Showing posts with label Charles F. Sawyer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Charles F. Sawyer. Show all posts

Monday, November 25, 2013

Land Ho! — The Gold Rush voyage of Henry Weld Severance




"Barque" by Thomas Somerscales (detail)

Presented to the Club on Monday Evening, November 18, 2013 by Charles F. Sawyer



It is December 31, 1848. A young man of 19 from Augusta, Maine boards a sailing ship in Boston Harbor, bound for San Francisco, some 10,000 miles away. He is among 25,000 who will take that treacherous journey around Cape Horn in 1849. Between 1848 and 1850, San Francisco grows from a sleepy little town of 1,000 to a bustling city of 35,000. By 1852, California's non-native population increases from 14,000 to 250,000.



This great migration is, of course, occasioned by the discovery of gold at John Sutter's saw mill on the south fork of the American River. The young man from Augusta is my great -grandfather, Henry Weld Severance, who, in his own words, was "leaving all most near and dear, to seek a fortune among strangers in a distant land." He kept a journal of that journey, which I recently discovered among some family papers. I found the journal fascinating, even beyond the fact that this was my great -grandfather speaking. It provides a look into a very different time, when The world, and especially America, were young and expansionist. When self reliance and self improvement were critically important. When colonialism and the idea of manifest destiny were redefining political and geographic lines.

So my paper this evening will be to join Henry on his 10,000-mile adventure on the high seas.



He begins.


To you, my dear parents, I now dedicate my journal, and although its various incidents may not be so interesting, as while detailing them gives me the hope that they will be, still I know that wherever I am, you feel interested in my welfare, and especially so at the present time. There may be trifling scenes connected with the voyage, which you will probably ascribe to me folly in detailing them, but still, any occurrence, however minute, seems to me worthy of note. Our voyage thus far has not been entirely monotonous, but some parts deeply fraught with peril, aye with danger from which we knew we could not escape, without the aid and guidance of him whose home is on the mountain wave, whose eye o'er spreads the deep.



Sunday, Dec. 31, 1848

We hove up anchor this morning at 8 o'clock, having been detained in the harbor four days on account of foul,weather and head winds. The captain and pilot coming on board at that time, the orders were given in quick succession to loose the topsails. As she swung around, and under the influence of the freshening breeze, slowly parted the water under her bow, gathering fresh impetus every moment, as sail upon sail was heaped upon her as she glided swiftly down the harbor before a strong northwest wind, presenting a cloud of snowy canvass to the breeze. I stood on the quarter deck and calmly surveyed the scene. I have known what is is to see friends hurried away upon the ocean to brave its power and thought it but a trifle, but for the first time felt what it was to be myself the wanderer, launching forth comparatively alone, while all most dear are far behind. When the pilot took his leave outside the harbor at 12 o'clock, I felt that the last connecting link with New England was broken. As we were rapidly leaving my native shore, a sad, uncalled for thought would often flitter across my mind, as I thought that I was leaving all most near and dear, to seek a fortune among strangers in a distant land. But I endeavored to suppress such feelings, and was enabled to bid farewell to New England's shores with a tearless eye, perhaps assisted some by the golden ore glittering in my mind's eye on the banks of the Sacramento. 







Click to enlarge



We passed at 4 p.m. the ship Element, ashore on Cape Cod. She left Boston the day before us, and while in the City, I was frequently on board her, she having laid in the dock directly behind us. I stood on the wharf when she left it bound for New Orleans, and little did I imagine when I next should see her, it would be a victim of the fury of the elements. At 5o'clock we took our last observation from shore, Cape Cod bearing W.NW distant ten miles. And now as I stood gazing still on the west, while nothing but the heaving line of the watery horizon was marked against the clear blue sky, I,thought that I had now set forth to battle with the world, to endeavor to gain a living among honest people or rogues, I,know not which. I knew I had nothing now to rely on, but must gain a name, perhaps a fortune, by my own exertions. Not being in the best of spirits, I retired early and as I lay in my bunk, I keenly felt the reality of my departure and wondered that I could voluntarily have undertaken at the sacrifice of friends and home, so long and uncertain a voyage. But in my better judgement I cannot and do not regret it, hoping that my ardent and golden expectations will be fully realized. My friend, Mr. Morpheus, happened along about nine o'clock, and I willingly resigned myself to his charge, prepared in some degree by the soothing influence of the gentle motion of our Barque, as she rose and fell upon the soft and undulating swell of the billow.



Monday, Jan 1st

All the passengers, eleven in number, are forced to yield to the disagreeable sensation of sea sickness. We find that among the six men shipped as seamen, only one can be called a sailor, although four of them represented themselves as able and experienced at sea. The wind is constantly increasing and blows this afternoon very fresh. It is directly behind us and we are running under single reefer topsails. We all feel much anxiety at weathering the gale with only one able seaman bit trust to his guidance, who is ever on the stormy sea.took an observation this noon and find ourselves in Latt. 40' 04" N. Night sets in cloudy and stormy, with the promise of an unpleasant morrow.



Thursday, 4th

The sufferings which I have endured for the last three long days will not soon be effaced from my memory. Several of the passengers seemed almost ready to commit themselves to the waves to find relief, but luckily their sickness prevented them from getting on deck. I have lain in my berth nearly all the time, as in truth I was obliged to keep dry, as our decks every few moments would be swept by a heavy sea. We laid to thirty six hours on Tuesday and Wednesday, during which time we lost our quarter boat, broke off mizzen channels and had quite a number of things on deck swept away. As we were before the wind all of the time, our barque rolled tremendously and our cabin, with the incessant dashing of bilge water on the floor, causing a most nauseous and disagreeable stench, the tumbling of baggage about the room, and the almost total darkness in which we were shrouded, all the skylights being closed, and our only light being a dimly burning lantern, all combined in rendering our cabin a very undesirable place.



Sunday, 7th

The gale has at last bated and this day is particularly fine and appears more so to us, having been for the last week clouded in gloom by the dismal sky above us. At 7 a.m. on Friday we bore away before the wind and have thus far made an excellent run from the coast, having by dead reckoning averaged three degrees daily.We lost on Friday twenty two hens, which were swept off by a heavy sea. I feel, this afternoon as well as usual, having entirely recovered from my sickness. Yesterday the Captain seized the cook to the main rigging and gave him two dozen lashes for disobedience of orders. He tried to leap overboard to escape the flogging but was fortunately caught. Every blow drew tears from his black eyes and blood from his back and he begged of the mate and passengers for their interposition, but it was of no avail. It struck me at once that the Captain was a tyrant and I believe that my future observation on his character will prove my opinion true.



Sunday, January 14

Another pleasant sabbath morn has arrived. I have been thinking of home and have wished myself there to attend church. I am quite sick this morning but am able to read in bed. Have read several chapters in the Scriptures. In the evening the passengers joined in singing some Psalms, which sounded very pleasant. Our observation is Latt. 26' 48"N.



Sunday, 21st

Another Sabbath has come around and with it pleasant thoughts of home. On board here we are deprived of everything religious except as can be derived from books. It is rainy this morning but promises fair. We had some of the porpoises cooked for dinner. I have been reading all day in [Henry Ward] Beecher's Lectures to Young Men and [William] Jay's Sermons. Latt. 18'46"



Monday, 22nd

It is the most beautiful morning that we have had since leaving Boston. I shaved today for the first time and feel much relieved. On account of head wind we have been running to the N.E. all the afternoon. I feel much better today. The sea is quite smooth, so much so that we can see a long distance to sea.



Wednesday, 24 th

Nothing this morning to disturb the dull monotony of the voyage. I have been reading a medical book this afternoon and have concluded to give up tobacco in every shape. Innumerable school of flying fish have been around us today. They present a fine appearance as they fly about, the sun shimmering on their wings. Three of them flew on board the Barque and the steward serves them for breakfast. Latt. 17'51"N



Friday, Jan 26

In was awakened this morning by a loud cry from the quarter deck of "there she blows". I hastened on deck and found it to be three sperm whales about a mile distant.they seemed to be playing with each other. The Captain said they were of small size. I had a severe fever last night but feel better this morning. Latt. 13'32"N



Saturday, 27th

A fine morning. I arose at 5 o'clock and paced the deck till breakfast, which makes my appetite rather strong. Our quarter deck resembles a farmer's barn floor. It is covered with onions drying, which got wet in the gale. They remind me strongly of home. We are still close hauled on the wind. The weather is very warm. The thermometer at 80. Latt. 11'34". Long. 36'40"



Sunday, 28th

Another beautiful sabbath morn has come. It seems it was made so serene and calm to remind us of our duty in improving it. I have been reading Beecher's Lectures this forenoon on the quarterdeck. I read six chapters in Genesis this evening. The night sets in still, calm and beautiful. Such an evening as this is likely to make one think of home.



