Slavery in Narragansett Country

(This essay was originally published as “In 1843, slavery was banned in Rhode Island,” in the Newport Daily News on May 29, 2018.)
(Note: This is the second in a series of essays on slavery in Rhode Island.)

One hundred seventy-five years ago, Rhode Island, after over two centuries, officially banned slavery in its Constitution of 1843.

The first slaves in the colony of Rhode Island were Native Americans, prisoners of war from the conflicts with colonists in southern New England in the 17th century. In 1638, New Englanders began to import Africans by trading Native Americans captured in the Pequot War (1636-37) for black slaves from the West Indies. Sometime after 1638, the first African slaves entered Rhode Island. They were sparse in the colony throughout the 17th century, with only 175 total African slaves in 1680.

In the 18th century, Rhode Island merchants, with their proximity to and affinity for the sea, engaged in the Atlantic trading system of West Africa, the West Indies (Caribbean), and North American port cities, exporting lumber, foodstuffs, rum, and horses; and importing sugar, molasses, cotton, spices, linen, woolen clothes, iron, and slaves. By 1730, the colony came to dominate the North American slave trade.

Most enslaved people imported into the colony of Rhode Island were bought by owners of farms in what we call “South County” (technically Washington County) and what in the 18th century was called “Narragansett Country.” Eventually these farms grew to be plantations comparable to those in America’s southern colonies, and with these plantations a class of “Narragansett planters” emerged. By mid-century large plantations thrived from the village of Wickford south to Point Judith and west to Connecticut.

At the heart of the economy of Narragansett Country were products grown and produced by enslaved people. This plantation system bred horses, cattle, and sheep; produced dairy products; and also grew Indian corn, rye, hemp, flax, and tobacco. The planters then, through merchants in Newport and Providence, exported these products to southern colonial ports and the West Indies. As the southern climates were harsh on livestock, horses, beef, and dairy products were in demand. The wealthiest of the planters hired ships themselves to export their goods directly.

By the 1730s, 20-30 families had established farms in Narragansett Country and had acquired slaves—generally five to 40—to work them. By 1740, this area had the highest concentration of enslaved people in the colony; by 1755, one in three residents was a slave. Though only a few Narragansett planters were large slave owners, historian Christy Clark-Pujara states that ultimately “thousands of enslaved men, women, and children” in this area produced foodstuffs and raised livestock for trade.

The planter class made fortunes on the lucrative trade rooted in slavery, especially cheese exports. Competing with dairy farms in the colonies of New Jersey and New York, Rhode Island farmers produced the most cheese of all. Robert Hazard, a successful Narragansett planter, owned seventeen acres, had about one hundred cows, and produced 13,000 pounds of cheese annually. The Champlin farm had 42 cows that produced 9,200 pounds annually.

Potter Overmantle, c. 1749, oil on pine, 31" x 64".
Portrait of John Potter (1716-1787) and his family including three women and a young black servant. John Potter was a wealthy South Kingstown planter.
COLLECTION OF THE NEWPORT HISTORICAL SOCIETY

The wealth of the planter class enabled the families to lead an elaborate lifestyle, similar to southern planters. They commissioned portraits, hired private tutors for their children, took European vacations, enjoyed horse-racing, and sought to imitate the lifestyle of the landed gentry of England. They also dominated the political affairs of the region.

Richard Smith, Jr., was one of the first Narragansett planters. He inherited his farm from his father, Richard Smith, a contemporary of Roger Williams, the founder of the colony and of Providence. The site of the farm was an area called “Cocumscussoc” by the Narragansett Native Americans. Williams had established a trading post there with the Native Americans and learned their language and customs. Williams reportedly said that Smith: “Put up …the first English house…in Nahigonsik Countrey.”

Smith, Jr., died in 1692, leaving the farm to the Updikes who developed it into one the great plantations of 18th century New England. At its height, it contained more than 3,000 acres, and was divided into five farms, worked by tenant farmers, indentured servants, and enslaved people. The Updikes dealt primarily in livestock and dairy products, producing cheese, other farm crops, and a breed of horse known as the Narragansett pacer.

