Water Under the Bridge: May 2019

Friday, May 31, 2019

BHS Class of 1960. April 25, 2019

April 25, 2019

BHS Class of 1960

The Bridgeville Area Historical Society’s “Second Tuesday” series had its sixteenth and final workshop dealing with the history of Bridgeville High School this month, focusing on the Class of 1960. This was the final class of Bridgeville High School; the following year marked the opening of Chartiers Valley High School.

The 1960 Class dedicated its Yearbook, the Lincoln Log, to all the classes that had preceded it at Lincoln High School, beginning with the Class of 1925. In addition to listing the names of all the graduates of each year accompanied by their class photographs, the Yearbook includes other valuable historical data – a list of all the May Queens, history of the founding of various school organizations, etc. It has become a valuable historical document.

In 1960 Mr. C. J. McMahon was Supervising Principal, Ed Lisi was Principal, and Jack Wight held some sort of position between the two of them. Many long tenured faculty members were still active – Gloria Lutz, Jane Patton, Ruth Montague, Frances Krenz, Trula Holman, Dorothy Crichfield, and Alma Weise – to name a few.

Anthony Koszarsky was Class President; Margaret Alice Koch, Vice President; and Barbara Toney, Secretary. Barry Delphus was Treasurer; Joann Vogliano and William DeBone were Co-Social Chairmen. It is interesting that Miss Vogliano could be called a chairman in those days; when did we switch to Chairperson? I counted 109 Seniors in the Yearbook, making this easily Bridgeville High School’s largest graduating class.

Barbara Toney was May Queen; Joann Vogliano, Maid of Honor. The Yearbook noted that this tradition began in 1934 with Mary Vidoni, succeeded by Mary Schulte the next year, then was discontinued until 1939 when Betty Crawford was crowned. She was followed by a succession of Queens for the next twenty years.

“Time Out for Ginger” was the Junior Play for the 1960 Class; their Senior Play was “Mr. Co-ed”. Researching the names of all the class plays would be an interesting project, as well as a mirror on popular culture in those days. The Yearbook also included the obligatory photographs of beautiful young people at the Junior Prom and Senior Ball, two more popular culture icons.

According to the Yearbook the Student Council was begun in 1942 with John Graham and Bill Liggitt among its sponsors. It is credited with initiating the Honor Roll and “The Bridger”, which quickly gained Jane Patton as a sponsor. William Barbish was the Editor-in-chief of the first Bridger.

Ray Donelli was sponsor of the Student Council in 1960. Arthur Martini was its President.

The 1960 edition of the National Honor Society boasted twenty-seven members, twenty-three of them young women! The Yearbook includes a Photograph of the very first BHS National Honor Society in 1930. A proud member of it was Alma Weise.

Another interesting bit of history recorded in the Yearbook discussed the evolution of the Library. In the early days of the Lincoln High Building a small room adjacent to the office contained a modest library, maintained by the English teachers. The 1939 extension provided enough additional space to provide a room for a proper library and dedicated librarian, Dorothy Riley. When she left to become a missionary to Native Americans in the Southwest, Dorothy Jones (eventually Dorothy Crichfield) moved up from Washington School and became a beloved fixture as librarian.

The Hi-Y was founded in 1931 by James Frantz. Its objectives were to “ create, maintain, and extend standards of Christian character and leadership, throughout the school”. The list of sponsors for the next three decades includes Jack Wight, Bill Liggitt, Jack citron, and John Hall, and ends with Louis Zemanski.

The Letterman’s Club was started in 1948 by Coach Bob Hast to recognize athletic excellence. Fred Donelli, Bob O’Neil, Joe Stalma, and Ron Lesko were its first officers. By 1960 Coach Harry Buzzatto was its sponsor.

There were many other active clubs in 1960. Howard McCracken sponsored the Chess Club; Ron Kuisis was its President. Gloria Lutz sponsored the Future Teachers of America; Margaret Koch was President. The Nurses Club was sponsored by Joan Williams.

The Commercial Club boasted sixty-nine members, all female, with Joann Vogliano as President. The Yearbook does not identify a sponsor. Looks like young, single male teachers missed an opportunity! The Girls Athletic Association was also large. Eugenia Cairns was its President; Mrs. Davis, its sponsor. The photograph of Thelma Davis suggests she would have been a perfect House Mother for some college girls’ dormitory.

Paul Sasson was President of the Science Club, a responsibility that warranted two sponsors – Sam Simone and Ruth Montague. Two apparently sponsor-less, officer-less clubs – the Junior High Club and the Senior High Club – appear in photographs in the Yearbook. Their functions have been lost to posterity. The Dramatic Club was still active in 1960 although its officers and sponsor are not identified in the Yearbook.

Ruth Farrell sponsored the Future Homemakers of America. Its President was Barbara Gianni. Carol Caruso was President of the Y-Teens, another large 0rganization; its sponsor was Mary Jane Chemsak. We assume it shared the objectives of the Hi-Y. I always thought the two of them were a dating service.

As usual, Alma Weise sponsored a family of choruses – the Boys’ Chorus, the Girls’ Chorus, and the Mixed Chorus, as a minimum -- as well as special ad hoc groups of stellar singers when the opportunity arose. Unfortunately there was never a chorus for the “couldn’t carry a tune in a basket” crowd.