Monday, 29th

I have taken off my thick clothes and donned my thin ones and feel much relieved in doing it. I thought while doing it of the vast difference in the climate between here and Augusta. The wind has hauled to the east and we are cracking along.



Wednesday, Jan 31st

I am this day by Divine permission able to call myself twenty years of age. This my birthday seems to be peculiarly fitted for my particular purpose. In the morning we were refreshed by a gentle shower which makes the deck agreeably cool. I took,out my rifle and cleaned and oiled it to preserve it from rust. We had mince pie for dinner, which to our greediness was very nice. We all,showered blessings on the old steward head in his being able to anticipate our wishes. This afternoon is very calm. The sails flap idly against the mast. The clouds so calm and still scarce seem to move. A painter would delight in such gorgeous scenery. This is the first calm we have had since leaving the States. Night closed in without a breath of wind to cool our heated brows. Henry and I slept on deck for the first time with an old sail to cover us from the sews. Latt. 3'34". Long. 31'3"



Friday, Feb 2nd

It is a perfect calm this morning on account of which the heatbisnvery oppressive. A brig is seen off the lee bow, but as she is standing to the westward, while we are becalmed, we shall not meet her. My hands and feet are very sore from having been burned by the sun. The Captain is pacing the deck very uneasy because we cannot get along. The vessel, which we supposed to be a brig proved to be a ship. At 3 a.m. She was observed standing for us. She proved to be the ship Tartan 98 days from China bound to Philadelphia. As she came down toward us before the wind, which had just sprung up, she looked like a thing of life. Every sail that she had was aloft and filled. She was a very handsome ship and seemed deeply laden. As the wind was bowing fresh we of course could get no,letters on board, which we very much wished to do. The only news we could give him were concerning General Taylor's election to the Presidency. We had time to,exchange but a few words and she passed on.



Saturday, 3rd

We had a very severe rain last night and it continues to rain this morning. All the empty casks have been filled. The mate filled our small boat with fresh water and we all washed our clothes. We were very fortunate in having so much rain as our water had got very low.



Sunday, 4th

Welcome sweet day of rest. There is not wind enough to cool our heated brows. We are within thirty miles of the equator, exposed to a burning sun, lying almost motionless in the water. It has been so hot on deck that I am obliged to study in the cabin.



Wednesday, Feb 7th

We have had a regular breakout in the main hatch and find all things perfectly dry. It was feared by the Captain that there was a leakage through the hatch but it proves not so. I opened my chest of tools which were below and found them all in perfect order. Some books which were accidentally put in there while in Boston were now taken out, much to my gratification, as I needed some of them. My Spanish is very pleasant to me, as I think I am improving my time in a useful way, while others of the passengers are idling their time about deck. Today our Lattitude is 2'20"S. Slow work.



Thursday, 8th

It is a beautiful morning but the sun is bright, which we do not like. Some of the passengers are employed cleaning their pistols. The revolvers lie around and remind one of an armory. We are nearly up to the island Ferdinand Noronha, but shall not be able to see it tonight as the wind is light. We are rather hard in on the South American coast and have now got the southeast trades.



Wednesday, 14th

The wind is still blowing fresh from the NE and we are in hopes of clearing the tropics by Sunday. I have employed my forenoon as usual with my Spanish. We had mince pie for dinner which is a great treat to us although it is made from salt beef. I have been studying chemistry this afternoon. The sun set tonight clear and with gorgeous splendor. Our Latt today is 14'33". Long 34'36"



Saturday, 17th

It is perfectly calm this morning with a short, chop sea. Our deck resembles a busy town. We have the carpenter, the sailmaker, blacksmith and company all at work around the vessel preparing the barque for doubling the Cape.



Sunday, 18th

Dolphins are seen around the vessel. They are the most beautiful fish I have ever seen. I have been engaged in reading Lacon [or Many Things in a Few Words] by Rev. C[harles] C[aleb] Colton in the main topsail. A Portugese brig passed by this afternoon bound north about fifteen miles distant. After reading in the Bible like a good boy, I retired.



Tuesday, 20th

We have passed from the tropics into the temperate zone and have lost the trade winds. It is blowing nearly a gale and we are running on our course before it at 8 1/2 knots. It is cloudy and very cool. Latt 25'S. Long 41'



Wednesday, Feb 21st

There is no wind this morning. The weather has undergone a great change the last two weeks. The nights are quite cool so as to enable us to sleep below very comfortably. We shall now have to rely on the variable winds to carry us to Cape Horn. We are getting everything ready for doubling the Cape. The anchors were taken from their stocks and stowed away today.



Thursday, 22nd

Welcome thou birthday of our great and beloved countryman George Washington. It is a day well fitted to celebrate to his memory, warm and pleasant. We had a fine supper tonight and in the evening we respected his memory by toasts and sentiments. Doctor Shepard made a short speech and nearly all the passengers had something to offer. We enjoyed ourselves finely and adjourned to bed at half past eleven pretty well used up.



Monday, Feb 26th

The wind is blowing fresh and we are going close hauled over 7 knots. A French barque ran across our bow bound to the eastward. As we were passing about two miles at windward, we ran up our peak the Stars and Stripes. In a moment the tri-colored flag went aloft on board the stranger. She was a large barque and made a beautiful appearance with her ensign floating in the breeze far over her stern. I have been making a shot bag this afternoon.



Tuesday, Feb 27 th

We had a severe blow at midnight last night and we are under reefed sails. It is cold enough for thick clothing. We are today abreast of the River LaPlatta and about three hundred miles from land. At midnight we had a very severe squall. All hands, the Captain included, were aloft reefing the main topsail. It lasted for a half hour.



Saturday, March 3rd

As was predicted last night, the cloud which had arisen in the SW had at 4 p.m. brought with it a gale of wind. At 8 o'clock the troubled waters began to assume a massive form and threatened to overwhelm us in their mad career. The gale has not abated at 6 p.m. and the sky presents a dangerous appearance. The sea is very rough and as the decks were covered with spray, I have been lying in my berth nearly all day. The steward has been unable to set his table.



Monday, March 5th

The gale continues and the barque is as yesterday shipping much water. But she is still alive and we all hope for the best, and as long as she holds together that hope will serve to light us on our way. I have been lying in my berth all day engaged in reading and in studying Spanish. But it is tiresome work to hold a book and at the same time be incessantly rolling from side to side by the constant heaving of the vessel. At 11 p.m. A heavy sea broke over the bow and stove in both sides of the galley causing most admirable confusion amongst its culinary apparatus. The sound of tin kettles rolling with much force to leeward and then to windward contrasted fearfully with the deep, hoarse, threatening, grumbling of the storm. I got to sleep before midnight and was not again troubled.



Wednesday, 7th

We had a slight rumpus tonight between two of the passengers from New Bedford, but by the prompt interference of the Captain and the aid of some liquor which he furnished, the affair was amicably adjusted. This night was celebrated as the inauguration of Gen. Taylor.



Thursday, March 8th

The top of the mainmast was this afternoon discovered to be unsound, so much so that her gear above the top mast was all sent down and stowed away, as the Captain judged it unsafe to carry it around the Horn. Iis thought now that we shall be obliged to go into Valparaiso for repairs and water. It would suit me to go in there one or two days, but no longer, merely to see one of the South American cities governed formerly by the Incas.



Friday, March 9th

Our course is now SW to enable us to go to the westward of the Falkland Islands. The nights are cold now, mercury ranging from 30 to 50 degrees. The butter, which while in the tropics was so soft that we used a spoon to dip it out, is now hard as ever. It is too cold for bathing. Latt. 45'. Long 54'



Saturday, March 17th

The weather this afternoon is quite severe and as I expect a rough passage around the Cape I shall write nothing until I make the passage.