Cocumscussoc still exists today as a park along with a colonial house known as Smith’s Castle, seasonally open to the public. (See: smithscastle.org)

This plantation system flourished until the late 1760s. The final blow came with disruptions caused by the American Revolution and the British-Hessian occupation of Newport (1776-79). Thanks to this plantation system the state has the country’s longest official name: the “State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations.”

(For further reading: Carl R. Woodward, “Plantation in Yankeeland”)

Fred Zilian (zilianblog.com; Twitter: @FredZilian) is an adjunct professor at Salve Regina University.

 

Advertisements
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Colonial Rhode Island Dominates North American Slave Trade in 18th Century

(Note: This is the first in a series of essays on Slavery in Rhode Island. It was originally published in the Newport Daily News on April 27, 2018.)

One hundred seventy-five years ago, Rhode Island, after over two centuries of slavery, officially banned it in its Constitution of 1843.

Slavery by the British began in North America when they brought the first African slaves to the colony of Jamestown, Virginia, in about 1619.

Slavery in Rhode Island began probably with the colony’s establishment in 1636. The first slaves in the colony were surely Native Americans, not Africans. Prisoners of war from the two major Indian wars in southern New England in the 17th century—the Pequot War (1636-37) and King Philip’s/Metacom’s War (1675-76)—became slaves, many of whom were sold abroad. Many more of them became destitute and bound themselves as indentured servants to colonists, some for decades.

The slavery of Native Americans declined as the century wore on, with Providence and Warwick banning their enslavement in 1676. More and more Rhode Islanders wanted to distance themselves from Native Americans and simply did not want them in their settlements, even as slaves and servants. The Newport Town Council eventually made it illegal to sell firearms to Native Americans; Portsmouth banished them to “live in the woods.” Merchants were disallowed from trading with them, selling them liquor, or repairing their firearms.

Seeing the profit to be made, Rhode Island merchants, with their proximity to and affinity for the sea, became a part of the Atlantic trading system of the 18th century, including slave trading. Many of the names of these merchants dot Newport County today: Malbone, Banister, Gardner, Wanton, Brenton, Collins, Vernon, Channing, and Lopez. They engaged in commerce with West Africa, the West Indies (Caribbean), and North American port cities, exporting lumber, beef, pork, butter, cheese, onions, cider, candles, and horses; and importing sugar, molasses, cotton, ginger, indigo, linen, woolen clothes, and Spanish iron. This trade had positive ripple effects throughout the local economy and the economies of the trading ports.

(ncwbts150.com)

The first African slaves entered the northern colonies in the 1620s and were concentrated in New Netherland, the Dutch colony that eventually became New York City.

African slaves were sparse in the colony of Rhode Island throughout the 17th century, with only 175 total slaves in 1680. Prior to 1696, the English Royal African Company monopolized the Atlantic slave trade. However, when this was lifted, Rhode Islanders aggressively expanded into the Atlantic trading system, and therefore, the slave trade.

Within 30 years the colony of Rhode Island came to dominate the North American slave trade. Even though it was the smallest of the colonies, the great majority of slave ships leaving British North America came from Rhode Island ports. Historian Christy Clark-Pujara, in her book Dark Work, The Business of Slavery in Rhode Island, indicates that during “the colonial period in total, Rhode Island sent 514 slave ships to the coast of West Africa, while the rest of the colonists sent just 189.” Historian Jay Coughtry in The Notorious Triangle, argues that “the Rhode Island slave trade and the American slave trade were virtually synonymous” and that “only in Rhode Island was there anything that can properly be termed a slave trade.”