Earl Mincemoyer had built up the Band program to the point that the band had fifty-six members, an incredible number compared to the tiny organizations ten years earlier. Among the names of band members listed in the Yearbook are several familiar to me – Dana Spriggs on Bass and Jerry Novelli on Bass Clarinet. In addition, the band had an impressive complement of majorettes, who combined with the cheerleading squad and the school’s two mascots to provide an effective pep rally section.

The football team had another successful season. They won their first five games comfortably before losing to Class A Carnegie. They responded from this loss by routing Bell-Avon and staying in the playoff race. A final 6 to 0 loss to Avella eliminated them from that competition.

By 1960 football had become so complicated that the team required four coaches, Head Coach Ray Buzzatto and Assistant Coaches Carmen Tavoletti, Albert Budinsky, and George Smith. If memory serves, the number of players hadn’t changed. Buzzatto and Scott Township Head Coach John Duchess were competitors for the head coaching job at Chartiers Valley the next year, a dispute that was resolved by making Buzzato Athletic Director and Duchess Head Coach.

The few newspaper clippings available suggest that the stars of this football season were quarterback Jim Villani; running backs Ken Gazda, Bill Grossi, and Anthony Koszarsky; and ends Neil Kochosky and Ken Labik.

The basketball team was equally successful, winning their section by beating Snowden 61 to 55 in the final game. Overall they won sixteen games and lost four. Pat Malarkey was Head Coach, assisted by Lawrence Ragni. The photographs in the Yearbook feature Gary Burnisky in their action shots. They lost their first playoff game to Export 46 to 36, despite outscoring their opponent from the field.

BHS fielded teams in golf, soccer, and baseball in the Spring. Unfortunately we knew very little about these sports because each year the Yearbook has gone to press before their seasons began. We also know that two Bridgeville wrestlers competed as part of the Scott Township team this year, anticipating the next year’s merger.

A final cultural snapshot provided by the Yearbook is the list of patrons. Fifty-two businesses and organizations gave the Yearbook staff at least five dollars to help pay for publishing this valuable artifact. Heading the list was Universal Cyclops Steel with a donation of twenty five dollars. We kidded Bob Fryer, who was at the workshop, with the information that his father’s generous contribution of ten dollars was double that of the “Brand B” funeral home that was his competitor.

Another worthwhile research project will be recording the names of Yearbook patrons down through the years, an interesting review of the businesses existing in the years Yearbooks were published.

This has been an enjoyable series of workshops. We hope to be able to compile the information we have acquired about the high school’s history and publish it as a modest brochure.

Next month the “Second Tuesday” workshop will be the final one in our series examining George Washington’s seven visits to Western Pennsylvania, this one entitled “The Whiskey Rebellion”. It will occur at 7:00 pm on May 14, 2019 at the History Center.

The Anatomy of a Political Campaign. April 18, 2019

April 18, 2019

The Anatomy of a Political Campaign

My initial reaction to the news that there would be a special election this Spring to fill the State Senate seat in the 37^thDistrict was “Who cares?” This attitude ended abruptly when I got to work on this year’s income taxes and realized how much I owe the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and began to wonder what the state does for me. Perhaps I should pay attention to this election after all.

The Democratic candidate for this office was a woman named Pam Iovino. I was familiar with her because a group of my neighbors who are dedicated Democrats had supported her a year ago when she unsuccessfully tried to get party endorsement to run for Congress in the election that Conor Lamb eventually won.

Her Republican opponent was an equally familiar person, Mr. D. Raja, an Indian immigrant who has built a successful information technology firm while dabbling in local politics. My neighbors were equally dedicated to their opposition to his candidacy.

Consequently I decided to pay attention to the campaign and to document each event that occurred during it, as well as my current preference for either of the candidates. It was an interesting project, one that highlighted my personal biases regarding contemporary politics.

On March 4 I received a visit from one of my neighbors, encouraging me to support Ms. Iovino. He is a gentleman I greatly respect, despite the fact he and I differ greatly on several major issues. I assured him that I favored his candidate.

Three days later my mail included the first negative ad attacking Mr. Raja, accusing him of business practices that were completely irrelevant to this campaign. This annoyed me greatly; I am strongly opposed to negative campaigning. I would receive four more such ads in the days to come.

When I complained about this to my Democratic neighbor, he dismissed it. “It has been proven negative ads are effective, And, after all, those mailings come from the national party.” Both of these comments did little to enhance my support for Ms. Iovino.

Throughout the campaign I did not receive any negative ads attacking the Democratic candidate. I was told, however, that both parties had run negative ads on television. Could be, my television viewing is so infrequent that I would have missed them.

In total I received nine mailings from the Democrats, two from the Republicans. The telephone solicitation was equally one-sided. It appears that the Democrats nationally were significantly more interested in this local election than the Republicans and that locally there was a massive volunteer effort for Ms. Iovino and none whatsoever for her opponent.

Both candidates vowed to “fight” for me. I find this a little disturbing; I would much prefer someone who would work, or negotiate, or compromise on my behalf. Both parties have been taken over by extremists. The only remedy to the impasse this has created is for a revival of moderates in both parties, people who will focus on finding common ground on some topics and working together to resolve them. Infrastructure would be a great place to begin.

A pair of columns published in the daily newspaper, allegedly authored by the two candidates, pushed me toward Mr. Raja. His comments were much more specific than Ms. Iovino’s generalities. Perhaps he had a better ghost writer.