Passage around Cape Horn.

Three long, tedious, disagreeable weeks have at last passed away, weeks in which we have been exposed to all the rigors, all the furious tempests which are predominant in this inhospitable region, weeks which have seemed to me an age, confined as I have been to my berth on account of the severity of the weather. We are today in Latt. 54'22" Long. 77'10" and as far south as I ever again desire to be. The weather for some of the time has been very severe, we being one day within a few miles of the frigid zone. At the junction of the two great oceans at Cape Horn there is probably the roughest sea and the the most rigorous weather to which the mariner is exposed. The black concave of the sky above us has too well assisted in adding terror to the picture. Clouds dark and threatening were constantly rushing by us, seeming as they flew past to be combining with the lashed and raging sea to crush us. We were constantly assailed by heavy squalls of snow and sleet, in the morning perhaps a perfect calm, nothing to disturb us but the long, regular heaving of the angry sea, and at night with but momentary notice exposed to the terrible fury of the elements. One night it blew a perfect hurricane.I went on deck to view one of the most sublime spectacles in the majesty of nature, the furious battling of the elements. The cold, wintry moon would now and then peep forth and again vanish instantly, throwing a deep gloom over the scene. During the whole period, the ocean presented a succession of varied scenes, heightened in appearance by our gallant barque struggling in majesty amid the tumultuous conflict of billows raging against billows on every side. We were under very short sail but the mass of rigging which was still presented to the storm, caused a sound as the wind swept by, resembling the roaring of a tempest through a thick forest. But our vessel plunging through the heaving billows, dashing broad beds of snowy foam far around, seemed as she proudly rode the mountain wave, to be conscious of her power. She is well suited to bear us to the land of promise. As wave upon wave came rushing down upon her, threatening to engulf us in their mad career, she rising proudly upon their summits, seemed poised on their crest to scorn their power. I have been confined to my berth nearly all the time, as it was the only place in which I could keep warm. The chief part of my time has been employed in books, but I can assure you it was no pleasant task to hold in hand the book and at the same time suffer from the severe cold. We were obliged to beat entirely around and therefore our progress was very slow. The wind was all the time from NW to SW. We made land several times, the islands of Diego Ramirez and Ildefonso, but derived little pleasure in viewing their bleak and barren shores. We have passed a great many vessels but the rugged weather prevented us from speaking to any of them.



Tuesday, April 3rd

The sea today is very rough and the wind very strong. We are standing to the north under reefed topsails. At nine o'clock the cry of "sail ho" was heard. Going on deck I decried a large ship bearing down toward us before the wind and was soon by the aid of the glass was enabled to make her out a Yankee Frigate. To attempt, my dear parents, to portray to you in favorable coloring the beauty, the noble sublimity of her appearance, as she proudly plunged her way along, scorning alike both wind and wave, would utterly defy the loftiest stretch of my imagination. As I clung to the shrouds watching her swift progress in all the majesty of her nature, I could not but exclaim with all my heart: what a glorious scene for the artist, or poet, or any one of nature's enthusiasts, who could do justice to the scene. From her distance as she passed us we were unable to ascertain her name, but the hoisting of the Stars and Stripes at her peak, to receive ours in return, betokened one of America's proudest ornaments, her gallant navy. She looked like some monster compared to our puny barque and her noble and majestic appearance spoke favorably of the object and power for which she was built — the protection of America's Freemen. She was under close reefed topsails and seemed a very fast sailor. Her tall and slender masts were soon lost to sight in the dim and misty horizon.



Tuesday, April 10th

I was awakened this morning by the cheerful cry on deck from the sailors of "O hi yo" When I went on deck I found all hands at work sending up top gallant mast, top gallant and royal yards, bending on the sails, stocking the anchors, sending out the flying jib boom and doing other necessary things preparatory to going into port, which we are expecting. The change in the air becomes every day more perceptible and we hail every fair wind with joy, so anxious are we to leave this cold and barren region for the pleasant weather and serene skies of the tropics where we can lie on deck or sit in the main topsail with our books, while fanned with soft and humid winds.



Wednesday, April 18 th

We are within twenty four hour sail of Valparaiso and shall probably, if the wind holds, go in tomorrow. Our object in making port is want of water. I intend, as far as I am able, to visit as many objects of interest as are near the City. Land has been in sight nearly every day for the last week. We have some of the time been within fifteen miles of shore and seen the snow capped summits of the Andes towering far above the coastal mountains. It was a beautiful scene and little did I dream one year ago that I should be almost in reach of them, gazing with wonder and admiration on their gigantic forms, as they almost vied with the heavens in loftiness and grandeur.



Saturday, April 21st

It is a beautiful morning and Valparaiso's light house is two miles ahead. The wind is light and we have a fine opportunity to view the mountainous coast. On a lofty hill on our right is a telegraph and by the aid of the glass we can discern the keeper hoisting his signals. Next comes what is called The Fort but it much resembles a dilapidated mud hovel. Two guns are seen with their rusty mouths protruding from the muddy ramparts. Two or three boats with their dark occupants are seen near the shore engaged in fishing. The bay, which is gradually opening to view, is a small indenture in the coast, forming a curve of about three miles from point to point. It is entirely unprotected from the heavy north winds, which are prevalent in the winter season and in consequence for three or four of the winter months their commerce is nearly at a stand. 


At eleven o'clock we dropped anchor among twenty or thirty flags. We were immediately surrounded by a great number of boats from shore, some with merchants, others with what are truly called at home Land Sharks - but most were natives come off to take us on shore and they exhibited as much cunning and energy in getting a passenger as the hackmen at public depots in the States. Three of us were soon seated in a boat by the polite invitation of a merchant, Mr. Montgomery, and after a short row we landed on a quay which was covered with dark skinned Chileans, some to inquire the news, some to get a job, but very little of their jabbering did I understand. Accompanied by Mr. Montgomery we took a stroll through the town to take a flying view of the people, and we returned at four o'clock to the Fonda de Estrelle, the hotel, where we dined. There were several merchant Captains at the table but none whom I knew. Everything was served in the same style as at a hotel in Boston, and I assure you that a dinner of green vegetables after having lived on salt provisions for so long a time was much sweeter than the fabled ambrosia to Jupiter. Although the price was very extravagant, I felt but little reluctance at paying for so great a treat.



Tuesday, April 24th

We got underway this noon and are slowly leaving the harbor towed by four boats. I once more am seated in the cabin and have resumed my pen to give a passing description of Valparaiso. It has a population of forty thousand and is the principal commercial port in Chile. My first impression of the Chileans on landing at the quay and seeing so many natives standing idly around was that they were a lazy and indolent people. But I afterward learned that these were boatmen and that one-eighth of the population was employed on the water. On advancing into the street, the first particular object that attracted my attention was the chain gang, and on enquiring of an Englishman standing near, I was told that this was the only punishment for every offense and that after being in this gang four times the penalty is death. They were guarded by soldiers and engaged in paving the streets with cobblestones.  


Walking along I noticed a church door standing open and having a curiosity to seeing the sacred as well as the profane, I entered without ceremony and found but two or three persons there, who were going through some form of service. While watching their movements I heard a muttering noise behind me and turning beheld a woman with shaven pate coming toward me with a mug of water. By her own motions and my little knowledge of Spanish, I was able to understand that she wished to anoint my head with holy water. I, being a good heretic, of course refused to acknowledge the power of this Catholic's healing medicine. Her earnest entreaties and supplications caused me at last to smile, and she uttered a most piteous cry, which caused to appear from behind the altar four priests who told us that we, not willing to be anointed, must leave, which we did after taking one more stroll around the room.


The most amazing thing to me were the mules and the drivers. All the produce of the country is brought to town in two panniers lashed on either side of the animal, while the driver seated behind these, upon the mules tail, with whip and spurs three inches long, dash through the streets presenting a novel and laughable picture. Walking along, a sign Jardin de Publico, attracted my notice. Entering as usual without ceremony, I found myself among nature's smiling works, in the most beautiful garden I ever beheld. Oranges, lemons, figs, dates, bananas and a great variety of other fruit were hanging in rich profusion from the over hanging limbs and vines. What a contrast between this Paradise and the cabin of the Carite. It seemed the happiest moment of may life when I entered this sweet and fragrant Elyseum. I did not leave until every part had been minutely inspected, and then with much reluctance.  


