Washington’s Birthday should be commemorated as more than a retail bonanza.
The previous post for Friends of 1776 has tried to revise his birthday celebration as more serious, more patriotic, something more fitting for the occasion.
One suggestion was to award each year a military history literary prize. Washington was a general for much of his active life; he was our Supreme Commander during the Revolutionary War.
Here are two military stories that have produced good reading.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Celebrating George Washington’s Birthday
On February 6, 2011, we will celebrate what would have been President Reagan’s 100th birthday (Los Angeles Times, February 6, 2010).
It’s going to be a big day.
For one thing, Reagan’s birthday will share the day with Super Bowl Sunday. Combining these two events will be a terrific challenge.
Many events are planned, from locations in Illinois where Reagan spent his adolescent years, to the Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California. I imagine his widow, Nancy, is heavily involved in the planning of events honoring her late husband.
Next week, we will again mark the birthday of our country’s most major political figure, George Washington, born February 22, 1732 (died 1799).
The history judging Reagan has yet to be written, but the verdict for Washington is in
It’s going to be a big day.
For one thing, Reagan’s birthday will share the day with Super Bowl Sunday. Combining these two events will be a terrific challenge.
Many events are planned, from locations in Illinois where Reagan spent his adolescent years, to the Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California. I imagine his widow, Nancy, is heavily involved in the planning of events honoring her late husband.
Next week, we will again mark the birthday of our country’s most major political figure, George Washington, born February 22, 1732 (died 1799).
The history judging Reagan has yet to be written, but the verdict for Washington is in
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Two Hundred Years of the State of the Union
Last Wednesday, January 27, 2010, President Obama delivered his first State of the Union address.
Traditionally, it is the message of the current President to the US Congress.
In the US Constitution, Article II, Section 3, under a rather scant paragraph “Duties of the President”, the President is directed to give Congress information on the state of the nation and what he considers measures that are just, expedient, even necessary. In other words, what he considers future policy. The frequency of this duty is vague.
But about 200 years later (George Washington delivered a State of the Union address),
Traditionally, it is the message of the current President to the US Congress.
In the US Constitution, Article II, Section 3, under a rather scant paragraph “Duties of the President”, the President is directed to give Congress information on the state of the nation and what he considers measures that are just, expedient, even necessary. In other words, what he considers future policy. The frequency of this duty is vague.
But about 200 years later (George Washington delivered a State of the Union address),
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
New Year Message for 2010 to all Friends of 1776
It’s a New Year, a new decade, a good time to discuss topics of interest to you about our American Revolution. Your participation and appreciation in this amazing story continues at a time when its significance seems more important than ever. The American Revolution, as with other wars, had its causes many years before any shots were fired. This ongoing series will continue this year. Some causes were obvious; some were more obscure, involving basically individuals. The social history, emigration, and even religion of the earlier colonies provided causes.
One cannot consider the American Revolution without the complicated actions of the British Parliament and its last American monarch, George III.
Once the Revolutionary War started, it developed on a large scale, hardly advantageous for the American patriot soldiers even with Washington as their leader. Previous posts have considered the battles only sketchily. The war could be divided broadly into three parts: the early years, in the northern and north-eastern colonies; the later years in the predominantly southern colonies, with very hard fighting, often very successful for the British; and a continuous, vicious civil war between the patriots and loyalists. These campaigns were fought in the western territories of the southern colonies.
Many British and American generals were very talented, became famous, and led decisive battles. A question can always be raised, did the American colonies win or did the British lose, trying to continue supplying an army thousands of miles away? Both did not occur simultaneously.
By the end of the war, 1783, the Americans were technically the winner, but in reality complete losers, because we had no money, nothing but debts, no agreement on the future; only a collection of states concerned with their own prosperity.
Early in the war Canada was a foreign power playing a significant position; years later France had a very pivotal role; the Dutch became critical lenders.
Brilliant individuals such as Madison, Adams, Hamilton, and of course Washington became the new leaders of the United States and our Constitution.
You can see that the topics which can be considered are endless. There will also be book reviews of excellent texts.
2010 will be exciting. Please join me and comment on our blog. – Renata Breisacher Mulry
One cannot consider the American Revolution without the complicated actions of the British Parliament and its last American monarch, George III.
