers spell C-A-T) or a floater, as defined super.

Understood properly, it is philosophical hokum to speak of tails wagging dogs.

A tail is not an independent actor. It cannot think. It cannot feel. It cannot make a logical or even illogical choice.

Transitive verbs are out when it comes to tails.

Tails do not DO a thing.

Without, that is, permission of their owner.

My tail is a very active tail, but only when I will it so.

In a future conversation, Sophie, I’ll tell you what I think about “man bites dog.”

Right now, I wanted to make clear that our tails belong to us, the dogs, and no two-legger, no matter how smart she thinks she is — can wag our tails without a say-so from the dog.

 

 

 

Posted in Peppermint Patti | Tagged | 1 Comment

Riverside Park contaminated, Matty says

By Joel Thurtell

For eleven years, Matty Moroun has squatted on Detroit’s Riverside Park.

Hoping to keep his illegal fence up a bit longer, as in forever, Matty’s now claiming the park is contaminated.

There is a public information meeting about the Riverside contamination issue today, March 21, 2012 at 5:30 p.m. in the Patton Recreation Center, 2301 Woodmere, according to Southwest Detroit community organizer Rashid.

“This isn’t a ruse to give or sell the park to DIBC,” according to Naomi Patton, spokesman for Detroit Mayor Dave Bing. DIBC is the Detroit International Bridge Company, which runs the Ambassador Bridge and belongs to Manuel “Matty” Moroun.

“DIBC made the contamination claim and the city began its investigation,” said Patton.

The city has applied for $550,000 in federal grants to assess possible contamination and do a cleanup, according to a February 7, 2012 letter to Mayor Bing from Ronald Smedley, brownfield redevelopment coordinator for the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality.

According to Smedley, the city is eligible for the U.S> Environmental Protection Agency grant.

By my reckoning, that’s $550,000 in federal taxpayer money being blown because a billionaire wants to own the park.

In late 2008, after reports on this blog that Matty had hijacked parts of Riverside Park and padlocked its public boat ramp, the city sued Matty to get its park back. Four years later, Matty’s still trying to keep a foothold in the park.

Why would Matty want to own a public park?

The park is located right square where Matty wants to build a new bridge between the US and Canada. Without the park, Matty’s so-called “twin” bridge is dead before it gets to teh water.

State environmental officials are investigating, said patton.

The city, she said, is “getting a brownfield grant to study cleanup.”

“They are shutting down Riverside Park due to contamination,” said Rashid. “Apparently the Michcon lines have leached the soil on the entire property.”

 

 

Posted in Me & Matty | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

We’re back!!!

By Joel Thurtell

What a relief!

Thought I was a goner.

Son Adam and pals Potsy and Freddie labored to breathe life into the old database.

For a while, I thought I’d lost my entire site.

Hundreds of blog columns, kaput!

Well, we’re back in business.

Stand by for more on everything from Matty the Mo to my history experiment.

Peppermint Patti is happy — she gets her old column back.

Luke Warm is heating up his sardonity.

Pete Pizzicato may finally get a byline.

Melanie Munch has recipes, if we dare.

We’re back!

Posted in Beginnings, Joel's J School | Tagged | Leave a comment

‘Confusion’ about War of 1812

By Joel Thurtell

“There’s lots of confusion about the War of 1812.”

And a recent book review in domemagazine.com complaining about the “confusion” further muddies the water.

Several distortions or misstatements in the review raised my hackles, and I’ll write about them later.

But there’s a lie that needs immediate correction.

According to reviewer Bill Castanier, “Don’t give up the ship!” was the rallying cry of a US Navy captain who, according to the reviewer, lost his ship, but won the battle.

I hope the book being reviewed isn’t the source for the reviewer’s nonsense. It’s Alec Gilpin’s The War of 1812 in the Old Northwest, a 1957 book re-published recently by Michigan State University Press. I don’t have a copy of the book, so can’t be sure.

But the falsehood is stated clearly in the review, which begins by referring to Oliver Hazard Perry’s victory on Lake Erie in which Perry left one ship to command another and beat the British at Put-In-Bay.

Here is what the reviewer wrote:

Another slogan emanating from a War of 1812 naval battle and often mistakenly attributed to Perry is “Don’t Give Up the Ship,” which was actually spoken by a U.S. naval commander in Boston Harbor – after he gave up the ship to the British but ultimately won the battle. In Lake Erie, Perry’s battle flag carried that slogan, and he carried on the tradition of winning after giving up the ship.

Flat-out wrong.