In the evening I attended the Opera and was much surprised to see so many well dressed people. It is opened once a week and is chiefly supported by foreign residents. Lucretia Borgia, of whom you may have heard as a successful actress in Boston, is now the prima Donna. The house was filled with the elite and gay and among the number I recognize the British and American consul. The performance was in Italian and of corse was unintelligible to me, but the tragedy and comedy seemed to have as successful champions as at home. I returned at twelve o'clock in a cabriolet to my hotel. 


On Monday we went to the market to purchase some fruit to carry on board the barque.It is tended altogether by females and we created much laughter among the fair superintendents of the surrounding stalls at our earnest endeavors to reduce the prices. Americanos! Yankees! echoed through the hall and we were treated very respectfully and kindly. Henry and I purchased as much fruit for $1.25 as could be bought in the States for treble the sum.

We called at eleven o'clock on the American consul, Mr. Wm. G. Morehead of Ohio, formerly a U. S. Senator. He gave us much interesting information of the gold region and also a list of vessels which have sailed from Boston for California since Feb. 26. In a New York Herald which he gave me I notice an association had been formed in Augusta of thirty members, but no names were given. We have, however, got the start on them and hope to welcome them at the Gold Region with our purses well lined. Everything from California is bright and cheering. A large number of people have gone from Chile and the clipper ship Ann McKim, which arrived three days ago, reported the price of everything but provisions as extravagantly high. I was informed that the prices paid for clerks were from $1500 to $2000 and that if I wished to remain here I could receive $2000, but California is my aim and a much larger sum would hardly change my determination.

I have by the kind offer of Captain Smith of the American Merchant ship Independence deposited with him my Journal to April 20th. He sails for Boston in a few days. The postage to the Sates by the way of Panama being very high, and my Journal rather weighty, I did not think it advisable to send by that route.  


By the polite invitation of Mr. Peel, grandson of Sir Robert, a mid shipman on board the Asia, I went on board the vessel accompanied by Henry at three o'clock. I was much pleased with the order and regularity and neatness of everything about. The officers and men consisted of about seven hundred and were mostly fine looking men. The old motto, England expects every man to do his duty was wrought in large guilt letters over the cabin door. We were shown through every part of the ship and returned on board the Barque at five p.m. highly pleased with the visit. 


I went ashore again this morning to purchase a few things and returned at noon just as the vessel was getting under weigh. As little as I have seen of Valparaiso, I am much pleased with everything concerning it. The market is at all seasons fine and she can boast of as good eating and drinking as any part of the world. The climate is at all times healthy, and in the winter season which is now just coming, not surpassed in any section of the globe. Chile is the most advanced in republicanism of any of the South American states, but the Catholic religion, that tyrant's support, that poor man's master, still encircles and enslaves them as a yoke of iron. But for this and they would be a free, intelligent, enlightened people, and worthy representatives of their guiding star, the glorious confederacy.

This brief description of our short and pleasant visit will, I trust, suffice and I hope some future day to revisit this coast.



Sunday, May 13

Daily we grow impatient to reach the El Dorado but none more so than our Captain who superintends the carpenters on the quarter deck. Thank God we shall not always be exposed to a meanness of character as is the chief authority on board the Barque - so destitute of every gentlemanly quality and embued with sordid desires as is exhibited by him and which we are daily in contact with. How pleasantly would time pass were things different, but time will soon bring a change and I sincerely hope and trust for the better. How pleasant would it be to hear from home, but I cannot and must patiently wait for our arrival in San Francisco. I have been engaged today in reading Kingsberry on the Sabbath and Alcott on self education. Had porpoise for dinner.



Sunday, May 20th

I have been reading Dr [Dionysius] Lardner's Scientific Lectures. Also several numbers of the Democratic Review. We are today 141 days from Boston, 26 from Valparaiso. Every day increases our anxiety to reach the El Dorado and we trust for a favorable wind the rest of the voyage.



Monday, May 28th

At six p.m. A vessel was seen astern standing the same course with us, apparently anxious to speak to us, his flag was at half mast. We of course hove to, thinking him in distress. She came rapidly up to us and proved to be the American barque Elvira from Boston to California. She sailed three days after us, had refreshed at Rio and had a passage of forty days around the Cape. At dark we parted company. She was a very swift vessel and in Boston was thought to make the shortest passage to California that would be made. But she has beaten us but little and will probably arrive at San Francisco one or two days ahead. We hope to arrive in twelve days and are gradually preparing our things. My leisure time I have employed in reading Shakespeare.



Saturday Eve, June 16 th

After a long and constant succession of head winds it has at last hauled to the NW and we are able for the first time for two weeks to stand a direct course to San Francisco. The Port bears NE 1/2 E distant 420 miles and if the wind holds where it is, three days will find us at anchor. The weather has been rather unpleasant, the temperature having been cold, and much rain, and as we gradually approach the coast we are subject to heavy fogs. Nothing has occurred worthy of notice except on Sunday last, made memorable by the committal to the deep of our esteemed and favorite cat. Being subject to fits, we thus relieved her from future trials and tribulations, after having given her a leaden pill from a trusty revolver. We are all anxious to arrive and daily we beseech for a speedy deliverance from this floating prison and the vile presence of our worthless Captain. We have finally got a chance to promenade, the carpenters having completed their work on the deck. I have finished the Life of Peter the Great [by John Mottley(?)], the History of Rome [by Henry Malden(?)], Shakespeare and part of Lady [Marguerite] Blessington's works during the last fortnight and the remainder of my time will be occupied in preparing for shore and finishing letters.



Saturday, June 23rd - San Francisco, California

We made the land off Monterey on Wednesday, June 20 and have been obliged to beat up to this port before light head winds. We made the land off this port this morning at nine o'clock and at half past three were safely at anchor among a fleet of 150 sails. Two US sloops of war are at anchor nearby. The Ohio, on board which I had expected to find Midshipman Phil Johnson has sailed for the Sandwich Islands to return in a few days.

This finishes my Journal, which all must excuse, as the sea is a poor place for writing or composing. 


175 days passage.

Epilogue



I have not yet been able to determine what success Henry might have had in California. I do know that his father, Luther Severance, of Augusta, who was a member of the House of Representatives as a member of the Whig Party, was appointed by President Taylor to serve as the consul general to the Sandwich Islands (Hawaii), that he arrived in Honolulu in January, 1851 with his wife and Henry's younger brother and sister. Luther Severance served in that capacity until December, 1853. I think that Henry joined his family in Hawaii and stayed there after his father left. He was married in Hawaii and his older daughter was born there. His younger daughter, my maternal grandmother, was married there in 1895. He was appointed Hawaiian consul at San Francisco in 1876 and American Minister and consul general at San Francisco from 1889 -1893. So I suspect that the direction of his life after 1849 had little to do with the gold rush and everything to do with his journey from Boston to San Francisco.
Read More

Tuesday, November 15, 2011

What would Thomas Paine do?

Presented to the Club on Monday evening, Nov. 14, 2011 by Charles F. Sawyer


In 1989, I delivered my first paper to the Monday Evening Club. The subject of the paper concerned the implications of a book written by Bill McKibben, entitled “The End of Nature." Published that year, after having been serialized in the New Yorker, it is regarded as the first book for a general audience about climate change, and has been printed in more than twenty languages. A recent updated version was published in 2006. The message of the book was that true nature, which was independent of human influence, has been replaced by an artificial nature that had been created by the actions and interactions of human beings. He pointed out that human activity had changed the chemistry of the atmosphere, with enormous implications for the quality of life in the future. He pointed out that our influence on climate, with changing temperatures and sea levels would likely lead to less predictable and more violent weather events. McKibben’s discussion of the issues presented by these changes was both broad and detailed and illustrated in both scientific and human terms. He listed possible consequences of environmental degradation including floods and famine, worsening asthma and hay fever. He points out that we way in which we live, with our cars, our houses, plastics and pesticides, are as much a part of our world as the trees, waters and hills that are the natural landscape. He takes the position that we will have decide between our material world and the natural world. He envisions a “humbler world” where we would make do with less and thus take a less dominant position with relation to nature and where nature might once again establish itself as independent and constant. In the end, he does not think that likely. He sees a managed world, in which human beings control the climate, genetics and ecology as the most likely scenario, short of ecological catastrophe.