In 1713, Rhode Island slave traders introduced a new export into the trading system—rum. Slave traders in Africa came to prefer this rum over the previous liquor of choice, French brandy. Within 50 years there were close to 30 distilleries in the colony, 18 in Newport alone. Thus the so-called “triangular trade” system emerged within the larger Atlantic system. In its simplest form, the system entailed the rum produced in Rhode Island being exported to the slave coast of West Africa. There it was traded for slaves who made the dreaded Middle Passage across the Atlantic, most going to the Caribbean. There they were traded for sugar and molasses, a key ingredient of rum. The molasses was then brought to the colony for processing into more rum.

Slaves Processing Sugar

(John Carter Brown Library)

By 1730, most of the trades and occupations in Rhode Island were somehow related to slavery. Slave traders kept busy shipbuilders, sailors, caulkers, sailmakers, carpenters, rope-makers, painters, barrel-makers, and dock workers. Clerks and warehouse managers administered the system. In addition to these tradesmen, additional crew members were needed to control the enslaved during the voyages.

Rhode Island’s dominant role in the Atlantic slave trade explains why the colony came to have the highest percentage of slaves in New England: an estimated 543 slaves in 1720 (5%), 3,347 slaves in 1750 (10%), and 3,761 slaves in 1770 (6%).

Merchants from Newport paid significant taxes and duties to the city, which allowed public works projects. Clark-Pujara concludes: “The streets of Newport were paved and its bridges and country roads mended through the duties collected on slave imports. In many ways, the business of slavery literally built Rhode Island.”

Fred Zilian (zilianblog.com; Twitter: @FredZilian) is an adjunct professor at Salve Regina University.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Courageous Anne Hutchinson, Unyielding to Death

(This is the third and final part of a series on Anne Hutchinson. All three essays were originally published in the Newport Daily News.)

Three hundred and eighty years ago, this month, Anne Hutchinson was put on trial before her church congregation and excommunicated. Several months earlier, the General Court of Massachusetts Bay Colony had convicted her of heresy and banished her from the colony, to take effect the following spring.

In 1634, Anne, her husband William, and their 11 children crossed the Atlantic and joined the Massachusetts Bay Colony, a near theocracy in which religious and political leadership were closely intertwined. Proving to be too great a threat to the male leadership, she was brought to trial in November, 1637, for conducting religious meetings in her home, for criticizing the colony’s all-male ministers, for denying the importance of performing good works as a sign of salvation, and for her claims of divinely inspired prophecy. Hutchinson was found guilty of heresy for her claims of direct divine revelation and of sedition for her criticisms of the colony’s ministers.

For these crimes the Court banished her from the colony “as being a woman not fit for our society;” however, she was allowed to remain in the colony until the following spring. Until her departure, the “prisoner”, as Governor John Winthrop called her, was required to remain isolated at the home of Joseph Weld in Roxbury. She took her Bible, her Herbal (guide to medicinal plants), and winter clothes. During these winter months, she studied scripture, sang psalms, prayed and meditated, and saw her mid-section grow with her 16th pregnancy.

At the same time, husband William and other male followers met secretly and made plans to begin a new settlement. They wanted good soil, access to fresh water and wood, a milder climate, and religious freedom from the Massachusetts colony.

Initially planning on Long Island or New Jersey, they decided to settle on Aquidneck Island, at the urging of Roger Williams, the founder of Providence. On March 7, 1638, a group of men—eventually 23—signed the Portsmouth Compact, incorporating themselves into a “body politic.” Anne’s husband, William, signed it third, behind William Coddington and John Clarke. With the help of Roger Williams, these men acquired the island from the Narragansett sachems (chieftains) Miantonomo and Canonicus, for a collection of beads, coats, and hoes. They decided to settle on the northeast section of the island, which the Indians called Pocasset. The settlers soon changed the name to Portsmouth, after the English port city from which some had sailed.

The church trial of Anne Hutchinson was held on March 15 and 22, 1638, in the Boston meetinghouse. The church leaders held documents which described her numerous “errors” in belief on such arcane subjects such as the mortality of the soul, the resurrection of the body on the last day, and the necessity of the saved to follow earthly laws.