First, the battle took place at sea, not in Boston Harbor. Second, if this battle initiated a tradition, it was that US ships would thereafter NOT get themselves into one-on-one battles for glory with no strategic value.

The man who uttered that famous cry — “Don’t give up the ship!” was Captain James Lawrence, commanding the USS Chesapeake. The Chesapeake was an American frigate that engaged a Royal Navy frigate in violation of his orders to destroy British shipping bound for Quebec.

Lawrence lost his ship all right, but far from winning the battle, he died as a result of his folly.

In hopes of gaining the kind of glory his compatriot US Navy skippers and he himself earlier got when they battled British frigates and won their mano a mano fights, Lawrence accepted the challenge posed by a single British frigate looking for a fight as Lawrence and the Chesapeake departed Boston Harbor. The British captain was Sir Philip Broke of the HMS Shannon.

The ships were pretty evenly matched, though the Chesapeake had advantages. She had just been refitted, whereas the Shannon had been on blockade duty for several months. The Chesapeake could shoot 1,134 pounds of shot. The Shannon could get off 1,094 pounds. The Chesapeake had a crew of 379, the Shannon had 330. However, the Shannon’s crew had been trained at gunnery under a seasoned and capable captain. Many of the Chesapeake’s crew were unhappy that they hadn’t been paid; Lawrence had a core of trained men along with new recruits. The veterans had disliked the previous commander; Lawrence was a new skipper and this was to be his first sortie in the Chesapeake.

Lawrence’s orders were clear: President James Madison worried that the British were building up troops in Canada and directed Lawrence to concentrate on disrupting British shipping to Quebec.

Instead, Lawrence chose to fight it out with the Shannon. Even if he’d won, the damage that resulted from such battles would have sent the Chesapeake back to Boston harbor for repairs and would have delayed the ship’s deployment for the President’s avowed purpose of distressing British shipping.

The Chesapeake had an advantage in the beginning when the Shannon exposed her stern to what could have been a devastating raking fire from the Chesapeake. Lawrence  declined to fire across the Shannon’s stern, either out of misconceived chivalry or stupidity. Lawrence instead lined his ship up with the Shannon for a broadside-to-broadside slug-fest.

The Shannon won the duel. In addition to bad judgment in declining an opportunity to rake the Shannon astern, Lawrence and the Chesapeake suffered from the Shannon’s gunnery. The Chesapeake lost control, first of her head sails and then of her rudder. She smashed into the Shannon. A British sharpshooter fired a bullet into Lawrence, whose words before dying were, “Don’t give up the ship!”

The Chesapeake’s next-in-command officer didn’t know he was the skipper. The crew became demoralized.

The British boarded the Chesapeake, which they captured and sailed to Halifax, Nova Scotia.

President Madison was angry at Lawrence for wagering and losing one of the Navy’s few warships in a duel, instead of following his orders to inflict shipping damage on the British.

As a result of Lawrence’s tragic bravado, the Navy secretary issued an order forbidding US vessels from engaging in one-on-one battles with the enemy.

If you want to read more about the Chesapeake-Shannon battle and this greatly misunderstood war, I recommend 1812: The Navy’s War, by George C. Daughan, Basic Books, New York, 2011.

Another good book about the naval war of 1812 is C.S. Forester’s The Age of Fighting Sail, Doubleday, New York, 1956.

 

 

 

 

Posted in Adventures in history | Leave a comment

Tomatoes & Eggs II: Erasing slavery on Big Isle

Grosse Ile historians chose not to use photos of slave inventory; one of the slaves mentioned, Charlotte, worked on Grosse Ile. Burton Historical Collection.

By Joel Thurtell

During the long-ago historical period when I was a grad student in history, my faculty adviser warned me that contemporary history can be a time of troubles for historians. Too many living parties with stakes in yet-to-be-played out stories.

The idea was that distant times are less likely to get historians in hot water.

Well, the 18th century was not far enough back for the custodians of the past in Grosse Ile, Michigan.

There was outrage in the Depot Museum when the Detroit Free Press published my review of Grosse Ile’s history book.

I received some unhappy emails, including one that proposed special treatment:

“I think we need to keep a basket of tomatoes and rotten eggs on hand for the next time he comes in!”

Here’s the review that ticked off the island historians, published with permission of the Detroit Free Press:

Names of 26 people — slaves owned by William Macomb in Detroit. Burton Historical Collection, Joel Thurtell photo.

Headline: PART OF THE STORY ISN’T BEING TOLD

Sub-Head: BOOK ON GROSSE ILE DOESN’T MENTION HISTORY OF SLAVERY

Byline:  BY JOEL THURTELL

Pub-Date: 9/2/2007

Memo:  DOWNRIVER; SIDEBAR ATTACHED

Correction:

Text: I recently received a copy of the Grosse Ile Historical

Society’s new photographic history, “Grosse Ile.”