This being my first paper delivered to the Club, I recall wondering how it would be received. My memory is that the book, and thus the paper, was considered by several members to be a polemic and, as such, somewhat out of the mainstream o f papers. I would be interested to see how the Club would receive it today. I may get the chance, because my paper deals in large part with the questions and concerns treated in a recently published book entitled “Fool Me Twice – Fighting the Assault on Science." Let me tell you about the journey that took me to that book.


Last summer I was sitting on the porch at Wahconah Country Club [Dalton, MA], having just finished a round of golf. I had played with one of my regular partners and a local high school science teacher, whom he had invited. It had been a pleasant day and we were having drinks and talking about nothing in particular. Somehow, and I don’t recall how, the conversation turned to a discussion of the teacher’s science classes and the teaching of evolution. As the conversation went on I realized that he was telling us that he managed to include some version of intelligent design into the curriculum. I couldn’t just sit there and listen as he went on, so I jumped right in. As I did so, I thought “whoa.” I’m not sure that I’m equipped to defend and discuss the theory of evolution, something that I didn’t think needed defending. Me, the history major, who had jumped the science ship as soon as I was permitted to.


I actually think I did OK, talking about natural selection, carbon testing, archeological findings and what science means by the idea of a “theory.” Later, however, as I thought about all of this, I was not only
troubled by the idea that the latest iteration of creationism was being snuck into high school science class, but by my own ignorance and inability to intelligently discuss something so fundamentally important. If I, a college and law school graduate, a person interested in politics and current events, a daily reader and watcher of the news, was so limited in my understanding of evolution, considered to be the foundation for an understanding of modern biology, what was the state of general understanding? I was determined to be more informed, in no small part I must admit, so that I would be better armed for the next creationist. That led me to buy a book by Richard Dawkins entitled “The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution.” In the book, Dawkins takes on creationists, including followers of “intelligent design” and all those who question the fact of evolution through natural selection. He uses living examples of natural selection in birds and insects, radioactive data that calibrate a timescale for evolution, the fossil record and the traces of our earliest ancestors and confirmation from molecular biology and genetics. I now felt somewhat more learned, and prepared.


My journey was moved forward by several current events. I think we all have become increasingly aware of the issue of global warming and climate change. And much has been learned and explored since Bill McKibben’s book, 22 years ago. The events of this year have, I think, been particularly significant in raising our attention level. I refer to tornadoes that have raced across the country, not only in what we consider the tornado belt, but here in western Massachusetts with the June 1 tornado that hit Springfield. The National Weather Service has concluded that this has been the deadliest year of tornadoes since 1936. I also refer to the drought that has persisted in Texas and would appear to become the worst on record. And we can’t forget about hurricane Irene and the 100 year flood events that accompanied her.


Now I think we are all mindful of the fact that weather and climate are two different things and that there have always been extreme weather events that do not represent an accurate picture of the actual climate. However, we are being presented with more and more scientific information that supports the fact of global warming, if not climate change. I read recently about a prominent physicist and skeptic of global warming who spent two years trying to find out if mainstream climate scientists were wrong. In the end, he determined they were right. Temperatures really had risen. The study of the world’s temperatures by Richard Muller was partially bankrolled by a foundation connected to global warming deniers. He pursued long held skeptic theories in analyzing the data. He was spurred to action in part because of “Climategate,” a scandal involving hacked emails of British scientists. He found that the land is 1.6 degrees warmer than in the 1950’s. Those numbers from Muller, who works at the University of California, Berkeley and Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, match those by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA. His ultimate finding of a warming world was presented at a conference in Santa Fe, NM in late October. One quarter of the $600,000 to do the research came from the Charles Koch Foundation, whose founder is a major funder of skeptic groups and the Tea Party. The Koch bothers, Charles and David, run a large privately held company involved in oil and other industries, producing sizeable greenhouse gas emissions.


Muller’s research team carefully examined two chief criticisms by skeptics, One is that weather stations are unreliable. The other is that cities, which create heat islands, were skewing the temperature analysis. These factors were considered and accounted for in the final analysis. Muller asserted that the temperature rise that had been previously reported had been done without bias. I saw that Muller had recently written a piece that appeared in the Wall Street Journal, a place friendly to skeptics. There he pointed out that in his research he did not address the cause of global warming, although he did say that it makes sense to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide created by fossil fuels. He did not think that the threat was as proven as the Nobel Prize winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says it is.
What caught my attention in reading one article about Muller’s work was a reference to Shawn Lawrence Otto, author of the book “Fool Me Twice” that criticizes science skeptics. He noted that Muller should expect to be harshly treated by global warming deniers. “Now he’s considered a traitor,” Otto said. “For the skeptic community, this isn’t about data or fact. It’s about team sports. He’s been traded to the Indians. He’s playing for the wrong team now.” I went out and bought Otto’s book.
In a 2006 Alaska gubernatorial debate, Sarah Palin came out in favor of teaching both evolution and creationism in science class, saying, “Teach both. You know, don’t be afraid of education. Healthy debate is so important, and it’s so valuable in our schools.”


The central question that Otto raises is one that is as old as the republic. Are we Americans well informed enough to be trusted with our own governance? More specifically, are we going to use true science, and the scientific method, to understand and engage with such important issues as climate change, population growth and food supply. Despite the crises we are and will be confronting, political discourse in the United States in the last decade has seen a reactionary pullback from science and reason, as manifested in the decline of science journalism and the boastful indifference to scientific facts by many elected officials. Otto describes the ghettoization of science in American journalism, whereby the policy implications of scientific issues are not reported in the way that the effects of business and economy are. Science has earned a sort of untouchable status in American discourse, allowing for rhetorical treatment of matters that are the proper subject of scientific study. Often, religion fills this vacuum and, as a result, a false dichotomy has been created between science and religion. As one observer has said, this may be best evidenced by Rick Perry’s August 18, 2011 response to a New Hampshire child who asked him if he believed in evolution. Perry said “It’s a theory that’s out there. It’s got some gaps in it. In Texas we teach both creationism and evolution.” How stunning it is to have one of the leading contenders for the Presidency publicly express doubts as to the veracity of the scientific theory which is the foundation of modern medicine and biology. The press seems to accept the notion that it should report every such statement as simply one side of the story, and that there are always two sides to every story, each of which are equally valid, with the truth lying somewhere in between. And thus Governor Perry goes unchallenged.


Early in his book Otto points out that science has been responsible for roughly half of all US economic growth since World War II. He notes that by 2006, anti science views focused on three main areas, the denial of: (1) the science of reproductive medicine; (2) the science of climate change; and (3) the science of evolution. He puts significant emphasis on the importance of enlightenment ideals as the foundation of our Republic. He tells of the struggle that Thomas Jefferson had in framing the beginning of the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson’s initial effort began, “We hold these truths to be divinely inspired, that all men are created equal.” Unhappy with this, he sought advice from Benjamin Franklin, and out of that collaboration came the statement so familiar to us, “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal.” To be self evident was to recognize natural law, using reason alone to understand the true nature of things. The Enlightenment was important to America because it provided the philosophical basis of the American Revolution, which was more than just a protest against British authority .As it turned out, the Revolution provided the blueprint for a democratic society, for an enlightened concept of government whose most profound documents may have been the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution. Thomas Paine, who authored Common Sense, a reasoned argument for American independence, later wrote: “You will do me the justice to remember, that I have always strenuously supported the right of every man to his own opinion, however different that opinion might be from mine. He who denies to another this right, makes a slave to himself of his present opinion, because he precludes himself the right of changing it. ... The most formidable weapon against errors of every kind is Reason. I have never used any other and I trust I never shall.” To feel the full impact of the Enlightenment on America one needs only to look at the first Inaugural Address of Thomas Jefferson, who along with Benjamin Franklin, is considered to be the American most touched by the ideas of the Enlightenment. Jefferson wrote: “if there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated, where reason is left free to combat it.”
Early in the book Otto talks about the scientific method and the difference between matters of faith and scientific theory. He explains that the scientific method is a process of observation, Hypothesis, experiments and conclusion, From observing something in the natural world a hypothesis is made, which is advanced by experiments that support the hypothesis. A conclusion is reached , which is then presented to the scientific community. Other scientists the test that hypothesis with their own experiments. The more that time and tests confirm the conclusion, the more that “theory” approaches fact. Those that say evolution is only a theory do not understand what is meant by that appellation or choose to ignore it because it challenges their belief system. After 150 years of having been subjected to hundreds of thousands of tests, it is the one explanation that has been confirmed by all the known and validated experiments performed to date. Another point Otto makes is that if there is no way to prove a hypothesis is false, then it cannot be science. For example, saying that God, or some intelligent equivalent, created something, be it the earth, humans or the universe is not a scientific statement because it’s not limited to the natural world and because it can’t be disproved.