On the first day, a number of church elders attacked her with vengeance. Thomas Shepard asserted that it was “not God’s spirit but her own spirit that hath guided her hitherto—a spirit of delusion and error!” … “For she is of a most dangerous spirit, and likely with her fluent tongue and forwardness in expression to seduce and draw away many….” John Cotton, the religious leader she had followed for over 20 years, gave her the final “admonishment.”

In a signed document on the second day of her trial, she noted her errors repentantly; however, many church elders continued to scold and reproach her. Reverend John Wilson said: “I look at her as a dangerous instrument of the Devil, raised up by Satan amongst us to raise up divisions and contentions, and to take away hearts and affections one from another.” He proceeded to cast her out of the church.

Followed by a number of her supporters, Hutchinson walked to the door, stopped, turned around and faced the elders and magistrates, and said: “The Lord judges not as man judges. Better to be cast out of the church than to deny Christ.”

On April 1, 1638, the banished Hutchinson, with horses, carts, family, and friends, began a six-day walk to Aquidneck Island. She traveled the last leg by boat and arrived at the new settlement in Portsmouth, described by Eve LaPlante as the “windswept marsh, beach, pastureland, and pebbled cove of her new home.”

Regrettably, under threat of Massachusetts asserting its control over Rhode Island, Hutchinson, with her husband’s death in 1641, decided to move to the Dutch colony of New Amsterdam (current day New York City) in 1642, where she and most of her family were killed in an attack by the Siwanoy native Americans the following year.

Today both a river and a parkway in southern New York bear her name. Gov. John Winthrop had labeled her “this American Jezebel”; in 1987, Gov. Michael Dukakis formally pardoned her. More than just a founding mother of Portsmouth, RI, Anne Hutchinson can be considered a founding mother of religious tolerance in America.

Founders’ Brook Park and the Anne Hutchinson Memorial stand off Boyd’s Lane in Portsmouth. There one finds a shaded glade with benches, marble markers with quotes from Hutchinson, the Founders’ Brook with a small waterfall, an herb garden in honor of Anne Hutchinson and Mary Dyer, and a copy of the compact which was the basis of Portsmouth’s government.

(For further reading: Eve LaPlante, American Jezebel. Thanks to Jim Garman for his assistance with this essay.)

Fred Zilian (zilianblog.com; Twitter: @FredZilian) is an adjunct professor at Salve Regina University and a columnist for the Newport Daily News.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

American Civilization is bleeding itself

(This essay, edited, was originally published by thehill.com on February 22, 2018.)

In comparison to the recent mass shooting in Parkland, Florida, the violent incident a few days earlier at my granddaughter’s high school in our cozy, comfortable New England town of Portsmouth, Rhode Island, was insignificant. Marcus Schlip, 22, assaulted the physical education teacher to gain entry to the gym, after which he told all the students to line up against the wall because he was now in charge. Luckily, he carried merely a knife which remained in his backpack. This episode—however less violent than the Parkland massacre—still traumatized my granddaughter.

America remains positively “exceptional” in so many ways; however, in the area of gun control & personal safety, it—among modern, industrialized countries—stands egregiously apart. According to procon.org, gun death in America, 1999-2015, was the number one cause of homicide, of suicide, and of death by gunshot from legal intervention. During that period, America averaged over 33,000 gun deaths each year. The Center for Disease Control reports that in 2014 America had 33,594 firearm deaths. From 2001 to 2010, close to 120,000 Americans were murdered by guns, 18 times all American combat deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan.

These data and other contrast with data from other modern, industrialized countries where gun deaths are rare. In Germany, two of every million die by gunshot from another person, about the same rate as in the Netherlands and in Austria. In Poland and in England, the figure is less—about one in every million. In Japan it is even rarer: one in ten million, similar to the rate of Americans killed by lightning. In comparison, the rate in America is 31 per million. For men 15-29, gun homicides are the third leading cause of death after accidents and suicides.

In his magisterial work, Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, Jared Diamond arrives at five key factors which determined the fates of societies. In the many he examines, past and present day, he asserts that the only factor significant for all societies is the decisions they make facing their challenges.