I’m sure the book will be very interesting to islanders. The society

unearthed many photos that have never been published or displayed. A

teenage boy around the turn of the 20th Century took dozens of photos,

some of which are in the book  that was published on Aug. 20.

Wiliam Macomb signature on letter about slave sale. Burton Historical Collection, Joel Thurtell photo.

There are nine chapters spanning the earliest history of the big

island through the days of the Naval Air Station. But one chapter is

missing: It’s the one about slavery on Grosse Ile.

It’s amazing to me that there could be an entire chapter on the Macomb

family, whose ancestors bought the island from Indians on July 6,

1776, and not one mention of slavery. If you’re going to mention the

Macombs, you have to mention slavery. Slavery was an integral part of

the business and family life of the Macombs who first settled Grosse

Ile.

Earlier this year, after conversations with researchers for the book –

done by Arcadia Publishing of Charleston, S.C. – I assumed the book

would take on this sensitive subject. I was impressed. It’s the sort

of thing many people would consider a black mark in their community’s

history, yet it appeared that the Grosse Ile historians were going to

come to honest terms with their past.

I asked the book’s editor, Sarah Lawrence, if the book dealt with

slavery. “No,” she said, “You know, from all we could find out, there

just wasn’t anything to get into. There are a few rumors of tunnels

that may have been there, and slaves may have been given refuge before

they were able to move them over to Canada.”

There’s a bit more to it than that. William and Alexander Macomb were

the largest island landowners in the 18th Century. William lived in

Detroit during the winter and lived on the island in a “mansion house”

in the summer. The big house was run by a woman named Charlotte.

Charlotte was a slave. How do I know this?  Isabella Swan wrote about

it in her history of Grosse Ile, “The Deep Roots.”

According to Swan, “Charlotte had been with the Macombs as early as

1788.” In the early 1790s, Charlotte was in charge of the Macomb house

on Grosse Ile, according to Swan. She may have been boss in the house,

but she was still property. When William Macomb died in 1796,

Charlotte was listed with her husband, Jerry, and 24 other human

beings in an “Estimation of the Slaves of the late William Macomb”

along with livestock, tools and furniture as objects to be sold.

You can see the inventory of Macomb property at the Detroit Public

Library’s Burton Historical Collection. Alongside their names were

estimates of their value in New York  currency. Swan mentioned other

instances of slavery on Grosse Ile. I photographed parts of the

documents that mention slaves for a story about slavery on Grosse Ile

that ran in the Free Press  Jan. 21.

I thought the historical society was going to acknowledge that Grosse

Ile played a role in slavery. It was an opportunity to be forthright,

a chance to honestly confront an unsavory part of our past.

I talked to Denise deBeausset for that January 2007 story. She’s a

descendant of William Macomb and still lives on the island. “No, I

wasn’t aware of them having slaves at all,” she said. “Nobody ever

talks about it on our side. I wonder if it was out of embarrassment or

if it wasn’t politically correct. Nobody ever talks about slaves.”

They’re still not talking about them. Is it embarrassment? Or just

not politically correct?

Caption:

Illustration:

Edition: METRO FINAL

Section:  CFP; COMMUNITY FREE PRESS

Page: 3CV

Keywords: history

Disclaimer:  THIS ELECTRONIC VERSION MAY DIFFER SLIGHTLY FROM THE

PRINTED VERSION

Posted in Adventures in history | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Tomatoes & Eggs, Part I: Slaves on Grosse Ile

Inventory of slaves in Detroit, Michigan. Joel Thurtell photo of record in Burton Historical Collection, Detroit Public Library

By Joel Thurtell

Just as I predicted in a January 2007 Detroit Free Press story, Grosse Ile’s historians changed history.

But not the way I expected.

Early in 2007 (I retired from my Free Press reporting job the following November), the people who manage historical perceptions on the Big Island led me to believe that they were going to include the slavery aspect of their community’s past in a book they were preparing about Grosse Ile history.

Instead of publishing the facts, they chose to censor.

In Part II of my series, “Tomatoes & Eggs,” I’ll reproduce my review of the Grosse Ile Historical Society’s book.

And I’ll explain “Tomatoes & Eggs.”

With permission from the Detroit Free Press, here is the first installment of a series about local control of history.

After William Macomb’s death in 1796, an inventory was made of his property, including 26 human beings who were slaves in Detroit. Values in New York currency at right. Photo by Joel Thurtell with permission of Burton Historical Collection.