At this point in my reading, I paused to consider the question: Why are the theories of gravity, global warming and evolution met with very different degrees of acceptance by skeptics and deniers. I’m sure it’s not an original thought with me, but it seems that the notion of gravity is accepted by almost everyone because it is not threatening to accept that idea. Whether gravity is or is not does not challenge anyone’s economic, political or religious interests. It is also an idea that we all see in operation every time an apple falls from a tree, the earth circles the sun or our skin sags further each year. Global warming is accepted by many, but still has many skeptics. Compared to the idea of gravity, it is a very recent concept. We simply have not been wrestling with it for very long. It’s not easy to understand how more snow this winter can be a result of global warming, rather than the contrary. And although it probably doesn’t challenge any religious interests, it most certainly challenges the economic and political interests of many groups. Big oil and coal, major polluters, Kyoto opponents and politicians who are beholden to any of those are to be found in the front ranks of the naysayers. The theory of evolution is quite another matter. It has a shelf life that just goes on and on. Why is this? It doesn’t represent a challenge to anyone’s economic interests, nor to any political groups. However, it does challenge the fundamental religious beliefs of a substantial number of Americans. And therein lies the reason why it may be the most challenged scientific theory of all time.


Fool Me Twice is divided into five sections ‘America’s Science Problem’ discusses how science has been devalued at a time when technology has become more important than ever to sustaining America’s wealth and competitiveness in the global economy. The religious authoritarianism and fascism that have gained strength following the attacks of 9/11 have put science to the side in order to protect the corporate status quo, thereby leaving many pressing issues unresolved and presenting America with an uncertain future.


‘Yesterday’s Science Politics’ asserts that America was not founded as an explicitly Christian nation but one that was inspired by the Enlightenment ideal of reason as God’s natural law. Otto recounts how the sciences once flourished in a free America that routinely attracted scientists who were driven out of repressive places like Nazi Germany, and when figures such as Albert Einstein and Edwin Hubble were cherished national figures. He laments how WWII and the Manhattan Project instilled widespread public fear and the subsequent Cold War funding of big science projects drove most scientists away from the public forum. He contends that anxieties about the bomb and the effect of polluting technologies on the environment provided an impetus to the rise of an anti-scientific political culture. He also notes that the end of the FCC Fairness Doctrine in 1987 gave the corporate media free reign to use rhetoric to influence public dialogue, a power that has largely been used for the benefit of private interests at the expense of reason, science and the public’s right to know.


‘Today’s Science Politics’ explains how issues such as global warming have been captured by an identity politics that is driven by emotion, not science. For example, Otto details how the fossil fuel industry has funded disinformation that is churned by a mainstream media which tends to exploit controversy for ratings while ignoring sound science. Assessing the merits of several scientifically credible solutions to the crisis, he proposes that an investment of $30 billion a year would be a reasonable solution toward curbing global warming while revitalizing scientific innovation and the economy.


‘Tomorrow’s Science Politics begins by reminding us that anti-intellectualism is a strategy often embraced by authoritarian powers. Otto argues that corporate pollution represents a tragedy of the commons that has been imposed by the few upon the many’s right to a clean, nontoxic environment. However, as the insurance industry has been stressed by increasing payments associated with more frequent and violent storm events, he makes a strong case for protecting wild nature to ensure benefits for future generations.


"The Solution" attempts to bridge the culture wars by moving towards common ground through science. Otto is strongly spoken when he write that religious leaders are immoral when they lie about issues that will undoubtedly have detrimental consequences for our children, but admits that science must do its part to have its voice heard by appealing to human aspirations, not fears. He hopes that scientists will reach out to moderates in the religious and political communities, who in turn must include scientific truths in the discussion.


In an Appendix at the end of the book Otto proposes that our elected officials take The American Science Pledge. He asserts that many in this generation have failed to solve the accumulating science challenges , preferring to punt them into the future or, increasingly deny they even exist. He sees the need for candidates in both major parties who will lead on tough science questions and who will emphasize the primacy of knowledge and science as the best basis for informed, effective and fair public policies in a diverse nation. He contends that The Contract from America, the Taxpayer Protection Pledge and the No Climate Tax Pledge all seek to restrict reasoned debate. Candidates are asked to sign the Pledge to show their commitment to its five core principles and to agree to debate fourteen top science questions in public forums.


The five core principles are:
  1. Public decisions must be based on knowledge. “I will support public policy decisions based on the knowledge produced by science, which may be informed by economic interests and my values but never superseded by personal opinions or political objectives.”

  2. Knowledge is supreme and must not be suppressed. “I will protect and defend the precious basis of America’s freedom, which is the scientific consensus of knowledge, against political forces that seek to deny it, suppress it, or substitute for it rhetoric or opinion.”

  3. Scientific integrity and transparency must be protected. “I will oppose all efforts to reduce freedom by holding back or altering scientific reports because they conflict with personal opinions, economic interests or political objectives.”

  4. Freedom of inquiry must be encouraged. “I will oppose acts that reduce freedom by attacking, intimidating, interrogating, prosecuting, disparaging or silencing scientists and

  5. Academics whose research or scientific reports conflict with personal opnions, economic interests or political objectives.”

  6. The major science policy issues must be openly debated. “To demonstrate my commitment to these principles and to moving America forward in solving these challenges, I will participate in one or more substantive, nonpartisan, public, televised, independently moderated debates on the top science challenges facing America.”

Read More

Wednesday, March 24, 2010

Those activist judges: On the expansion of marriage rights

Presented to the Club by Charles F. Sawyer on Monday evening, March 22, 2010



As was noted by Bill Moyers in his February PBS program, the Bill Moyers Journal, the quest for marriage equality has created some unlikely allies in attorneys Theodore Olsen, a conservative, and David Boies, a liberal. The two became nationally famous as the opposing counsel in Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court case that halted the Florida recount and resolved the 2000 election in favor of George W. Bush. Now the two lawyers, who have successfully argued many cases before the Supreme Court, are lead co-counsel in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, a case that was recently argued in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. That case is a challenge to Proposition 8, California’s ballot initiative that amended the State Constitution so as to put an end to same sex marriage. A decision will likely be issued this spring by the presiding judge, Vaughn Walker.



Bill Moyers interviewed the two lawyers on February 26. Here are some of the things they each had to say:

Conservatives, just like liberals, rely on the Supreme Court to protect the rule of law, to protect our liberties, to look at the law and decide whether or not it fits within the Constitution. And I think the point that’s really important here, when you’re thinking about judicial activism, is that this is not a new right. Nobody is saying, ‘Go find in the Constitution the right to get married.’ Everybody, unanimous Supreme Court, says there’s a right to get married, a fundamental right to get married. The question is whether you can discriminate against certain people based upon their sexual orientation. And the issue of prohibiting discrimination has never in my view been looked at as a test of judicial activism. That’s not liberal, that’s not conservative. That’s not Republican or Democrat. That’s simply an American Constitutional right.