At this point in the story of American civilization, one of these key decisions regards national culture and policy on gun control-personal safety. Our current culture, and the policies rooted in it, are unsustainable. Civilizations whose citizens kill each other at such a high rate cannot persist, especially if they kill their young at high rates. When we lose young people, we lose their potential positive impact. Our sense of personal safety declines, replaced by fear. Especially in school shootings, our children grow more fearful. These impacts hinder our civilization’s progress at home and influence abroad.

Compared to other developed countries, our dominant views and policies on the subject are indisputably backward. During my six years in Germany as an army officer, I had numerous conversations with my German friends about Germany’s completely different culture on gun ownership. Gun ownership there is a privilege, not a right, enshrined 230 years ago in the country’s constitution. To purchase a gun in Germany, it takes months to earn the certificate validating one’s skill with a weapon and its ammunition. You must show that you can store it safely, in a place in which only you have access. You must be at least 18, and if you are under 25, a psychological exam is required showing your fitness. Each new gun purchased must be registered. Günter Lach, a member of Parliament in 2015 and avid marksman, said that in Germany, “at any given moment, you know where a gun is.”

In France, as well, guns are highly regulated. A hunting license is required before a rifle can be purchased. For buying a gun to be used at a firing range, the police must approve one’s application. All guns must be registered, and it is illegal to possess military-grade weapons. Gun buyers must provide a medical certificate of mental and physical fitness to own a weapon.

As for all the arguments that gun advocates assert, they may have their merits, but these are drowned out by our current realities. The inordinate gun deaths year after year indicate their views, and the laws and policies stemming from them, are not working for our civilization, which is bleeding itself and failing to provide safety for its children. Abraham Lincoln’s words ring true: “The dogmas of the quiet past, are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise — with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our … [children].”

While we have the Second Amendment, we have no amendment enshrining the right to contribute to American civilization or for a child to live without fear. Perhaps we need one. I am sure that Thomas Jefferson would agree. I wish all who disagree could have seen the fear in my granddaughter’s eyes.

Fred Zilian (www.zilianblog.com; Twitter: @FredZilian) teaches Western Civilization and politics at Salve Regina University, Newport, RI, and is a columnist for the Newport Daily News.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | 1 Comment

America’s Story Must Evolve with Changing Demographics

(This essay was originally published, abridged, as “Changing demographics: The Battle for America’s Story” on February 10, 2018, at thehill.com.)

All great countries, empires, and civilizations have their stories—grand narratives that consist of both truth and myth—which serve as part of the glue which coheres and perpetuates them, along with such factors as race, language, religion, cultural rituals, and significant historical events. However, while founding chapters of a great country’s epic may become fixed with time, the later chapters of the story can never be static; rather, they must change when the country endures a significant historical event or era and also when the country’s demographics change. If the American story is to endure and serve as force of unity, it must change with our changing demographics.

The ancient Greeks had their Iliad and Odyssey, which related the story of the beginnings of ancient Hellas and reflected the aristocratic, heroic values they cherished. These works served as the basis of Greek identity and of their ethical code for a thousand years. Ancient Greece’s story was shaken by the Peloponnesian War, a war lasting 27 years in which—Thucydides tells us—at one time or another just about the entire Greek world was involved.

The ancient Romans had their Aeneid along with their foundation myth of Romulus and Remus, which served to explain the beginnings of the Roman Empire. The magnificent story of the Roman Empire which sprang forth was eventually subverted when the Asiatic and Germanic tribes penetrated its over-extended frontier in the second through fifth centuries. It was also changed decisively when its population turned increasingly toward Christianity. By the end of the 4th century, the emperor declared it the official religion of the empire.

The traditional American epic begins with the age of European exploration and includes as its salient points the American Revolution, the Civil War, the conquering of the American West, America’s rise as a world power, the waves of immigration propelling its development, and its significant role in winning the two worlds wars. After that, the story as epic—marred with dark chapters but overall a beautiful, positive narrative of expansion and progress–becomes more muddied and non-linear.