Headline: HISTORY TELLS TALE OF SLAVES ON GROSSE ILE

Sub-Head: BUT MANY DETAILS ARE STILL A MYSTERY

Byline:  BY JOEL THURTELL FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER

Pub-Date: 1/21/2007

Memo:  DOWNRIVER

Correction:

Text: On Grosse Ile, they’re changing history.

Or at least they’re changing the way it’s written.

They plan to mention that black and American Indian slaves once lived

on the island.

William Macomb’s signature on letter about sale of two of his slaves. Photo by Joel Thurtell with permission of Burton Historical Collection.

Sarah Lawrence and Ann Bevak are working on the Grosse Ile Historical

Society book, and this information wasn’t on their radar.

Now it is.

Lawrence is editing the book, and Bevak is working on the early

history chapter.

Once I shared the results of my research with Bevak, she grasped the

possibilities, like reproducing the 1796 price list of slaves.

“It’s the kind of thing people will latch onto,” she said.

They aren’t the only Grosse Ile folks who are only now hearing about

this, even though human chattels were a part of daily life on Grosse

Ile for sure before 1796, and maybe later. That’s the year Britain

turned Michigan over to the fledgling United States. It’s also when

the largest holder of slaves in Michigan died.

After the death of William Macomb, his heirs itemized all  his

property – cows and horses, copper fish kettles, a beehive, a pair of

saddlebags and 26 slaves.

Twenty years earlier, William Macomb and his brother, Alexander

Macomb, bought Grosse Ile from Indians. I wrote about the Macomb

(pronounced Macoom) brothers a couple of years ago and got an e-mail

from Bill McGraw, a fellow Free Press reporter, who wondered if I knew

that William Macomb had been a slave-owner.

I didn’t.

At that point, McGraw contended that historians have written little or

nothing about this aspect of Michigan history.

Seems he’s right.

The Macomb brothers have descendants on Grosse Ile, and they didn’t

know about it. The brothers were the

great-great-great-great-grandfathers of Connie de Beausset. (Two of

the brothers’ children, who were first cousins, married and de

Beausset is their descendant.)  Her family owns the oldest working

farm in Michigan to stay in one family;  the farm specializes in

azaleas and rhododendrons.

“No, I can’t be any help to you at all on that,” Connie de Beausset

told me. “I haven’t heard anything about any slaves.”

Her daughter, who runs the family’s Westcroft Gardens, was surprised too.

“No, I wasn’t aware of them having slaves at all,” said Denise de

Beausset. “That’s funny; you’d think there would have been talk about

slaves running the farm. Nobody ever talks about it on our side. I

wonder if it was out of embarrassment or it wasn’t politically

correct. Nobody ever talked about slaves.

“I’ll be darned.”

I found the inventory of William Macomb’s property in the Detroit

Public Library’s Burton Historical Collection. The list is quite long,

and includes two oxen valued at 24 New York pounds; four cows, 40

pounds; a pair of andirons, 4 pounds, and a stovepipe, 25 pounds.

It has an “Estimation of the Slaves of the late William Macomb.” Most

esteemed were two slaves named Scipio and Jim Girty, each valued at

130 New York pounds. Ben was worth 100 pounds. Bel was priced at 135

pounds, but that included her three kids. Bob was worth 60 pounds.

Phillis was worth 40 pounds, though she was only 7 days old.

Jerry was valued at 100 pounds and his wife, Charlotte, with her two

children, was priced at 100 pounds.

But here’s the interesting thing about Charlotte: In 1793 and 1794,

the Macomb house on Grosse Ile was “in charge of Charlotte,” wrote

Isabella Swan in “Deep Roots,” her history of Grosse Ile. “Charlotte

had been with the Macombs as early as 1788,” wrote Swan.

Charlotte was boss of the farm, but still, after her owner’s death,

she was cataloged along with William Macomb’s 25 other human pieces of

property.

“I’ve never heard that name Charlotte,” Connie de Beausset told me.

What happened to Charlotte and the other 25 Macomb slaves? Letters in

the Burton Collection, written by William Macomb before his death,

show that he was in the habit of buying and selling slaves.

On Jan. 12, 1790, Macomb acknowledges partial payment for “a negro wench.”

He wrote on Aug. 17, 1789, that “I have taken the liberty to address

to your care Two negroes a Woman & a man the property of Mr. Alexis

Masonville. They are to be disposed of at your place for 200 pounds

New York currency.  I cannot say much in their favor as to honesty,

more particularly of the woman she is very handy & a very good cook.