The evening before the election I received a phone call from a volunteer in Texas begging me to vote for Ms. Iovino. I had a long discussion with her, trying to understand why she thought her opinion regarding a local election about which she knew absolutely nothing should matter to me.

The same evening I received a text message from another outsider. My reply to it initiated a series of messages allegedly addressing my concerns, but actually just regurgitating generalities from the candidate’s website. I am impressed with the Democrats’ enthusiasm, disenchanted with their knowledge of the issues.

On four occasions I received telephone calls asking me to participate in a survey regarding my preferences in this specific campaign. Each time, I carefully attempted to answer each question honestly, even though my answers did not always appear to be logical. I am not certain what I think about polling; too often the questions are ambiguous.

By the time the election actually occurred I was still undecided upon which candidate I would support. I decided to pose a handful of litmus test questions to volunteers at the polling place and make my decision based on their answers. The questions included infrastructure funding; the proposed Marcellus Shale severance tax; and state funding of local municipal projects, a subject that currently has me upset.

Just this week it was announced that Mt. Lebanon had received a grant of $750,000 from the Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development’s Multimodal Transportation Fund to provide “new sidewalks and updated street lighting” for the Washington Road business district. I believe this is the fourth time in my memory that this streetscape has been redone; I do not think this is something the state should fund.

Unfortunately, when I arrived at the polling place, at about 3:30 in the afternoon, there were no volunteers there from either party. This is unusual; typically one must run a gauntlet of volunteers each pleading “Vote for my candidate”. Consequently I was forced to rely on a flip of a coin to make my decision.

In reality, the only time I am comfortable for voting for a specific candidate is when I have an opportunity to speak to him/her in person. This works well for local elections. Although I am not eligible to vote in Bridgeville I have observed enough at Borough Council meetings to be confident I can sort out the legitimate public servants from the pretenders. Having the videos of those meetings on “Bridgeville.org” is a valuable public service.

Another interesting trend is the rejection of “establishment” politicians in favor of inexperienced outsiders. Years ago public servants (politicians) proved themselves in local situations – Borough Council or School Board – before progressing to State Legislator, State Senator, U. S. Congressman, etc. That made it much easier for the serious voter to judge the candidate’s qualifications. Today the mere fact of being an inexperienced outsider appears to be an advantage.

So, why did Ms. Iovino win this election? I attribute her success to the enthusiasm of her volunteer supporters, an enthusiasm stemming partly from her gender and partly from the general dissatisfaction many people have with the current resident of the White House. I detected no enthusiasm whatsoever for her opponent; it appears the Republican Party has gone into hibernation in this area.

Paying attention to this campaign from an objective perspective was an interesting experience for me. Nonetheless I am weary of choosing the lesser of two evils and of voting against candidates. I yearn for the days when I could enthusiastically support a candidate.

Benjamin Franklin April 11, 2019

April 11, 2019

Benjamin Franklin

The Bridgeville Area Historical Society program meeting for March was an entertaining presentation on Benjamin Franklin by Jack Puglisi, in his annual visit to Bridgeville. Mr. Puglisi began with a disclaimer; he considers himself a history enthusiast rather than historian. I would classify him as a history scholar; he certainly has a comprehensive knowledge of whatever topic he presents.

Franklin was born in Boston in 1706, the fifteenth of seventeen children of a candlemaker. His formal schooling was limited to two years at the Boston Latin School; he supplemented his modest education by reading voraciously. At age twelve he was apprenticed to his brother James, a printer, where he learned a trade that would profit him the rest of his life.

When he was seventeen he left Boston for Philadelphia, then the biggest metropolis in the colonies, and found work for a printer. Pennsylvania Governor Sir William Keith was so impressed with him that he encouraged Franklin to go to London and purchase the necessary equipment to start a new newspaper, using Keith’s credit. When he got to London he learned that Keith had no credit whatsoever and that he was stranded there.

He soon found work in a printing shop and earned enough money to pay for passage home. Back in Philadelphia he found a partner to fund him and opened his own print shop. In 1729 he began publishing his own newspaper, The Pennsylvania Gazette”. His printing and publishing business prospered, largely because of his clever writing. In 1733 he began to publish the immediately popular “Poor Richard’s Alamanck”, with its classic homespun sayings. It eventually sold 10,000 copies per year.

In addition to his business ventures Franklin pursued an insatiable interest in science, while at the same time becoming a major figure in public life. He is acknowledged as America’s greatest scientist of the eighteenth century. In addition to his highly publicized kite flying experiment, he is credited with coining the terms negative and positive for the two states of electricity and with inventing the first electrical storage battery.

The kite flying experiment led to the invention of the lightning rod. Mr. Puglisi reported that, prior to Franklin’s experiments, it was believed that thunder and lightning was evidence of God’s displeasure with mankind and that the remedy for it was to ring the church bells. Imagine the life expectancy of a bell ringer pulling on a soaking wet bell rope in the midst of a thunder storm! Several hundred fatalities were recorded in the early 1700s. The lightning rod came to their rescue.

The Franklin stove was another significant invention, completely revolutionizing cooking by eliminating the necessity of cooking over an open fire. He also invented bifocal spectacles and the glass harmonica. His major scientific contributions included understanding the Atlantic Ocean currents (especially the Gulf Stream), the wave theory of light, meteorology, and decision-making. Franklin was indeed a polymath.