Once the Revolutionary War started, it developed on a large scale, hardly advantageous for the American patriot soldiers even with Washington as their leader. Previous posts have considered the battles only sketchily. The war could be divided broadly into three parts: the early years, in the northern and north-eastern colonies; the later years in the predominantly southern colonies, with very hard fighting, often very successful for the British; and a continuous, vicious civil war between the patriots and loyalists. These campaigns were fought in the western territories of the southern colonies.
Many British and American generals were very talented, became famous, and led decisive battles. A question can always be raised, did the American colonies win or did the British lose, trying to continue supplying an army thousands of miles away? Both did not occur simultaneously.
By the end of the war, 1783, the Americans were technically the winner, but in reality complete losers, because we had no money, nothing but debts, no agreement on the future; only a collection of states concerned with their own prosperity.
Early in the war Canada was a foreign power playing a significant position; years later France had a very pivotal role; the Dutch became critical lenders.
Brilliant individuals such as Madison, Adams, Hamilton, and of course Washington became the new leaders of the United States and our Constitution.
You can see that the topics which can be considered are endless. There will also be book reviews of excellent texts.
2010 will be exciting. Please join me and comment on our blog. – Renata Breisacher Mulry
Sunday, January 3, 2010
Abigail and John: Portrait of a Marriage – Book Review
Christmas brought a nice addition to the library here for Friends of 1776. A lot has been written about this famous Presidential marriage, their letters, and the well-known salutation, “My dearest friend”.
This book is not about the many letters and wide variety of topics they cover, although Gelles quotes extensively from them. Rather, this book is biographical n scope, bringing great detail to the personality traits of both people. This marriage had its share of triumph, great personal tragedy, and strong disagreements. If I can describe the marriage in a few words, it was a marriage of separation. Nothing turned out as one might expect. The author focuses on Abigail in greater detail than for John. She was a typical late 18th century woman, from a solid “good family”. She was also brilliant, very intelligent, and surprisingly modern in outlook.
Considering what Abigail had to face, alone, over decades, I have no idea how she coped. Fortunately, in spite of many periods of illness, for children and family, she had basically a healthy constitution.
When illness struck around her, she did what she had to do. She was not a whiner. She knew how to pick extraordinary friends. Many of the letters’ substance are dominated by domestic problems. Why did this happen? Gelles effectively explains that from the beginning of their marriage, John more and more abdicated home life for a life of public service, calling for prolonged absences from Massachusetts and his growing family. Once, later, it was for five years!
Also, the extraordinary time it took for correspondence to reach its destination, weeks, often months, left Abigail to often have little contact with John. The time factor for correspondence is well handled in this book.
In a way, the marriage was very modern. Leaving Abigail at home on the farm in the Boston suburb (Braintree), John goes to the city to pursue his career and financial future. People recognized his talents quickly. He was invited to join he right political and legal organizations, where he rapidly met many influential people. In many modern marriages, he would catch a late commuter train, meanwhile leaving his wife to deal with the plumber and the children’s schools.
When Jefferson wrote our Declaration of Independence, it was John Adams who put it into place. John earlier had recognized the special talents of George Washington and pushed for his selection of general of our revolutionary army. But the more John rose in importance and prestige, the less chance he had to build his wealth. His earlier highly esteemed legal practice couldn’t grow. Thank goodness for Abigail’s abundant energy; much later Abigail was essentially the family financial manager. Her aim was not to amass riches, but to stay out of debt, the danger was all farming operations. She was successful at that. It showed again that in this marriage, both partners were good at what they did. Throughout these long years, they maintained their mutual affection and respect. They never took each other for granted.
So many years of their marriage played out in the Revolutionary War, with campaigns and battles over a large area. I do criticize this book for rather neglecting the military history. Important, decisive battles are often given scant attention. But maybe this can be justified by the fact that John was never a military leader.
Everything in Abigail’s background would predict that she was a sober, righteous New England housewife. But when she began to accompany John on diplomatic missions, she acquired an elegance and culture perfectly suited to her new social position (particularly in Paris and later London). She maintained a friendship with Jefferson. She attended the theater, ballet, concerts and recitals, and saw important landmarks as a tourist. She began to enjoy and appreciate some of the outstanding furniture and décor of the late 18th century. She was no country bumpkin from the farm.
Did John miss a great deal because his family life was essentially subject to the demands of his public life? I think you will judge this for yourself.
If anything, the devotion and compatibility in this marriage was particularly strong in their later years. Deaths of adult children were a terrible grief for them, but not described as morbid. The presence of many grandchildren was a great satisfaction and happiness for them now being together, retired, back on the farm, John’s most lasting preference for his whole life.