The man is a very smart active fellow & by no means a bad slave.

“I hope you may be able to dispose of them at your place & remit to me

the money. I do not wish they should be dispose of to any person

doubtful or on a longer credit than the first of June next – I am Dear

sir your very Able servant Wm Macomb.”

The Ordinance of 1787 banned slavery in the new territories that would

become Ohio, Indiana, Illinois and Michigan. But slaves belonging to

British settlers were still allowed. The 1810 census showed 17 slaves

still in Detroit, according to the American Legal History Network Web

site www.geocities.com/michhist/detroitslave.html?20079, and in 1818,

the Wayne County assessor was still taxing slaves as property.

On Grosse Ile, African Americans weren’t the only slaves. According to

Swan, there may have been an enslaved Indian on the island about 1795.

“The Indians who were slaves had been taken captive in inter-tribal

wars and sold to the whites. Those who held slaves when the Americans

took over were allowed to retain them,” wrote Willis Dunbar in

“Michigan: A History of the Wolverine State.”

With historical documents and publications to refer to, those working

on the Grosse Ile Historical Society book can use the information

about slavery in their book. Arcadia in Chicago is publishing the

book.

“I think that would be a good part for the book,” said Denise de

Beausset “That’s a really big part of the history of the island, that

it’s not just the rich and famous that moved here later.”

Great. Now I have another assignment for you Grosse Ile historians.

Under “slaves” in the index of Isabella Swan’s book there’s a

reference to pages 37-38: “Ben and Dan escape.”

Well, Ben and Dan made such a clean getaway that I can’t find mention

of them on either of those pages. Can somebody tell me the story of

those fugitive slaves, Ben and Dan?

Caption: 2005 photo by MARY SCHROEDER / Detroit Free Press

Connie de Beausset holds a copy of the treaty that the Macombs and the

Indians signed giving the Macombs the right to Grosse Ile. Although de

Beausset is a descendant of the Macombs, neither she nor her daughter,

Denise de Beausset, had known of the existence of family slaves.

JOEL THURTELL / Detroit Free Press

William Macomb’s signature on a letter relating to the sale of two slaves.

JOEL THURTELL / Detroit Free Press

“Estimation of the Slaves of the late William Macomb,” from the

inventory of Macomb’s property.

2005 photo by KATHLEEN GALLIGAN / Detroit Free Press

A Historical Commission marker stands on the Grosse Ile site of the

state’s oldest continuously working farm. Its owners are descendants

of William Macomb.

Illustration:  PHOTO

Edition: METRO FINAL

Section:  CFP; COMMUNITY FREE PRESS

Page: 1CV

Keywords: michigan history

Disclaimer:  THIS ELECTRONIC VERSION MAY DIFFER SLIGHTLY FROM THE

PRINTED ARTICLE

Posted in Adventures in history | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

History as science

In the 17th century, Tarascan Indians were baptized in this church in Cuanajo. They still are. Photo by Karen Fonde.

By Joel Thurtell

Brace yourselves!

Readers of joelontheroad.com will need to get used to a new kind of “content.”

I’ve been fairly quiet recently, at least as far as blogging.

While I’ve followed the recent antics of Matty, I haven’t had time to aim my loose cannon the Morouns’ way.

Except when I realized mainstream reporters were neglecting an important part of the story, which is Matty Moroun’s takeover of the supposedly public Detroit/Wayne County Port Authority.

Don’t relax, Matty. My eye is on you still.

Besides, Jack Lessenberry and Curt Guyette of Metro Times, Dave Battagello of the Windsor Star and that indefatigable cataloger of all things Moroun, Gregg Ward at the Detroit-Windsor Truck Ferry, are doing a great job of shining light on the Morounopoly.

What have I been doing?

Working on my Tarascan project, doing research in an area — Michoacán, México — and about a people — the Tarascans, or Purépecha — pretty much unknown to most of us gringos.

This would have been my PhD dissertation in history at the University of Michigan, had I kept working on it.

What happened? Long story, but short answer: The Peace Corps come a-knockin’.

Bell tower in Pátzcuaro. I spent a lot of time in and around churches. Photo by Joel Thurtell

Forty years later, I’m studying my notes and thinking and re-thinking problems I faced with what turned out to be a very complicated research project requiring computer analysis of historical data.

UM’s IBM mainframe computer proved to be a hurdle I could not jump.

But my new laptop computer is far more powerful than that old mainframe, and I’m pushing myself to surmount the frustrations that led to the demise of this project in 1972.

I’m getting to the point where I’m composing essays in my head about my Tarascan project.