Resilient epics are not static, they must evolve with significant events but also with the changing demographics of the population. There is no question that demographics will be a key factor in the future evolution of the American story. Demographic trends indicate that the white-alone American majority is declining. Data from the U.S. Census Bureau indicate that between 2010 and 2015, the white-alone population (not Hispanic or Latino) decreased from 63.7% to 61.6%, while Hispanic or Latino, Black, and Asian populations all increased marginally, totaling 36.5% of the population. In March of 2015, the U.S. Census Bureau reported that by 2020 more than half of the country’s children will be minority race, and that this shift will take place for the population as a whole in 2044. It also indicated that the fastest growing segment of the next decades will be people from “two or more races.”

As an American of diverse blood who has taught U.S. History for the past 20 years, I can assure America’s people of color that at least some of their sub-stories are in the current American narrative as manifested in conventional U.S. History texts. The blood on the hands of European-Americans is visible. For African-Americans, the story covers the beginnings of the Atlantic slave trade, colonial slavery, slavery and Civil War, Reconstruction, Jim Crow, and the struggle for civil rights in the 20th century.

For others, I can testify to the coverage of such episodes as the Trail of Tears, Wounded Knee, and the struggle of Latino migrants workers. With the success of such books as Viet Thanh Nguyen’s The Sympathizer, the American story will and must again be amplified and enriched with the sub-stories of yet other peoples who have come to America. For example, in a recent interview in Foreign Policy, Daily Show comedian Hasan Minhaj said, “New Brown America represents a whole generation of kids who are either descendants of immigrants or immigrants themselves, who are coming to America and enriching what it means to be American.” … “We’re adding to that narrative.”

The battle for the future of America’s story, specifically as a binding force, will turn on some key questions. Among them: For the fading white-only population, how open will it be to changes which make the story even more faithful to the struggle of people of color? For blacks, when will the national original sin of slavery be sufficiently redeemed? How open will they be to include the even earlier original sin of their own people in Africa, without which the Atlantic slave trade would not have flourished? And for all of us: what is our common, unassailable American Creed? How are we to endure as a nation of nations?

Much more so than external threats, it will be our national bonds rather than our divisions which determine our success in facing future challenges. A key factor in that unity will be the legitimacy of this more-complex, future American story in the eyes of the rising peoples of color.

Abraham Lincoln’s words still apply. In his address to the Young Men’s Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois, on January 27, 1838, he said: “Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant to step the ocean and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia, and Africa combined …could not by force take a drink from the Ohio or make a track on the Blue Ridge in a trial of a thousand years. At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer. If it ever reach us it must spring up amongst us; it cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide.”

Fred Zilian (Twitter: @FredZilian) is an adjunct professor at Salve Regina University, RI, and is a columnist for the Newport Daily News.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

The Commanding Heights of America’s Ethical Code

Note: This essay was originally published on January 24, 2018, at thehill.com. (http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/370563-the-commanding-heights-of-americas-ethical-code)

Almost 100 years ago Vladimir Lenin sought to placate his Bolshevik supporters who were upset that some capitalistic elements were being allowed into the fledgling Soviet command economy. He assured them that the state would retain control of its key sectors–the “commanding heights” of the economy.

Our presidents have always occupied a special place on the “commanding heights” of America’s moral-ethical code, specifically, our code of behavior of how we treat each other as citizens and as human beings. In addition to being the Commander-In-Chief of America’s armed forces, we expect our president also to be the CINC of American Civicism and Civility, embodying such traits as patriotism, honesty, integrity, moral courage, courtesy, and respect for the dignity of all people.

By way of contrast, we might consider the apparent ethical code of that formidable and dreaded leader of the Mongols, Genghis Khan, who in the 12th and 13th centuries, conquered so much of Eurasia. The Secret History of the Mongols gives us an indication of his ethical code: “Man’s highest joy is in victory: to conquer one’s enemies; to pursue them; to deprive them of their possessions; to make their beloved weep; to ride on their horses; and to embrace their wives and daughters.”