This portrait of a marriage shows why it earned an absolute right to be considered an outstanding Presidential marriage. Maybe Jack and Jackie Kennedy’s much briefer days together as celebrities also earned an outstanding designation, or perhaps that of Franklin and Eleanor.
But Gelles has drawn up a portrait of two extraordinary people, living in extraordinary times. I don’t think a reader will ever tire of them. – Renata Breisacher Mulry
Abigail: 1744 – 1818; John: 1735 – 1826
Lived in Braintree, Family Farm
Abigail and John: Portrait of a Marriage Edith B. Gelles, author. William Morrow, 2009. 285 pp.
Notes: Over a century later another celebrated marriage, that of the last Czar and Czarina of Russia, Nicholas and Alexandra, was also known for their voluminous correspondence through tumultuous times. See A Lifelong Passion: Nicholas and Alexandra Their Own Story. Andrei Maylunas and Sergei Mironenko. Doubleday, 1997. 667 pp.
This book is not about the many letters and wide variety of topics they cover, although Gelles quotes extensively from them. Rather, this book is biographical n scope, bringing great detail to the personality traits of both people. This marriage had its share of triumph, great personal tragedy, and strong disagreements. If I can describe the marriage in a few words, it was a marriage of separation. Nothing turned out as one might expect. The author focuses on Abigail in greater detail than for John. She was a typical late 18th century woman, from a solid “good family”. She was also brilliant, very intelligent, and surprisingly modern in outlook.
Considering what Abigail had to face, alone, over decades, I have no idea how she coped. Fortunately, in spite of many periods of illness, for children and family, she had basically a healthy constitution.
When illness struck around her, she did what she had to do. She was not a whiner. She knew how to pick extraordinary friends. Many of the letters’ substance are dominated by domestic problems. Why did this happen? Gelles effectively explains that from the beginning of their marriage, John more and more abdicated home life for a life of public service, calling for prolonged absences from Massachusetts and his growing family. Once, later, it was for five years!
Also, the extraordinary time it took for correspondence to reach its destination, weeks, often months, left Abigail to often have little contact with John. The time factor for correspondence is well handled in this book.
In a way, the marriage was very modern. Leaving Abigail at home on the farm in the Boston suburb (Braintree), John goes to the city to pursue his career and financial future. People recognized his talents quickly. He was invited to join he right political and legal organizations, where he rapidly met many influential people. In many modern marriages, he would catch a late commuter train, meanwhile leaving his wife to deal with the plumber and the children’s schools.
When Jefferson wrote our Declaration of Independence, it was John Adams who put it into place. John earlier had recognized the special talents of George Washington and pushed for his selection of general of our revolutionary army. But the more John rose in importance and prestige, the less chance he had to build his wealth. His earlier highly esteemed legal practice couldn’t grow. Thank goodness for Abigail’s abundant energy; much later Abigail was essentially the family financial manager. Her aim was not to amass riches, but to stay out of debt, the danger was all farming operations. She was successful at that. It showed again that in this marriage, both partners were good at what they did. Throughout these long years, they maintained their mutual affection and respect. They never took each other for granted.
So many years of their marriage played out in the Revolutionary War, with campaigns and battles over a large area. I do criticize this book for rather neglecting the military history. Important, decisive battles are often given scant attention. But maybe this can be justified by the fact that John was never a military leader.
Everything in Abigail’s background would predict that she was a sober, righteous New England housewife. But when she began to accompany John on diplomatic missions, she acquired an elegance and culture perfectly suited to her new social position (particularly in Paris and later London). She maintained a friendship with Jefferson. She attended the theater, ballet, concerts and recitals, and saw important landmarks as a tourist. She began to enjoy and appreciate some of the outstanding furniture and décor of the late 18th century. She was no country bumpkin from the farm.
Did John miss a great deal because his family life was essentially subject to the demands of his public life? I think you will judge this for yourself.
If anything, the devotion and compatibility in this marriage was particularly strong in their later years. Deaths of adult children were a terrible grief for them, but not described as morbid. The presence of many grandchildren was a great satisfaction and happiness for them now being together, retired, back on the farm, John’s most lasting preference for his whole life.
This portrait of a marriage shows why it earned an absolute right to be considered an outstanding Presidential marriage. Maybe Jack and Jackie Kennedy’s much briefer days together as celebrities also earned an outstanding designation, or perhaps that of Franklin and Eleanor.