That’s why I warn you — brace yourselves.

The essays are migrating from my brain to my fingertips, on to the keyboard and instantly to the screen.

So, I’m going to be writing about not only the Tarascans, but about a branch of historical inquiry that is marginalized by conventional historians, even though it is capable of enlightening us about the past in ways that traditional history cannot.

What I mean by “conventional” history is simply story-telling about the past that is based on literature in the broadest sense. Writing of any nature qualifies as “literature,” which means I accept an inventory of personal property, a letter, a newspaper article or ad, a tax roll, and any other document as a form of literature.

Thus, it would seem, people who did not write do not have history.

They are fair game for archaeologists.

Not so fast.

In areas where people who write come into contact with people without literature, it is possible to learn about the non-literary people through the writings of explorers or colonists who get to know the non-writing culture.

Lots of churches in Pátzcuaro. Joel Thurtell photo.

There is a word for this kind of history that is seen through the lens of foreign observers: protohistory.

According to Wikipedia:

Protohistory refers to a period between prehistory and history, during which a culture or civilization has not yet developed writing, but other cultures have already noted its existence in their own writings. For example, in Europe, the Celts and the Germanic tribes may be considered to have been protohistoric when they began appearing in Greek and Roman texts.

Protohistoric may also refer to the transition period between the advent of literacy in a society and the writings of the first historians. The preservation of oral traditions may complicate matters as these can provide a secondary historical source for even earlier events. Colonial sites involving a literate group and a non-literate group, are also studied as protohistoric situations.

My area of interest is primarily Michoacán, a western state of Mexico that formed a large part of the Tarascan empire in the 16th century that was independent from and at war with the better-known Aztec empire centered at what is now known as Mexico City.

Anyone who seriously studies the colonial history of México will come upon the many descriptions of pre-hispanic Indians written by Spaniards who took part in conquering the native people, administering the new colony or — and this is huge — converting the Indians to the Roman Catholic faith.

For the protohistory of the Tarascans, a book known as the Relación de Michoacán is a major source for understanding how the Tarascans lived and died in the time before Europeans showed up.

I spent many hours filling out data forms in the Basilica church in Pátzcuaro. Photo by Joel Thurtell.

Known to historians by the shorthand “RM,” the Relación was written by a Franciscan friar who interviewed Tarascan nobles a few years after the Spaniards arrived in Michoacán in 1521.

For conventional historians, the RM — and other so-called Relations — is the Holy Grail. Not without flaws, it is replete with descriptions and paintings that relate how Tarascans and other Indian people lived in the time before Fernando Cortés arrived in what soon would be called New Spain and who achieved what we call the Spanish Conquest.

Useful as the RM is, it is far from a complete description of the daily life of Tarascans.

Its evidence is filtered through the mental lens of the Spanish cleric who compiled it.

Moreover, because the interviews were with noble Tarascans, the book emphasizes the customs of people at the top of society.

The neglect of commoners’ lives is not unusual anywhere or any time in history.

But neglect of the lower classes is important for me to keep in mind as I increasingly suspect that the populations of interest to me were by no means Tarascans of noble ancestry.

Incidentally, I did not choose to focus on non-noble segments of Tarascan society. Rather, that focus was imposed on me by the nature of my sources.

Historians rarely have control over the creation of their sources. Certainly a historian like me who is almost five centuries removed from the Spanish Conquest has no say in how records are put together.

But once I get my hands on them, I do have a say in how they are interpreted.

How I got access to the parish registers and just what it was that I was shown are areas again where I had little control. That I will discuss later, too.

Now that I’ve mentioned parish registers, I am taking a deep breath before pronouncing the words “quantification” and — dare I say it — “history as science.”

In an earlier essay, I described my Tarascan project as a “natural experiment.”

What I meant by “natural experiment” is that it is possible to apply scientific method to the study of long-past phenomena.

It is not a chemistry experiment, whose conditions the experimenter controls in a laboratory.

For me, the lab is the world of colonial-era Tarascans, Spaniards as well as people of other ethnic persuasions as defined by the customs and laws of Spain at the time.

In that world were Spanish priests whose bishops headed by the pope in Rome mandated the keeping of detailed records of the souls entrusted to the church’s worldly care.

The birth and subsequent baptism into the Roman Catholic faith of a child in Spain or any of its dependencies had to be recorded in minute detail.

The newborn baby’s soul was the responsibility of the church.

Marriages were also recorded carefully, as they amounted to the joining of two families under the supervision and protection of the church.

Baptism and marriage were bedrock institutions.

Not only did priests keep meticulous records, but they protected the records.