The whole point of a Constitution is to say there are certain things a majority cannot do, whether it’s 52 per cent or 62 per cent or 72 percent or 82 per cent of the people.
The Supreme Court has said that the right to get married is a fundamental individual right. And our opponents say. ‘Well, the state has an interest in procreation and that’s why we allow people to get married. That marriage is for the benefit of the state. Freedom of relationship is for the benefit of the state.’ We don’t believe that in this country. We believe that we created a government (to which we gave certain authority). The government doesn’t give us liberty, we give the government power to a certain degree to restrict our liberty, but subject to the Bill of Rights.
There are certain rights that are so fundamental that the Constitution guarantees them to every citizen regardless of what a temporary majority may or may not vote for…. And what the Supreme Court has said is that even a democratic-elected legislature in Wisconsin cannot decide by majority rule that marriage scofflaws, people who don’ t pay their child support, who abuse their children, abuse their wives, cannot get married again. They said marriage is so fundamental that you can’t take it away, even for people who have abused an initial marriage. Missouri, the legislature, democratic-elected legislature voted majority rule, overwhelmingly, that imprisoned felons could not get married. Supreme Court says, ‘No, even though they can’t live together, they can’t be together, marriage is such a fundamental human right that you can’t take that away.’
I think it is noteworthy that unless you knew the individual rhetorical styles of the liberal Boies and the conservative Olsen, you could not distinguish their comments, from a philosophical or political point of view.



I will come back to the Perry case, but let’s first take a look at the present state of same-sex marriage in our country and how we got there .



In 1993, the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that laws denying same-sex couples the right to marry violated state constitutional equal protection rights unless the state could show a “compelling reason” for such discrimination. In 1996 a trial court ruled that the state had no such compelling reason and the case headed back to the Supreme Court. However, in 1998, before a final ruling was issued, voters adopted a Constitutional amendment giving the Legislature the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples, effectively ending the lawsuit.



On November 18, 2003 the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held, in the case of Goodridge v. Department of Mental Health, that “barring an individual from the protections, benefits and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts Constitution.”



“Marriage is a vital social institution,” wrote Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall for the majority of the Justices. “The exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other nurtures love and mutual support; it brings stability to our society. For those who choose to marry, and for their children, marriage provides an abundance of legal, financial and social benefits. In turn, it imposes weighty legal, financial and social obligations.” The question before the Court was “whether, consistent with the Massachusetts Constitution,” the Commonwealth could deny those protections, benefits and obligations to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry.



In ruling that the Commonwealth could not do so, the Court observed that the Massachusetts Constitution “affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals,” and “forbids the creation of second class citizens.” This conclusion is reached, the Court said, giving “full deference to the arguments made by the Commonwealth.” The Commonwealth, the court ruled, “has failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason for denying civil marriage to same sex couples.”



The Court affirmed that it owes “great deference to the Legislature to decide social and policy issues.” Where, as here, the constitutionality of a law is challenged, it is the “traditional and settled role” of courts to decide the constitutional question. The “marriage ban” the court held, “works a deep and scarring hardship” on same-sex families for “no rational reason.” It prevents children of same-sex couples “from enjoying the immeasurable advantages that flow from the assurance of a stable family structure in which children will be reared, educated and socialized.” “It cannot be rational under our laws,” the court held, “to penalize children by depriving them of State benefits because of their parents’ sexual orientation.



The court rejected the Commonwealth’s claim that the primary purpose of marriage was procreation. Rather, the history of the marriage laws in the Commonwealth demonstrates that “it is the exclusive and permanent commitment of the marriage partners to one another, not the begetting of children, that is the sine qua non of marriage.”



The court remarked that its decision “does not disturb the fundamental value of marriage in our society. That same sex couples are willing to embrace marriage’s solemn obligations of exclusivity, mutual support and commitment to one another is a testament to the enduring place of marriage in our laws and in the human spirit.”



The opinion redefines the common law definition of civil to mean, “the voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others.” Noting that “civil marriage has long been termed ‘a civil right,’’’ the court concluded that “the right to marry means little if it does not include the right to marry the person of one’s choice, subject to appropriate government restrictions in the interests of public health, safety and welfare.”



I would make note here that our own [Berkshire native] Justice Francis X. Spina, one of three dissenting justices in this 5 to 3 decision, stated that the issue is not the unequal treatment of individuals or whether individual’s rights have been impermissibly burdened, but the power of the Legislature to effectuate social change without interference from the courts. He emphasized that “the power to regulate marriage lies with the Legislature, not with the judiciary.”



Pursuant to this decision, the state of Massachusetts began issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples on May17, 2004. In the following six-month period, approximately 6,100 couples were married. Subsequently, about 1,000 have been performed each year.



In 2000, Vermont approved landmark legislation to recognize civil unions between same-sex couples, granting them virtually all the benefits, protections and responsibilities that married couples have under Vermont law. The Vermont legislation was the result of the state Supreme Court ruling in Baker v. Vermont that same-sex couples are entitled, under the state constitution’s “Common Benefits Clause,” to the same benefits and protections as married opposite-sex couples. The court ruled that the Vermont Legislature must decide how to provide these benefits and protections, either by legalizing marriage for same-sex couples or by establishing an alternative system. The Vermont Legislature chose to preserve marriage as the legally recognized union of one man and one woman but at the same time created a parallel system of civil unions for same sex couples that went beyond existing “domestic partnership” and “reciprocal beneficiaries” laws that exist in California and Hawaii and other jurisdictions in the country today.



In April, 2005, Connecticut became the first state to legalize civil unions without prompting from the courts.



In October, 2006, the New Jersey Supreme Court ordered the legislature to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples or to establish a separate legal structure, such as civil unions, to give same-sex couples the same rights as heterosexual couples. In late 2006, the legislature passed a statute allowing civil unions beginning in February, 2007.



New Hampshire passed legislation authorizing civil unions, which took effect on January 1, 2008.



In May, 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples should have the right to marry. The ruling took effect in mid June and same-sex marriages were performed there for a short period of time before the ballot initiative, known as Proposition 8, was passed in November, again banning same-sex marriage. It is the constitutionality of Proposition 8 that is being contested in the Perry case.



In October, 2008, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that a ban against same-sex marriage was in violation of the equal protection clause in the state constitution. Connecticut became the second state to allow same-sex marriage.



In April, 2009, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that the state’s ban against same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. The ruling was a unanimous one, 9-0, and was based on equal protection and fairness grounds. Supporters pointed out that, as with the electoral caucuses, “as Iowa goes, so goes the nation.”



In May, 2009 Vermont became the first state where the legislature, without judicial mandate, passed legislation to allow same-sex marriage. Maine and New Hampshire quickly followed, bringing the number of states to allow same-sex marriage to six. However, same-sex marriage was never performed in Maine because a ballot measure passed in November, 2009, repealing the law.



In December, 2009 the District of Columbia Council passed a same-sex marriage law. As with most such actions in the District, this was subject to a Congressional review period of 90 days. In what could be seen as a measure of its current temperament, the Congress declined to act, thereby allowing it to become law, just three weeks ago, on March 3.



In 1996, Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage Act, which bars federal recognition of same sex marriages and allows states to do the same. Since 1996, many states have enacted legislation prohibiting same-sex marriages or the recognition of same-sex marriages performed in another jurisdiction. States have traditionally recognized marriages solemnized in other states, even those that are contrary to the marriage laws of that particular state. Under the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution, states are generally required to recognize and honor the laws of other states, unless those laws are contrary to the strong public policy of that state. The constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, as it applies to same-sex couples legally married in Massachusetts, is the subject of a pending lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Gill v. the Office of Personnel Management, to which I will refer later.



Over half of the states have passed legislation defining marriage as between a man and a woman in their state constitutions. Arizona is the only state where a constitutional amendment on the ballot in a general election has failed. Typically, such amendments have passed with overwhelming majorities. There have been several proposals before Congress to amend the federal constitution, defining marriage as between a man and a woman and ensuring that states would not be required to recognize same sex marriages from other jurisdictions. Opponents of such an amendment cite federalism concerns in addition to support for same sex marriages. A constitutional amendment requires two thirds of the House and Senate and three quarters of the state legislatures for enactment.