But Gelles has drawn up a portrait of two extraordinary people, living in extraordinary times. I don’t think a reader will ever tire of them. – Renata Breisacher Mulry
Abigail: 1744 – 1818; John: 1735 – 1826
Lived in Braintree, Family Farm
Abigail and John: Portrait of a Marriage Edith B. Gelles, author. William Morrow, 2009. 285 pp.
Notes: Over a century later another celebrated marriage, that of the last Czar and Czarina of Russia, Nicholas and Alexandra, was also known for their voluminous correspondence through tumultuous times. See A Lifelong Passion: Nicholas and Alexandra Their Own Story. Andrei Maylunas and Sergei Mironenko. Doubleday, 1997. 667 pp.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Supplying the Troops at Valley Forge
In the movie version of Steinbeck’s East of Eden, Cal, played by the incomparable James Dean, wants to know if growing beans will make money when America is in World War I.
Question: Is war good for business?
Answer from a family business acquaintance: The best there is!
Generally, business prospers in war. Included are contractors, suppliers, manufacturers. It isn’t just for obtaining food, but all kinds of commodities that people want and are in short supply.
The winter of 1777 that our troops spent at Valley Forge certainly made money for some people, but not the soldiers. They were literally starving. But many people in the supply chain made lots of money, particularly contractors. These worked in a state of confusion and avarice. It was very difficult to find competent administrators for the quartermaster corps. Both the army and Congress despaired of ever finding an honest contractor.
In the Revolutionary War, nobody wanted to fight in the winter. Harsh weather, impassible roads, and a lack of supplies had Washington convinced that he didn’t want to “winter” his troops at Valley Forge, 25 mile northwest of Philadelphia. He just wanted to leave the whole area. But in 1777 the Pennsylvania Assembly wanted Washington’s troops to remain as a defensive maneuver. So the soldiers marched into a frozen wilderness. What they found was no shelter, no winter clothing, shortage of food and water, no sanitation, and constant threat of disease. A more unsuitable location could not have been found.
Washington’s first priority was bringing some rough shelter into the camp, and a basic food supply. Washington now had to rely on contractors, who knew every trick in the book.
As for delivery of food, critical from the beginning, much of it was of poor or downright dangerous quality. Some food was blatantly traded to the British, who paid in hard currency rather than accepting paper money. Attempts to install price controls only drove prices to below market value. Some farmers would not trade with the army at all; they found better markets at other locations to be far more lucrative.
With administration in confusion, constant inefficiency, and contractor dishonesty, it was no wonder that soldiers were starving. The whole situation was a disaster. It was a miracle that troops tolerated the conditions throughout this winter. It wasn’t even that severe, just normal for the time of year.
Contractor problems have always persisted. In all fairness, it’s got to be remembered that a lot of the quartermastering had to be done very quickly with little supervision. The supervisor has to ideally be a combination manager, accountant, and often engineer; above all, a wheeler dealer. Who is trained for all that?
In the current Iraq war, we have heard many times about Cheney-Halliburton contract problems. Private business suddenly working in a military setting creates special problems.
How many four-star generals come from a background of the quartermaster corps?
Fifty years ago, Blake Edwards cast Cary Grant and Tony Curtis in a light, very amusing movie, Operation Petticoat, set in the Philippines in 1941. Everything is confused; everyone is trying to deal with supplies the best way they can, which is generally no way at all. But junior officer Curtis has a flair for quartermastering. He is clever and at times quite dishonest. He delivers one line which suits his role perfectly: “In confusion lies profit”.
Washington needed the skills of a Tony Curtis character desperately at Valley Forge. Curtis would have outsmarted every contractor hands down. Probably he would have stolen enough money, and not the paper kind either, to obtain enough food and labor to make the soldiers’ lives more tolerable. For him, enemies were those who wouldn’t trade what he needed. – Renata Breisacher Mulry
Friends of 1776 Holiday Wish List
Question: Is war good for business?
Answer from a family business acquaintance: The best there is!
Generally, business prospers in war. Included are contractors, suppliers, manufacturers. It isn’t just for obtaining food, but all kinds of commodities that people want and are in short supply.
The winter of 1777 that our troops spent at Valley Forge certainly made money for some people, but not the soldiers. They were literally starving. But many people in the supply chain made lots of money, particularly contractors. These worked in a state of confusion and avarice. It was very difficult to find competent administrators for the quartermaster corps. Both the army and Congress despaired of ever finding an honest contractor.