Indeed, it appears that the priests took better care of their parish registers than they gave themselves credit for at those times when I went knocking on their notarial office doors in quest of their leather-bound books written on sheepskin.

Did the priests blow some smoke in the gringo historian’s face? More about parish duping later.

What I was allowed to see, and to work with for months, were four separate runs of parish baptismal registers in the Basilica church in Pátzcuaro and in the church at Cuanajo, an Indian village in a mountainous area southeast of Pátzcuaro.

The long and short of it is that I never was shown any matrimonial registers.

That severely limited me, in that they standard family reconstitution I had planned simply can’t be accomplished without marriage registers.

I have just learned that marriage registers exist in Pátzcuaro.

As i said, I have to work with what I was given.

It turns out that was I was given was quite a lot.

Anyway, sometimes a shut door can open new possibilities.

Because I don’t have marriage records, I am forced to place my attention almost wholly on my registers of baptism.

I say “almost wholly” because I do have annual tallies of marriages and burials. I can therefore graph year-by-year changes in mortality, which will become important when I begin trying to correlate social changes I measure from the registers with ups and downs in the death rate.

Because I can’t do a classic family reconstitution (whereby I piece together a kinship network as it changes through time), I have to find some other way of making my data tell a story.

Believe me, there are a lot of data points in a typical baptism entry.

In 1971, cheap and fast photo-reproduction like FedExOffice did not exist in western México. I hired a printer in Morelia, Michoacán to run off paper forms with headings for all the pieces of information I was seeing in the priests’ handwritten records.

Here is what you find in a typical baptism register:

Date of baptism.

Date of birth

Place of baptism

Name of priest officiating

Christian name of baby

Baby’s race: Indian, Spanish, mestizo, negro, mulatto, morisco.

By the way, these brief priestly entries of race were part of the Spanish method of social control, whereby social status was assigned based on ancestry. At the top were Spaniards from Spain, followed closely by people of Spanish ancestry born in the New World. Spaniards and Indians were allowed their respective nobilities. Indians could enhance their standing by marrying Spaniards. Mixed races had lower social standing. Mulattos were the descendants of a sub-Saharan African (negro) and a Spaniard. Moriscos were children of a Spaniard and a mulatto. The lowest place in the social order was taken by negros, who originally were slaves brought from Africa to the New World to work for Spanish landowners known first as encomendaros and later as hacendados..

See what I mean?

Class and race.

We learn a lot by reading baptism registers.

They are a window looking straight back in time.

Those terse clerical notations of race represented far more than the stroke of a priest’s pen.

They assigned high, median or low status and essentially pigeonholed people, determining at what socio-economic level a child would start out in life.

A friend who is a conventional historian complained to me that research based on parish registers was labor-intensive and low-yield work.

He was right about the labor. I spent a lot of hours in a cold, poorly-lit room transferring data from the old books to my paper forms. Nowadays, I’m spending more time fine-tuning my digital, Microsoft Access form so it precisely reflects the layout of my paper forms and fully accommodates my data.

But low-yield?

I beg to differ.

Once I enter my data into computer form, the wonder of MS Access will enable me to ask plain-English questions of those 17th and 18th century records.

While I don’t have marriage registers, my baptism registers do contain information about marriages. They tell me the names of a child’s parents, where they lived, the race of the mother and father and, in the case of negros, whether or not the person was a slave.

Why, in some cases, we even learn the name of the slave’s master.

Each entry tells us who the parents chose to be godfather and godmother for their child.

Godparenthood — in Spanish, compadrazgo — is a Spanish Christian institution that was imposed on the Indians.

What can we learn about the concerns and aspirations of parents as we study whom they selected to be the church-recognized surrogate parents for their children?

The baptism registers list the surnames of the parents.

Does the nature of that godparent choice change over time?

See what I mean?

There is a treasure trove of interesting data lurking in those surnames.

For over time, the pre-hispanic system of naming children would be supplanted, mostly, as Indians adopted Spanish surnames.

The use of Tarascan surnames survived for a very long time, and indeed there are people today who bear Tarascan surnames.

But there were aspects of the Tarascan name-giving system that were unique — unlike the Aztec system and certainly quite foreign to the Spanish system.

Systems like this can actually be measured and tracked through time. Changes can be correlated to other phenomena, such as increases in death rates due to epidemics or, maybe, spikes in the prices of commodities like corn and wheat.

The behavior of long dead Spanish priests as they methodically wrote down information in a uniform way has given us an amazing gift: information that can be quantified, a fancy way of saying it can be counted.

Counting can be done by a machine such as my MacBook Pro laptop computer.