His contributions in public life are equally impressive, being involved in the first volunteer fire department; the first public library; the first home-owners’ insurance company; the first hospital: and the Philadelphia Academy, which eventually became the University of Pennsylvania. He founded the American Philosophical Society to permit scientists to discuss their discoveries and theories.

In 1747 Franklin, now one of the wealthiest men in the colonies, retired from printing, to focus on his other interests. His political career progressed from Philadelphia Councilman to Justice of the Peace to the Pennsylvania Assembly. In 1753 he was appointed deputy postmaster-general for all the colonies. In 1757 the Assembly sent him to London to protest against the political influence of the Penn family, proprietors of the colony.

Franklin found London much to his liking and spent most of the next eighteen years there. He soon becamethe leading spokesman for American interests in England. Initially he considered himself a loyal subject of the Crown, but as relations between the colonies and King George III continued to deteriorate, his rebellious tendencies grew. He testified to Parliament in opposition to levying taxes on the colonies to pay for the French and Indian War, unsuccessfully. He returned to Philadelphia in 1775, in time to have a significant influence on the drafting of the Declaration of Independence.

While in London Franklin had been able to have his son William named Royal Governor of New Jersey. In this role William opposed the Revolution and became an active Loyalist, resulting in a lifelong estrangement from his father.

Late in 1776 the Continental Congress sent Franklin to Paris, as commissioner to France. He liked Paris even more than London, staying there until 1785. He is credited with gradually persuading the French to support our Revolution, eventually becoming our ally against the British, ensuring our ultimate success. In 1785 he came home, in time to participate in the Constitutional Convention and help ratify the new Constitution.

Franklin died in Philadelphia at the age of eighty-four. In addition to being remembered as one of the greatest of our Founding Fathers, his legacy as author, scientist, inventor, humorist, and diplomat is equally impressive.

The question and answer session following Mr. Puglisi’s presentation was particularly lively, as the audience appeared intent on taking advantage of his knowledge of the early days of our nation. He reflected on the significance of Western Pennsylvania on the development of modern (mid-nineteenth century) society.

The British-French conflict over the forks of the Ohio led to the French and Indian War. Britain’s attempt to pay for winning that war led to the American Revolutionary War. France’s support of our Revolution led to financial problems that caused their Revolution. It in term produced Napoleon Bonaparte, fear of whom led to Britain’s Industrial Revolution.

Mr. Puglisi also suggested that the development of political parties during Washington’s presidency reflected basic philosophical differences between statesmen who had been actively involved in the Revolutionary War and considered themselves dedicated to the nation (Federalists) and those who had been on the sidelines and still had primary allegiance to their individual states (Republicans).

This is an interesting premise. Based on our recent study of Washington in 1784, we believe that he still was a Virginian at that time and had not yet made the transition to American. This despite his long service with the Army and its emphasis on nation rather than colony (state). The concept warrants further consideration.

The Society’s next program meeting is scheduled for 7:30 pm, April 30, 2019. Ms. Emily Ruby, of the Heinz History Center, will discuss “Destination Moon – the Apollo 11 Mission” and how Western Pennsylvania people and innovations helped the nation achieve this remarkable achievement. The venue is the Chartiers Room at the Bridgeville Volunteer Fire Department on Commercial Street.

George Washington at Millers Run in 1784. April 4, 2019

April 4, 2019

George Washington at Millers Run in 1784

Last month the Bridgeville Area Historical Society presented a workshop on George Washington’s visit to western Pennsylvania in 1784 as part of its “Second Tuesday” series. This was the sixth workshop dedicated to Washington and western Pennsylvania, part of a project to develop information for a permanent historical exhibit dealing with that subject.

Following the Battle of Yorktown and the cessation of hostilities in 1783, Washington gave his famous farewell address to the troops and returned to civilian life at Mount Vernon. He was pleased to find that neither Mount Vernon nor his wife Martha’s plantations near Williamsburg had suffered during the Revolutionary War and that he was still a very wealthy man.

Mount Vernon itself was an extremely valuable property, eight thousand acres including four farms, a fishing fleet, a grist mill, and a distillery – probably worth twenty million dollars in today’s currency. The Williamsburg plantations were more than double in size and surely worth at least forty million dollars today.

In addition, Washington had many thousands of acres of property elsewhere, much of it undeveloped. The portions that were developed had been left in the care of agents, many of whom he felt had not been good stewards of the property. Consequently he decided to make a trip west to inspect his holdings in person.

Washington was an extremely well-organized person who kept a daily journal of his activities and his interests. We are fortunate to have access to the journal for this expedition; it is full of minute detail about the journey and his personal interpretations of things he has observed.

Accompanied by his life-long friend and personal physician Dr. James Craik and three servants, he bade goodbye to his wife and headed west on September 1, 1784. They made twenty-five miles the first day, arriving at Difficult Bridge where he owned 274 undeveloped acres. According to Washington’s journal, he was concerned that a neighbor’s plan to build a grist mill would degrade the value of his property.

Two days later he was at the plantation of his brother Charles, northeast of Winchester, where he had extensive properties – about 2,500 acres with ten tenants. His agent there was a Mr. Snickers, whose performance apparently satisfied him.

That evening a second objective of his trip became obvious when he met with a group of local residents to discuss the feasibility of opening up a transportation route to the Ohio Country beginning with the Potomac River. This was a pet project of Washington’s, one that would be discussed with everyone he met on this expedition.