In the Revolutionary War, nobody wanted to fight in the winter. Harsh weather, impassible roads, and a lack of supplies had Washington convinced that he didn’t want to “winter” his troops at Valley Forge, 25 mile northwest of Philadelphia. He just wanted to leave the whole area. But in 1777 the Pennsylvania Assembly wanted Washington’s troops to remain as a defensive maneuver. So the soldiers marched into a frozen wilderness. What they found was no shelter, no winter clothing, shortage of food and water, no sanitation, and constant threat of disease. A more unsuitable location could not have been found.
Washington’s first priority was bringing some rough shelter into the camp, and a basic food supply. Washington now had to rely on contractors, who knew every trick in the book.
As for delivery of food, critical from the beginning, much of it was of poor or downright dangerous quality. Some food was blatantly traded to the British, who paid in hard currency rather than accepting paper money. Attempts to install price controls only drove prices to below market value. Some farmers would not trade with the army at all; they found better markets at other locations to be far more lucrative.
With administration in confusion, constant inefficiency, and contractor dishonesty, it was no wonder that soldiers were starving. The whole situation was a disaster. It was a miracle that troops tolerated the conditions throughout this winter. It wasn’t even that severe, just normal for the time of year.
Contractor problems have always persisted. In all fairness, it’s got to be remembered that a lot of the quartermastering had to be done very quickly with little supervision. The supervisor has to ideally be a combination manager, accountant, and often engineer; above all, a wheeler dealer. Who is trained for all that?
In the current Iraq war, we have heard many times about Cheney-Halliburton contract problems. Private business suddenly working in a military setting creates special problems.
How many four-star generals come from a background of the quartermaster corps?
Fifty years ago, Blake Edwards cast Cary Grant and Tony Curtis in a light, very amusing movie, Operation Petticoat, set in the Philippines in 1941. Everything is confused; everyone is trying to deal with supplies the best way they can, which is generally no way at all. But junior officer Curtis has a flair for quartermastering. He is clever and at times quite dishonest. He delivers one line which suits his role perfectly: “In confusion lies profit”.
Washington needed the skills of a Tony Curtis character desperately at Valley Forge. Curtis would have outsmarted every contractor hands down. Probably he would have stolen enough money, and not the paper kind either, to obtain enough food and labor to make the soldiers’ lives more tolerable. For him, enemies were those who wouldn’t trade what he needed. – Renata Breisacher Mulry
Friends of 1776 Holiday Wish List
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Shays' Rebellion
I apologize for the interval between this post and the previous one, Pulaski, due to a personal emergency. So now I have to make up for this gap with more posts of interest to you. But I won’t tell you the subjects; they should be a surprise.
Just a year before our Constitution (1787), the new United States had a rebellion. The insurgents were farmers in Western Massachusetts. Where else? Massachusetts was always in a state of unrest and rebellion during the period of our revolution. The leader of this rebellion was Daniel Shays, a farmer of modest means, and it took everyone by surprise and alarm. The fact that it occurred at all was believed to be a major reason that our Constitution was put in place.
Shays' Rebellion was about money and debt.
The war had created a lot of profit for some in Massachusetts, particularly in Boston. There were also a lot of debts. Some of the successful investors bought a lot of the mortgage notes of the hard-working farmers. The investors had also lent a lot of money to the state. When the occasion arose, they expected to be paid, and not with worthless paper currency. They also had powerful interests in the Legislature.
However, the farmers weren’t doing so well. Harsh taxes, a depressed business climate because the war was over. That awful word, foreclosure, was facing a lot of them. They had vigorously petitioned the Legislature for relief, and got nowhere. It was time for strong action.
Shays and his followers (500 – 1000, the number is not quoted consistently, with wildly inflated rumors), many putting on their old Continental uniforms, went on the march. Destination, Hampshire County Court. This plan was quite practical. Since foreclosure was a legal process, if a courthouse was essentially shut down, that would delay any proceedings.
The farmers got little if no support. Instead, reaction was swift, punitive, and entirely hostile. Washington declared that the campaign of the farmers was disgusting. Even Sam Adams, that perennial supporter of revolt, did a complete about face and called the rebels traitors.
Hancock sat out all the trouble. Militia hounded the farmers, imprisoned them, labeled them traitors. Shays had fled Massachusetts for safety, but was declared a traitor in absentia anyway and sentenced to death.