Soon, I will be learning things about colonial México that will surprise me, I expect, and certainly would astound those priests who so religiously wrote down the details of life as they went about their duties.

In a future essay, I’ll explain how — thanks to the parish registers and my paper data forms — I already have a lens into the prehispanic history of the Tarascans.

I’ll also discuss how the lack of marriage registers obliged me to think about my data in a non-standard way, and how my unconventional way of getting to two outlying villages (by walking) caused me to perceive basic differences in the towns’ personalities ca. 1971, and how that perception raised a fundamental historical question that has become the leitmotif of my research and now directs the focus of my work.

I have another aim — I’m going to show that abandoning this project 40 years ago was not such a bad idea, after all.

 

 

Posted in Adventures in history | Leave a comment

Interfering with news? What’s new?

By Joel Thurtell

Unbelievable!

Frightening news!

Democrats are poised to take over Philadelphia newspapers!

A former Democratic mayor of Philly who was also a governor of the state is heading a group who plan to acquire the newspapers.

Already, they’re meddling in The Philadelphia Inquirer’s coverage of news about its own takeover by the pols.

Why am I not getting worked up about this travesty?

Maybe because I can’t see what the furor is about.

Other than that The New York Times published on the same day an op-ed column and a business front story about the calamity about to befall Pennsylvanians.

As perceived by The Times.

But wait a minute.

Didn’t those Philadelphia papers, The Inquirer and the News, once belong to the now-extinct newspaper chain, Knight-Ridder?

And we know that K-R had a strict hands-off policy when it came to interfering with news about its “properties” in various towns around the country.

Don’t we?

Um, well, wait a minute.

I was a reporter on the Detroit Free Press from 1984 until 2007. For all but the last two of my years at the paper, the Free Press belonged to Knight-Ridder. In 2005, K-R sold teh Free Press to its partner in Detroit newspapering, Gannett.

For several years in the late 1980s, Knight-Ridder and Gannett joined to lobby the federal government for permission to have a monopoly by joining the business operations of The News and Free Press.

And I seem to remember some, well, interference by the owner of the Free Press in the paper’s editorial stance towards the proposed merger.

I recall the editorial editor of the Detroit Free Press spiking not one, not two, but three drawings by the editorial cartoonist Bill Day because they lampooned Edwin Meese III, then US attorney general.

The Free Press was afraid the cartoons might offend Meese, who was someone with potential authority to approve or disapprove of the proposed merger of the Free Press and News.

The Free Press always bragged that it was On Guard.

Except when it was Off Guard.

And it sure was Off Guard during its quest for the Joint Operating Agreement, which became reality late in 1989. While Knight-Ridder has gone the way of the dodo, the JOA still governs operations of the Free Press and News.

I also seem to recall a certain publisher of the Free Press named David Lawrence publishing a pro-JOA column on Page One of the Free Press.

Was Knight-Ridder using the Free Press as a bully pulpit to persuade the public and especially Michigan politicians to support the papers’ quest for a 100-year monopoly?

Was that interference with the news?

Well, but of course, it can’t compare with what’s going down in Philly, because there it’s potential interference by powerful members of the Democratic party.

It’s one thing for powerful officials of the then second-biggest newspaper chain in the country in alliance with power brokers from Gannett, the biggest chain, to get a business monopoly that would scrap newspaper competition in Detroit for a century.

You could say they interfered not only with news, but with history.

So what’s wrong with that?

That is business the American Way.

If you own a newspaper, you get to manipulate the news.

Isn’t that why people have newspapers?

Ask Rupert Murdoch.

But for a political party to grab control of a newspaper?

Absolutely unconscionable!

Except, hmmm.

Wasn’t the Detroit Free Press once called the Democratic Free Press and Michigan Intelligencer?

Do you mean to tell me that politics and political parties actually birthed newspapers in this country?

Well, then, if newspaper owners traditionally interfere in news about themselves or anything else that pleases them, and if historically, newspapers have been founded by political parties, who gives a rat’s ass about what’s happening to the Inquirer and News in Philadelphia?

Philadelphians and for sure employees of the two papers — especially denizens of the newsroom who likely were the carping sources who squealed panic-stricken to The Times — should be glad someone wants to buy their loser papers.

Nobody else wants to own those papers.

Wake up, kids! You get to keep your jobs.

Journalists always get bent out of shape when somebody else tries to pervert the news.

Here’s a fact they don’t teach in J school:

If you own a newspaper, you get to skew the news.

 

 

 

 

Posted in future of newspapers, Joel's J School | Tagged , , | Leave a comment