One of these persons was General Daniel Morgan, who had served under Washington in the Continental Army. He was the leader of “Morgan’s Riflemen”, a regiment of sharpshooters who were instrumental in the Battle of Saratoga. Morgan was enthusiastic about Washington’s ideas and confident that it would find significant support in the counties along the Potomac.

Washington’s next stop was at the town of Bath (now Berkeley Springs) where he met an ingenious gentleman named James Rumsey, the inventor of a water-powered “poleboat”. Under “the injunction of secresy”, Rumsey showed Washington a model of his invention and convinced him it “might be turned to the greatest possible utility in inland Navigation”.

Rumsey’s idea was to mimic the action of a group of men poling a boat upstream. Two men at the stern hold the boat stationary against the current with their poles while two others pole it forward incrementally. Rumsey began with two poles holding the vessel stationary, then mounted two water wheels in tandem at the bow.

Supposedly the current will turn the wheels, just like an undershot water wheel. Poles cleverly attached to a continuous chain around the wheels then would engage the channel bottom and pole the vessel upstream. As absurd as this seems, Washington was impressed.

A few years later Rumsey built a full size poleboat, that did not work. Undaunted he then designed a steamboat. Unfortunately while he was seeking funding Robert Fulton successfully demonstrated the “Clermont” and quickly dominated the market. Rumsey’s legacy is the Rumseian Society in Shepherdstown, West Virginia, a group of history buffs dedicated to his memory. In 1985 they built a full size steamboat to his design; it worked perfectly.

Washington’s next major stop was at Old Town, the plantation of Colonel Thomas Cresap, near Cumberland, Maryland. Here he had a long discussion with a man regarding the possibility of linking Ten Mile Creek on the Monongahela with the Little Kanawha River, eliminating the necessity of following the Monongahela all the way to Pittsburgh to reach the Ohio River. This also would be an all-Virginia route, avoiding competition with Pennsylvania.

From Old Town Washington followed Braddock’s Road to Great Meadows, where he owned 234 acres and had a tenant who done little to improve the property, then on to Gilbert Simpson’s plantation. Simpson was his agent at Washington’s Bottom, now Perryopolis, Pa.

Washington’s property there consisted of 1644 acres that was not generating the income he had anticipated. He decided to terminate his relationship with Simpson and attempt to sell or lease the property at public auction. Included was a gristmill located on a small stream that failed to supply sufficient water for effective operation. A large group attended the auction “more out of curiosity I believe than from other motives”, but no one bid on the property.

While at Simpson’s plantation Washington was visited by a delegation of people living on his Millers Run property, attempting to ascertain his intentions about that property.. He promised to meet them at Millers Run later in the week. Before leaving Simpson’s he engaged Major Thomas Freeman to be his agent for the Washington’s Bottom plantations.

On September 18 Washington and his party crossed the Monongahela at Devore’s Ferry (now Monongahela, Pa.) and followed a road from there to the estate of Colonel John Canon. Canon was a very early resident of the Chartiers Valley. He laid out the community of Canonsburg, dammed Chartiers Creek, and built a very successful grist mill there. Washington described Canon as “a kind hospitable Man; & sensible.”

Two days later, accompanied by Colonel Canon, Colonel Presley Neville, High Sheriff van Swearingen, and a Captain Ritchie, Washington visited his Millers Run property. It consisted of 2813 acres that had been warranted to John Posey, a veteran of the French and Indian War. He had deeded it to Washington in return for paying off a debt. In 1771 Colonel William Crawford surveyed it and built a small cabin on it.

At that time the area was still claimed by both Pennsylvania and Virginia. George Croghan encouraged a group of Scotch-Irish to settle on Washington’s land. They moved in, built cabins and barns, and generally improved the land, despite being warned by Crawford that they were squatters.

Washington recorded his observations in his journal, dined with one of them (David Reed), and then met with the group of fourteen settlers to resolve their differences. Their spokesman was James Scott. He reported that they felt their claims to the land were superior to Washington’s but they would be willing to discuss a compromise if his terms were moderate.

It appears that the meeting was completely cordial, on both sides. Washington offered to sell his rights for twenty-five shillings an acre or to grant a lease for 999 years at a rate of ten pounds per one hundred acres. Both offers were consistent with the going rate for such property at that time. After some discussion Scott replied courteously that they would prefer to have this settled in court.

Washington then requested they be polled individually and asked each one to speak for himself. The result was a unanimous rejection of his offer. He then removed a red handkerchief from his pocket and announced, "Gentlemen, I will have this land just as surely as I now have this handkerchief." He then returned to Colonel Canon’s plantation. The location of the meeting is commemorated by a historical monument on Route 50 between Venice and Hickory.

Originally Washington had contemplated going down the Ohio River to his properties on the Kanawha River as he had in 1770. However, information on the Indians in the Ohio Country in 1784 suggested he would not be a welcome visitor. His agent, Colonel Crawford, had been captured by Indians, tortured, and burned at the stake just two years earlier. He concluded it would be better for him to return to Mount Vernon, investigating possible water routes on the way home.

He returned to Simpson’s plantation, then rode south to Beason Town (now Uniontown) to engage attorney Thomas Smith to represent him in litigation versus the squatters. While there he met a Captain Hardin who convinced him that a connection from the headwaters of the Potomac to the Monongahela via the Cheat River was practical.

To investigate this possibility Washington went south to the confluence of the Cheat and the Monongahela (near Morgantown, West Virginia) and then returned to Virginia overland, following the Cheat upstream. His trip east was dominated by numerous observations of topography and watersheds.

The problem, of course, was the fact that the ridges, and particularly the Allegheny Front, ran in a general north east to south west direction, as did all the tributaries of the Potomac and the Monongahela. Unlike the Mohawk River in New York, there is no easy east/west water route.

Once back in Mount Vernon it appears that Washington concluded he would prefer to work on improvement of the Potomac rather than deal with agents and tenants as an absentee landlord. He organized the Potowmack Company and served as its president for the next four years.

The mission of the Potowmack Company was to make improvements to the Potomac River and improve its navigability for commerce. Washington hired James Rumsey as its first superintendent. The company did successfully construct by-passes at the five major rapids/falls between Cumberland and tidewater, greatly facilitating the movement of cargo downstream.

In 1831 the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company acquired the assets of the Potowmack Company and incorporated them into its new canal, 185 miles long with seventy-four locks. The C & O Canal was built for about eleven million dollars (two billion dollars today). It originally was planned to be extended to the Youghiogheny River and on to Pittsburgh; the projected expense and 246 additional locks were deemed impractical.

In October, 1786, Washington’s case against the squatters was heard by Pennsylvania State Supreme Court Justice Thomas McKean in the city of Washington, county seat of Washington County, Pennsylvania. Somehow suing George Washington in a city and county named for him calls for a n eighteenth century version of Jim Croce’s “You don’t tug on Superman’s cape”.

The people on Millers Run questioned GW’s title on grounds that Crawford was not a Virginia county surveyor in 1771; that his survey was registered and the patent granted after they moved on the land; and that the tract was deserted when they occupied it. They were represented by attorney Hugh Henry Brackenridge.

Thomas Smith, Washington’s attorney, argued that Crawford did not have to be a county surveyor because the land was surveyed under a military warrant; that most of the present occupants did not move on the land until after the date of his patent; that none of them ever took any steps to obtain a patent; that Crawford improved and had the land occupied long before anyone else did; and that the settlers were frequently warned over the years that they were trespassing.

The jury ruled in favor of Washington; the squatters then moved to other sites in Washington and Allegheny Counties. In 1796 Matthew Ritchie purchased the entire property for $12,000. This was $4.27 per acre, compared to the $6.25 per acre price Washington had offered four years earlier.

It is interesting to imagine Washington as he was in 1784. By then he was fifty-two years old, highly principled yet cognizant of the plight of the common man. He was still thrilled at the prospect of exploring the frontier on horseback, looking for ways to build roads and waterways to the west. One wonders if he had ambitions to become President of this new nation at this time.

Saturday, May 25, 2019

Dog Sled Racing. March 28, 2019

March 28, 2019

Dog Sled Racing

I have been a sports fan most of my life, but in recent years my interest in big time sports has declined significantly. I try to keep up with what is happening with the local professional and college teams, mostly so I can discuss them with my friends who are still addicted to following them. Dog sled racing is an exception; I still find it extremely interesting and am a little frustrated no one else is aware of it and that the local media ignore it completely.

I realize that writing a column about this subject will automatically trigger vehement responses from several organizations who are opposed to this sport. I respect their opinion and their right to express it, but I personally am comfortable with the domestication of wild animals and their relationship with humans. Hearing from these folks at least is an indication that someone is reading my columns.

Each year I follow two one-thousand-mile long races – the Yukon Quest and the Iditarod. This year the Yukon Quest ran from Whitehorse in Canada’s Yukon Territory to Fairbanks, Alaska. The route is reversed in alternate years. Thanks to the Internet and a GPS tracker it is possible to keep track of each musher’s progress.

This year thirty mushers started the race; twenty-seven finished it with Brett Sass coming in first, followed closely by Hans Gatt. Allen Moore was third; Michelle Phillips, fourth.

Moore’s wife Ally Zirkle would compete in this year’s Iditarod as would Phillips’ husband Ed Hopkins. Fifth place went to Matt Hall and sixth to Paige Drobny; both of them would also be Iditarod competitors this year, as would Jesse Royer, ninth place, and Martin Apayauq Reitan, fourteenth place.

Twenty-one-year old Reitan was Rookie of the Year in this year’s Quest. He is the son of a Norwegian father, himself an Iditarod finisher, and a Inupiaq mother. His achievement came despite bitter cold (forty degrees below zero) weather in the first half of the race and a “whiteout” blizzard on Eagle Summit near the end of the race.

The Yukon Quest is, in many respects, more challenging than the Iditarod. However, expanded coverage and the tradition of the Iditarod make it even more enjoyable to follow. This year fifty-two teams started the race; forty finished. One of the twelve mushers who “scratched”, Nic Petit, provided the biggest story of this year’s Iditarod.

Petit is a highly competitive musher who had a comfortable lead in last year’s race when he went through the Shaktoolik checkpoint, mile post 777. About fifteen miles beyond Shaktoolik, the trail leaves the mainland and begins a thirty-five mile crossing of Norton Sound on (Bering) sea ice.

Halfway across Sound Petit found his team in a blizzard that completely obliterated the trail markers. The GPS tracker’s record of their aimless wandering in circles was a tiny indication of the trauma the team underwent. Eventually the storm subsided and Petit was able to get back on the trail in time for a second-place finish to the ultimate winner, Joar Ulsom.

This year Petit found himself in a similar situation when he reached Shaktoolik with a two-hour lead on his nearest competitors. When he reached Norton Sound, disaster struck again. This time, when he got onto the sea ice, his team refused to go on, apparently still traumatized by what had happened there a year ago. Being unwilling to subject his dogs to another terrifying experience, he led them back to the checkpoint and withdrew from the race.

His withdrawal provided Peter Kaiser with the opportunity to pass him and to eventually win the race, edging out Ulsom by twelve minutes. It is remarkable that two teams can mush a thousand miles in nine and a half days and still be only twelve minutes apart.

This was Kaiser’s first Iditarod championship. He too is part Eskimo; his great grandmother was a Yup’ik who married a gold miner. Kaiser’s home is Bethel, Alaska, a primarily native community that is not connected to the Alaska highway system; it can be reached only by air or by sea.

Ulsom is a native Norwegian who came to Alaska seven years ago and immediately made his mark as a competitive musher. This year, when Petit was struggling to get his team going, Ulsom stopped and attempted to help him. He is typical of the people who have chosen to compete as mushers, immensely likeable people who love competing more than they love winning and whose relationship with their dogs is their highest priority.

Jesse Royer had her highest ever Iditarod finish at number three. She is a special favorite of mine; in 2004 my wife and I met her at one of the stops on our riverboat cruise on the Tanana River. At that time she was working for Susan Butcher and just beginning to run Iditarods.

We also visited Jeff King’s “Husky Haven” at Denali that year. It is easy for me to root for him; this year he came in thirteenth. When his dogs passed under the “Burled Arch” at the finish in Nome, they looked like they were ready for another thousand miles.

Ed Hopkins is the other musher we met in 2004, at Tagish Lake in the Yukon Territory. Most years Ed has run in the Yukon Quest and his wife Michelle Phillips in the Iditarod. This year they traded places. Ed came in a respectable twenty-second this year; it will be interesting to see what their plans are for next year.

Fourth place went to Ally Zirkle, the seventh time she has finished eighth or higher. Travis Beals came in fifth, followed by Matt Hall (sixth) and Paige Drobny (seventh). The fact that three women finished in the top seven is another interesting characteristic of this sport – it is the only major one in which men and women do compete equally.

Strategy plays an important role in long distance dogsled racing. Throughout most of the race the mushers alternate runs with rest periods. Winner Peter Kaiser typically ran six hours, then rested four. Sometimes the rests were taken at checkpoints, but frequently the mushers and dogs camped out in the wilderness.

There are three mandatory rests that must be taken at checkpoints, primarily to permit veterinarians to check out the dogs. One mandatory eight-hour stop is at White Mountain, 77 miles before the finish at Nome. Another one must be taken at one of the three checkpoints on the Yukon River. The twenty-four-hour stop may be made at any checkpoint, at the discretion of the musher. This decision frequently affects the outcome of the race, especially when weather conditions change unexpectedly.

Weather is a major variable. This year’s Iditarod was warm enough (temperature in the 20s in the afternoon) that many mushers chose to rest in the afternoon and run overnight. There were also long stretches where high winds and heavy snow made the going particularly slow.

Each team started out with fourteen dogs and dropped dogs off at checkpoints whenever they detected any indication of a problem. The dogs were then air-lifted back to Anchorage by the Iditarod Air Force, a collection of volunteer bush pilots. It is interesting that the four men finishing in the top seven finished with eight dogs, while the three women finished with eleven. I wonder if that is a coincidence.

The contribution of volunteers to provide logistics for such a race is immense. The mushers provide bags of food that are left for them at each checkpoint. Also available at each checkpoint is a bale of straw for each musher; straw is spread out for each dog to sleep on whenever they rest. One wonders how this was handled in the early days of the Iditarod.

I paid thirty-five dollars for “Insider” privileges on the Iditarod website. This gave me access to the GPS Tracker and frequent videos from the checkpoints. Consequently, I was able to follow the race closely and understand some of the strange things that occurred.

So why am I so intrigued with this event? I suspect it begins with the dogs; who wouldn’t be impressed with dogs running a thousand miles in ten days in the Alaska wilderness? And, the mushers and their obvious love for the dogs cannot be ignored. The contrast between these wonderful people and the prima donnas who populate big time professional sports is dramatic.

Jeff King is the current all-time money winner in the Iditarod. He has competed twenty-six times, won four times, and earned a little less than one million dollars. I suspect the number of professional athletes who earn that much each year is in the thousands. And I wonder how many of them could finish an Iditarod.

Another factor is that, like golf and tennis, the competitors are individuals, not highly recruited teams representing universities or cities. It is nice to be able to foot for all the competitors rather than being required to develop a hatred for Ohio State or the Baltimore Ravens. There should be more to sports than proving your community is superior to every other community.

It does appear that the mushers are more interested in helping each other than in their own success in the race. This year Linwood Fiedler’s team ran away when the guide line connecting them to their sled broke. A few minutes later Mats Pettersson arrived, sized up the situation, attached Fiedler’s sled to the back of his, and proceeded to tow both sleds and mushers down the trail at a greatly reduced speed.

Eventually they found Fiedler’s dogs, got them untangled, and hitched up to their sled. All told Pettersson lost four or five hours and probably four places. He eventually finished in twentieth place; Fiedler, in twelfth. When interviewed after the end of the race Fiedler was quite emotional about Pettersson’s help and gave it as an example of the kind of people all the mushers are.

The overall drama of the race and the instantly changing weather and trail conditions are quite intriguing. Nonetheless I guess I am most impressed with the picture of a musher and a team of dogs in the middle of the night with the temperature thirty degrees below zero, just as happy as can be to be sharing the experience together.

Leonardo da Vinci. March 21, 2019

March 21, 2019

Leonardo da Vinci

Last month’s selection for our Book Club was Walter Isaacson’s biography of Leonardo da Vinci. After spending most of the month reading the book, we went to the Carnegie Science Center to see the new da Vinci exhibition there, before meeting to review the book.

Leonardo was certainly a remarkable human being, possessing a wide variety of characteristics that combined to produce a bona fide genius. Indeed, it is easy to agree with observers who consider him to be the greatest mind in history.

He was the prototype polymath, possessing a curiosity about everything he saw or experienced His powers of observation were matched only by Sherlock Holmes. He was completely uninhibited when it came to creativity, rivaling Rube Goldberg at his zaniest. He was a master mechanic, understanding in detail the workings of pulleys and gearing.

Of course, his greatest accomplishments and long-lasting contributions to our cultural heritage were as a painter. The “Mona Lisa” is acknowledged as the most famous painting ever produced. “The Last Supper” is nearly as popular, showing up seventh on one list of favorite paintings. His stature is based on fifteen paintings; in contrast, the Wikipedia listing of van Gogh’s works of art has 913 entries.

Leonardo’s modest list of paintings can be explained by his wide variety of other interests and by the fact that he was a perfectionist. Nothing he painted was ever good enough for him to declare it finished. The “Mona Lisa” was begun in 1503; he was still putting finishing touches on it when he died sixteen years later. Another story has him sitting for hours staring at “The Last Supper” before adding one brush stroke, then packing up and leaving.

Much of his painting success came from his mastery of optics and his understanding how our eyes perceive a scene. He understood perspective perfectly and knew how to modify it to take advantage of the stereoptic capability of our vision. He is credited with being the first painter to master lighting and shading and suggest a three-dimensional effect in his work.

His perfectionism led to procrastination, generating understandable frustration in his patrons. Those of us who cherish his artwork wish he had produced more paintings, but perhaps more productivity would have negated quality. Nonetheless, even a cursory look at the never completed “The Adoration of the Magi” generates the feeling that it would have been his most famous work had he deigned to finish it.

Leonardo believed he could not properly paint the human body without understanding human anatomy, so he dissected dozens of cadavers. The record of these dissections in his notebooks (codices) is a remarkable medical textbook; one, unfortunately, that was never published. His sketches are a perfect example of the synergy of curiosity, observation, and graphic skills.

Similarly he became an expert in geology and a pioneer in palaeontologyso he could depict landscapes properly. Only a perfectionist would pair Mona Lisa’s enigmatic smile with the exotic scene in the background. The same might be said about his fascination with hydrology, although his mastery of that technology was suspect.

The exhibit at the Science Museum is outstanding, informative as well as entertaining. I particularly liked the section on simple machines – pulleys, rack gears, worm gears, gear and pinion sets, holdbacks, cams, etc. It would be easy for the unsophisticated viewer to infer that Leonardo had invented these devices. In reality, he had sketched them professionally in his notebooks as components of systems he was conceiving.

In addition to all of his other talents da Vinci was a master producer of theatrical productions, extravaganzas that noblemen and clergy put on to impress the populous. Leonardo was a combination of producer, director, and set designer. He successfully designed a variety of impressive machines, including a mechanical lion. He was indeed a master mechanic.

The so-called “war machines” he designed were not as impressive and, fortunately, none of them were ever built. Perhaps the most absurd was a frame around a pair of horses driving four rotating curved swords. His alleged design of the first tank is also a stretch; it is a random idea wishing it could be upgraded to a concept. I am much more impressed with Archimedes’ military engineering concepts eighteen centuries earlier.

I am also lukewarm about his aeronautical technology. The fact that he studied birds in flight and concluded a man could never generate enough energy to fly is impressive. I also liked his design of a hang glider; it might actually have worked. It would be four hundred years until Langley and the Wright Brothers figured out how to achieve heavier-than-air flight using internal combustion engines.

What have we missed? It does appear that Leonardo was highly accomplished in architecture and urban planning. His notebooks are full of sketches of architectural masterpieces, none of which were ever built. His concept of the “Ideal City” featuring wide streets at different levels and underground canals serving as sewers is certainly prescient for its time.

Howard Alex commented on the fortunate coincidence that da Vinci lived in a geographical region and time when a homosexual not only could survive, but could prosper. In most venues and at most times in history (including today) his involvement with young boys would not be tolerated. Interestingly, the list of the world’s ten greatest geniuses that I found includes four who never married nor had children – da Vinci, Plato, Newton, and Tesla. Too bad their genes were not passed on.

Had he only contributed his fifteen paintings to our cultural heritage, Leonardo da Vinci would be remembered as a great man. The survival of his notebooks (26,000 pages!) provides a testament to his accomplishments in a dozen other areas, a legacy that may never be equaled.