Offended by breaches of the unwritten American ethical code for presidents, we were disappointed when President Richard Nixon obstructed justice, spoke like a common thug on the tape recordings, and clearly held himself above the law. As well with President Bill Clinton, we did not like his un-presidential quibbling with words, saying in his interrogation: “It depends on what your definition of ‘is’ is.”

Over the past generation, a decline in the American moral-ethical code has become apparent, suggested by the decline of our moral-ethical vocabulary. Even our use of the words “ethics” and “morality” has seemed to decline in the public square. In their place we tend now to use the more general, multi-meaning word “culture.” For example, when Peggy Noonan, writing recently in the Wall Street Journal, asserted the need for more “gentlemen” in American society, she did not use either word. Rather she spoke of how “[o]ur culture has been so confused for so long on so many essentials ….”

The divisive Sixties had the effect of fuzzying our once more uniform American moral-ethical code and legitimatizing other codes. Over the past generation clearly two other factors have been at work undermining even more so the American ethical code. The first is the decline in moral authority of the Roman Catholic Church, for millennia a source of ethics, from the abortion debate and also from its sex abuse scandal. The second is the ubiquitous penetration of the Wild-West, anything-goes digital world, devoid of any ethical code, into our daily lives. This stunned me ten years ago when I entered my first online chat group and one writer called a female politician a “c—t.” I immediately looked over my shoulder, hoping in vain that some moral or legal authority might intervene.

Considering the state of the commanding heights of the American economy, we may thank President Donald Trump and the Republican tax cut for having a positive influence on the economy. At 4.1% the unemployment rate is the lowest figure in a decade, and the stock market has risen some 25% since his election. However, American civilization is more than just political economy, and it needs more that a good CEO of the economy to persist and to progress.

In this regard, we may criticize Trump for his poor example at the heights of America’s ethical code, such as his petulance, vindictiveness, self-centeredness, boastfulness, his dishonor toward John McCain’s time as a POW, and his objectifying of women. And make no mistake of the importance of this to the American civilization. The words and actions of the leader of America, of any country, sends cues—good or bad—to its citizens, cues which are repeated by its citizens.

Meryl Streep was correct then in her dramatic speech at last year’s Golden Globe awards. In a clear reference to Trump’s imitation of a disabled reporter, she went on to say: “And this instinct to humiliate, when it’s modeled by someone in the public platform, by someone powerful, it filters down into everybody’s life, because it kind of gives permission for other people to do the same thing. Disrespect invites disrespect. Violence incites violence. When the powerful use their position to bully others, we all lose.”

Our 16th president, Abraham Lincoln, our first Republican president, spoke to one of the purposes of government in his message to Congress in the opening months of Civil War, July 4, 1861: “On the side of the Union, it is a struggle for maintaining in the world, that form, and substance of government, whose leading object is, to elevate the condition of men … to afford all, an unfettered start, and a fair chance, in the race of life.” Having completed one year in office, Trump’s moral-ethical code is fairly clear. Perhaps he has elevated me economically, but ethically he has diminished me, and I truly regret that I cannot hold him up as a role model to my grandchildren.

In the absence of a true Commander in Chief of Civicism and Civility, it is then especially imperative that other governmental, civic, religious, and community leaders and parents step up to the challenge and occupy the commanding heights of America’s ethical code.

Fred Zilian (Twitter: @FredZilian) teaches Western Civilization and politics at Salve Regina University, Newport, RI, and is a monthly columnist for the Newport Daily News.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 18 Comments

Film Casablanca Still Speaks to Us Today

(This essay was originally published by the Newport Daily News on January 23, 2018.)