The January 18 issue of the New Yorker published an article by Margaret Talbot entitled “A Risky Proposal,” which raised the question of whether it is too soon to petition the Supreme Court on gay marriage. Addressing that question, Ted Olsen said, “The Supreme Court has said over and over again that marriage is a fundamental right, and although our opponents say, ‘Well, that’s always been a man and a woman,’ when the Court has talked about it they’ve said it’s an associational right, it’s a privacy right, it’s a liberty right, and it’s an expression of your identity, which is all wrapped up in the Constitution.” The justices of the Supreme Court, Olsen said, “are individuals who will consider this seriously, and give it good attention.” Bill Moyers, raising the same issue, asked David Boies, “I’m leading up to a point that seems crucial to me in the whole history of the Supreme Court, which is at what time does it take on public opinion? I mean, for example, roughly 40 states have laws banning gay marriage. In other words you would be disenfranchising the voters of, not just California, and not just the Congress, if you go this route. And isn’t it risky to ask the Court to invalidate that much public opinion before the public is ready for it?” Boies responded, making reference to the 1967 case of Loving v. Virginia, the landmark civil rights case in which the Court, by a 9-0 vote, declared Virginia’s anti-miscegenation statute, the Racial Integrity Act of 1924, unconstitutional. He said, “When the Supreme Court held that it was unconstitutional to prevent interracial marriages, 64 percent or more of the population of the United States, about two thirds of the population…, believed interracial marriages were wrong. That’s a much higher percentage than opposes gay and lesbian marriage in this country today.”



When the Perry case was brought, there were many leading gay rights organizations that did not support the initiative, thinking it was premature. They saw a loss in the Supreme Court as setting back the movement for marriage equality. They felt that the odds for success were not good because the Supreme Court, in their view, does not typically get too far ahead either public opinion or the law in the majority of the states. The legal precedent that these groups were concerned about wasn’t Loving v. Virginia but, rather, Bowers v. Hardwick, the 1986 decision that upheld Georgia’s antiquated law against sodomy. It was 17 years before the Court was willing to revisit the issue, in Lawrence v. Texas, though by then only 13 states had anti-sodomy statutes. This time, the Court overturned the laws by a 6-3 decision, but with a dissent from Justice Antonin Scalia, who declared that the Court had aligned itself with the “homosexual agenda,” and that the opinion of the majority would clearly lead to an assertion by same sex couples that they have the right to marry. A reading of that dissent, in its substance and tone, would strongly suggest that Justice Scalia is not a vote to count on if or when the Perry case reaches the Court. Seventeen years was a long time to wait and the activists’ sense was that a loss now would make it harder to go to court later. “It will take us a lot longer to get a favorable decision if the Court has to overrule itself.”



When the Supreme Court decides whether a law violates the Equal Protection clause, it engages in one of three levels of scrutiny: rational basis, intermediate or strict. If the Court uses strict scrutiny, the law in question will be struck down unless it can be shown to have been “narrowly tailored to further a compelling interest” of the state. This was the standard applied in the Loving case. Strict scrutiny applies only when a law either interferes with a fundamental right or deals with a so-called “suspect classification” — religion, race, ethnicity or national origin. Olsen and Boies will try to convince the Court that sexual orientation is a suspect classification, and that lesbians and gays have been subject to a history of discrimination, are defined by an immutable characteristic that “bears no relation to their ability to perform or contribute to society,” and are “politically powerless.” In this connection, the plaintiffs called as an expert witness professor George Chauncey of Yale University, to give his opinion as an expert in the history of the United States as it relates to gender, homosexuality, sexuality and civil rights in the United States, with a particular focus on the history of discrimination experienced by gays and lesbians.



Vaughn Walker, the presiding judge, who was appointed to the bench by George H. W. Bush in 1989, could have relied on legal filings, primarily affidavits, to make his decision but instead chose to admit oral testimony on everything from the history of marriage to the history of anti-gay discrimination, from the fitness of gays and lesbians as parents to the definition of homosexuality. As David Boies said, “We brought in experts from all over the world, the leading experts in psychology and sociology and history and political science and anthropology.” “I think that anybody that saw the case that we put in….that we built a record… that you cannot look at and come away believing that Proposition 8 is constitutional."



In “A Risky Proposal” Margaret Talbot relates that David Boies is of the opinion that he could still argue, successfully, that Proposition 8 fails the much more commonly applied “rational basis” scrutiny. Under that test, a law is considered valid as long as it is logically related to a plausible state interest. But, Boies says, “There is overwhelming evidence of damage to gay and lesbian couples who cannot marry — and to their children — and no evidence that permitting gays to marry damages heterosexual couples. Olsen and Boies will aim to show that the motivation for Proposition 8 could only have been animus, a rationale that the Court does not look kindly on. In the 1996 case, Romer v. Evans, for instance, the Court ruled that a Colorado amendment that excluded gays and lesbians from anti-discrimination laws was motivated by anti-gay feeling, and was therefore unconstitutional.



The legal team for the defense in the Perry case is led by Charles Cooper, a Washington lawyer who succeeded Olsen as Assistant Attorney General under President Reagan, and by the Alliance Defense Fund, “ a sort of Christian conservative counterpart of the ACLU.” Cooper argued that the State of California has rational interest in upholding “procreative marriage.” At the heart of the case “are two competing conceptions of the institution of marriage, and of its central purpose,” said Cooper. We say the central and the defining purpose of marriage is to channel naturally procreative sexual activity between men and women into stable, enduring unions for the sake of begetting, nurturing and raising the next generation. Plaintiffs say that the central and constitutionally mandated purpose of marriage is simply to provide formal government recognition to loving, committed relationships.”



Bill Moyers asked Ted Olsen what Cooper’s most effective argument had been and Olsen responded that, with all due respect, he did not feel any argument had been effective. “But what really happened,” Olsen said, “which was a very eye opening event, during the course of a pre-trial proceeding…the Judge in our case asked my opponent, ‘What harm to the institution of heterosexual marriage would occur if gays and lesbians were allowed to marry?’ This went back and forth and back and forth. The judge kept wanting an answer. ‘What damage would be done to the institution of marriage if we allowed this to happen?’ And my opponent said, finally, he had to answer it truthfully. He paused and he said, ‘I don’t know. I don’t know.’ That to me sums up the other side.”



Returning to the pending Massachusetts case, Gill v. the Office of Personnel Management, in which the plaintiffs are challenging the federal Defense of Marriage Act, there are many legal scholars who feel it stands a better chance of success than Perry, although the two cases involve different issues and would have different legal ramifications. Gill challenges a section of the Act which prevents same sex couples from receiving the many benefits accorded to married couples at the federal level- from joint tax filing to health insurance for the families of federal employees- even though in the state of Massachusetts those couples are legally married. Gill insists not on the federal constitutionality of same sex marriage but on the unconstitutionality of denying federal benefits to a class of citizens whose marriages are recognized by the state.



Margaret Talbot notes that as seemingly modest as the Gill case is, it could help create a favorable climate for more ambitious challenges, including the Perry case. She quotes Thomas Keck, a political science professor at Syracuse University, who is an expert on the Supreme Court, “I don’t think any of us can predict how it’s all going to turn out. But Gill is a very well designed case, a well targeted challenge that has a good chance of winning and that broader challenges could be built on. If it wins, in a practical sense, we would have federally recognized same-sex marriage. At that point, it would be much harder to defend the federal government’s refusal to recognize same-sex marriage in other parts of the country.” Gill could also go to the Supreme Court, and if it makes it there first, and succeeds, it could help Olsen and Boies.



In his interview with Bill Moyers, Ted Olsen pointed out that, “When the Supreme Court had made the decision in Loving v. Virginia in 1967, striking down the laws of 17 states that prohibited interracial marriage, now it’s only what? Forty years later? Forty years later we think it’s inconceivable that Virginia or some other state could prohibit interracial marriage. It’s inconceivable."



In their felony trial in Virginia, the Lovings were sentenced to one year in prison, with the sentence suspended for 25 years on condition that the couple leave the state of Virginia. The trial judge in the case, Leon Bazile, echoing Johann Friedrich Blumenbach’s 18th century interpretation of race, proclaimed that: “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”



On June 12, 2007, Mildred Loving issued a rare public statement, prepared for delivery on the 40th anniversary of the Loving v. Virginia Supreme Court decision. The concluding paragraphs of her statement read as follows:

Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don’t think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the wrong kind of person for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights. I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.


Photo by Bilericoproject, used under Creative Commons License.
Read More