The rebels’ cause, which seemed so hopeless, did take a brighter turn. The next Massachusetts legislature was far more sympathetic to the farmers. Some remedies at least were started. Hancock was governor again and pardoned Shays.
But the impact of their rebellion persisted. The rich were frightened; the new country was very fragile. It’s good we had the bold ideas and practical applications of an Alexander Hamilton. Financial problems continued to persist.
I think farmers have always been treated harshly, all over the world. It’s a very hard occupation, 24 / 7, with disaster just around the corner: weather, precipitation, pests, and some very hard government policies, such as estate taxes, land taxes, and regulations. Today, we have a lot of large farming conglomerates, which has given the industry much more bargaining power and political influence. These huge operations have been blasted for all kinds of reasons, but they keep our food supply steady and available. I think we have the best of both worlds today. We have the huge inventory at the local supermarket, and a growing local supply, often organic.
Growing food yourself is not easy. Your crop of tomatoes, lemons, and vegetables is not exactly cheap. There are problems from nibbling rabbits to every pest known to man. The only remedy is a green thumb. I envy people who have one.
So, zucchini ladies, your home-grown bounty is well-received by me. I like to eat. We all know that a home-grown tomato beats a conglomerate version hands down.
I don’t think the rich Bostonians appreciated their Shays farmers at all. – Renata Breisacher Mulry
Just a year before our Constitution (1787), the new United States had a rebellion. The insurgents were farmers in Western Massachusetts. Where else? Massachusetts was always in a state of unrest and rebellion during the period of our revolution. The leader of this rebellion was Daniel Shays, a farmer of modest means, and it took everyone by surprise and alarm. The fact that it occurred at all was believed to be a major reason that our Constitution was put in place.
Shays' Rebellion was about money and debt.
The war had created a lot of profit for some in Massachusetts, particularly in Boston. There were also a lot of debts. Some of the successful investors bought a lot of the mortgage notes of the hard-working farmers. The investors had also lent a lot of money to the state. When the occasion arose, they expected to be paid, and not with worthless paper currency. They also had powerful interests in the Legislature.
However, the farmers weren’t doing so well. Harsh taxes, a depressed business climate because the war was over. That awful word, foreclosure, was facing a lot of them. They had vigorously petitioned the Legislature for relief, and got nowhere. It was time for strong action.
Shays and his followers (500 – 1000, the number is not quoted consistently, with wildly inflated rumors), many putting on their old Continental uniforms, went on the march. Destination, Hampshire County Court. This plan was quite practical. Since foreclosure was a legal process, if a courthouse was essentially shut down, that would delay any proceedings.
The farmers got little if no support. Instead, reaction was swift, punitive, and entirely hostile. Washington declared that the campaign of the farmers was disgusting. Even Sam Adams, that perennial supporter of revolt, did a complete about face and called the rebels traitors.
Hancock sat out all the trouble. Militia hounded the farmers, imprisoned them, labeled them traitors. Shays had fled Massachusetts for safety, but was declared a traitor in absentia anyway and sentenced to death.
The rebels’ cause, which seemed so hopeless, did take a brighter turn. The next Massachusetts legislature was far more sympathetic to the farmers. Some remedies at least were started. Hancock was governor again and pardoned Shays.
But the impact of their rebellion persisted. The rich were frightened; the new country was very fragile. It’s good we had the bold ideas and practical applications of an Alexander Hamilton. Financial problems continued to persist.
I think farmers have always been treated harshly, all over the world. It’s a very hard occupation, 24 / 7, with disaster just around the corner: weather, precipitation, pests, and some very hard government policies, such as estate taxes, land taxes, and regulations. Today, we have a lot of large farming conglomerates, which has given the industry much more bargaining power and political influence. These huge operations have been blasted for all kinds of reasons, but they keep our food supply steady and available. I think we have the best of both worlds today. We have the huge inventory at the local supermarket, and a growing local supply, often organic.
Growing food yourself is not easy. Your crop of tomatoes, lemons, and vegetables is not exactly cheap. There are problems from nibbling rabbits to every pest known to man. The only remedy is a green thumb. I envy people who have one.
So, zucchini ladies, your home-grown bounty is well-received by me. I like to eat. We all know that a home-grown tomato beats a conglomerate version hands down.
I don’t think the rich Bostonians appreciated their Shays farmers at all. – Renata Breisacher Mulry
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Buy Flags at Sears
Posts