Seventy-five years ago today, the film Casablanca, one of the most popular movies of all time, was released nationally after premiering in New York City on Thanksgiving Day, 1942, as World War II raged. It went on to win Oscars for best picture, best director, and best adapted screenplay. Writing in the Belfast Times in 2016 after the last surviving cast member died, Paul Whitington said: “Maybe there are better films than Casablanca, but there are probably none better loved.”

Directed by Michael Curtiz, the film was shot at Warner Brothers Studios in Burbank, California, except for the final scene, shot at Van Nuys Airport. It was based on a three-act play, unproduced at the time, Everbody Comes to Rick’s, written by Murray Burnett and Joan Allison.

In 1933 Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party had come to power, and by 1938 Europe was in turmoil as Germany was growing stronger and more threatening. That same year against the advice of friends, Murray Burnett and his wife visited Vienna, Austria, a country which had just been absorbed by Germany. There Burnett, a Jew, witnessed first-hand the increasingly violent anti-Semitism and learned of the escape route the Jews were taking: from Austria to Marseilles in southern France, to Morocco in North Africa, to Lisbon, Portugal, and finally—with luck—to the United States.

Burnett, an aspiring playwright, conceived of the idea for the play when they traveled to southern France and visited a smoky nightclub near Nice in which they saw emigrants, speaking many different languages, all listening to a black pianist from Chicago.

Once acquired by Warner Brothers after Pearl Harbor in December 1941, Harry and Jack Warner realized its potential as a patriotic war drama. Harry especially was not afraid to use film to strengthen patriotism and to combat Nazism. Writing in the Christian Science Monitor in 1938, he said he saw it as his duty “to educate, to stimulate, and to demonstrate the fundamentals of free government, free speech, religious tolerance, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly ….”

In Congressional testimony in 1941, Harry insisted that fascism was indeed a global threat—a preview of the spinning globe at the start of the movie. After the Allied invasion of North Africa on November 8, 1942, Warner Bros. accelerated the release of the movie, capitalizing on the name of the city of Casablanca, Morocco, appearing in the news. It premiered on November 26, 1942, at the Hollywood Theater in New York City, selling 31,000 tickets in the first week and grossing $255,000 ($3.5 million in today’s money) during the 10-week New York run.

The two main characters in the film were played by Humphrey Bogart, one of the few Americans in the cast, and Swedish-born Ingrid Bergman. Bogart, 42, had already played in nearly 50 Hollywood films, playing mostly gangsters or thugs. While he had also played rugged, razor-backed characters, playing the role of Rick Blaine allowed him to play a romantic, understated, cynical hero. With his trench coat and brimmed hat, he achieved international stardom.

Ingrid Bergman, 27, had arrived in America just three years earlier and had appeared in merely a handful of Hollywood movies. She played Ilsa Lund, Rick’s former lover who had jilted him in Paris years earlier. Arthur “Dooley” Wilson, another rare American in the cast, played “Sam,” the pianist at Rick’s Café Americain and Rick’s staunch friend.

In a movie with so many great scenes and with so many great—if sometimes corny—lines, it is challenging to select the best scenes. My three favorite include: the scene in the Café in which the two competing groups, the Nazi officers versus all others, sing their nationalistic songs; the scene in the Café in which Ilsa Lund asks Sam to play the old love song, “As Time Goes By;” and, of course, the final scene in which Rick shows his true colors. With the Nazis pursuing, Rick turns to Ilsa and says: “Ilsa, I’m no good at being noble, but it doesn’t take much to see that the problems of three little people don’t amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world.”

Though produced in the middle of a world war three generations ago, Casablanca continues to speak to us today with its themes of love, multi-faceted heroism, resistance against tyranny, persecution of minorities, the flight of the persecuted and their yearning for freedom.

For further reading: Noah Isenberg, We’ll Always Have Casablanca.

Note: Watch for news of the upcoming screening of Casablanca, hosted by yours truly, at the Jane Pickens Theater and Event Center. Until then, “here’s looking at you, kid.”

Fred Zilian (zilianblog.com; Twitter: @Fred Zilian) is a writer, educator, and monthly columnist.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment