The LAT's lead feature today is on a remarkable document trove in St. Louis: the court records of slaves who petitioned for freedom, and damages, before the Dred Scott decision. Writes Stephanie Simon:
Among heaps of musty affidavits about contract disputes and unpaid debts, the archivests have uncovered 283 "freedom suits" filed in St. Louis from 1806 to 1965.
Decades before Dred Scott became the most famous slave to sue for freedom, the imposing, domed courthouse here echoed with the defiant voices of Tempe, of Ralph, off so many others who refused to accept their bondage. They dictated their petitions to lawyers or clerks and signed them with faltering Xs in black ink. "He has frequently abused and beaten her, particularly yesterday." "Unlawfully an assault he did make in and upon her."
Before this cache of documents was discovered, historians had no idea how many slaves had put their faith, and their fates, in the courts. They thought Dred Scott was an anomaly. Now, they are uncovering evidence of an underground grapevine that passed word about the freedom suits from slave to slave, emboldening men and women and even teenage children to sue.
Dozens won their cases, persuading juries of 12 white men to set them free. A few even won damages against their masters.
These records, which are online here, help explain why Dred Scott was such a tragic shock to slaves and slavery opponents: It not only laid the legal foundation for the Fugitive Slave Act, which forced slavery opponents to participate in returning blacks to bondage. It also declared that the rule of law, a fundamental principle of American government, simply didn't apply to blacks. [Posted 3/18.]
Posted by Virginia Postrel on March 18, 2003 • Comments
I was struck in the president's speech by his frequent use of the phrase "the Iraqi regime" and his infrequent invocation of "Saddam Hussein" and "the Iraqi dictator." I suspect that rhetorical choice was to avoid charges of over-personalizing the conflict. But it may also point to the tough issue of de-Ba'athization of Iraq. Saddam and his sons are the center of the problem, but they have help. [Posted 3/18.]
Posted by Virginia Postrel on March 18, 2003 • Comments
It's common on the left and even more common among isolationist libertarians to charge that the United States is, or is becoming, an "empire" because of interventions abroad. Hearing it the other day, I was struck by how utterly absurd the term is. If this is an empire, where's the emperor? Where's the territorial control? Where's the tribute flowing from overseas possessions? Saying the word empire is the wrong one doesn't imply that U.S. foreign policy is correct, merely that another term is needed. A 21st-century representative democracy with a large regulatory bureaucracy and many overseas involvements may be problematic. But it isn't an "empire" unless that term just means "a government I don't like." [Posted 3/18.]
Posted by Virginia Postrel on March 18, 2003 • Comments
If I were al Qaeda, I'd put all my efforts toward inflicting maximum fatalities at Sunday night's Academy Awards ceremony. Aside from the obvious terrorist draws—big international TV ratings, a big tourist Q rating, lots of female skin, lots of Jews—a successful hit would inflict serious economic damage on the United States. It's easy to forget just how economically productive all those seemingly trivial movie makers are, and, hence, just how much human capital will be in the room on Oscar night.
Of course, Oscar isn't exactly a soft target. Even before 9/11, the Academy had to protect the stars from the fans, and Hollywood instituted further precautions last year. After September 11, Angelenos assumed they were next. When no attack came, they looked egotistical for making that assumption; they've since grown complacent. Better, however, to look foolishly self-involved (something Hollywood knows a lot about) than to invite terrorism. [Posted 3/18.]
Posted by Virginia Postrel on March 18, 2003 • Comments
Literally. The newspaper smells like dirt. Management knows it stinks. Michael Parks, the former managing editor, told me that when the paper was working on a redesign, consultants had managers smell boxes containing sheets from the LAT and its competitors. Their paper stank. It's the high recycled paper content and the soy ink. [Posted 3/18.]
Posted by Virginia Postrel on March 18, 2003 • Comments
In case you misssed the InstaPundit mentions (I did), you can read military bloggers deployed near Iraq here and here. [Posted 3/18.]
Posted by Virginia Postrel on March 18, 2003 • Comments
I came back to L.A. from San Diego only to find that my phone line wasn't working. Neither, it turns out, are some of my neighbors' phones. The only thing worse than dial-up Internet access is no dial-up Internet access. I'm posting from Starbucks, using their Wi-Fi access, and I can pick up my email. I can't, however, reply. Thank God for cell phones.
Update: Apparently that T-Mobile service in Starbucks does let you send email. I just had some settings wrong yesterday. [Posted 3/18.]
Posted by Virginia Postrel on March 18, 2003 • Comments
From Angelenos in nail salons to New York writers, I keep hearing people deny that George W. Bush is a real Texan. He's really from Connecticut, they say. He's faking it. It's a pretty odd critique, for a couple of reasons. First, being a Texan isn't any great honor—I don't intend to become one if I can help it. And that assessment goes double for people who don't like W. In fact, the same sorts of people tend to see Bush's Texas roots as the cause (or evidence) of his allegedly violence-prone character. Second, the New Yorker I heard making much of W the faux Texan is from Nebraska and the Angelenos had heavy foreign accents. If George W. Bush isn't a Texan, then no immigrant can claim to be an American. Give it up folks. The guy's from Texas. [Posted 3/13.]
Posted by Virginia Postrel on March 13, 2003 • Comments
I'm spending a happy week in California, hanging out in my old place in L.A. (Before you think that's weird, remember that lots of people have second homes. Ours just happens to be our old L.A. condo.) Tomorrow, I'm driving to San Diego to speak at Reason Weekend, the Reason Foundation's annual conference for donors. I'm talking about The Substance of Style and also joining a panel on blogging, featuring such fine other speakers as Eugene Volokh, Nick Gillespie, and Glenn Reynolds (whose speech is also on blogging).
I haven't been back to L.A. in months, and I wasn't sure I'd like it as much now that I'm more or less acclimated to Dallas. Wrong. I got out of the cab, breathed the soft air, looked at the evening sky (oddly enough, you can see more stars in L.A. than in Dallas), and thought, "Ah. This place is just as great as I remembered." And you can get a lot more work done when you don't have to think about the weather. [Posted 3/13.]
Posted by Virginia Postrel on March 13, 2003 • Comments
California is paradise, but, even aside from the bad government, it's not perfect. Back in Dallas, I have a terrorism emergency kit, complete with duct tape (and now a lifetime's supply of matzah!). It's not cool, but I'm not ashamed to admit it. Sure, the chance we'll need it for emergency purposes is minimal—though some components came in handy when Dallas was iced in for two days. But compared to putting together an earthquake kit, it was easy. I didn't have to worry that the house would collapse on it, blocking access to the supplies.
Some people think Californians are relatively sanguine about terrorism because they live far away from New York and Washington. I think it's because they're used to living with a constant threat of death and destruction that will strike without warning. Every time you drive under an overpass, enter a parking garage, or cross a bridge in L.A. or San Francisco, there is a small but ever-present probability that it will collapse in an earthquake and kill you. Every time you go to bed, there is a larger probability that you'll be jolted awake by the house shaking. It's a relief to be able to arrange furniture, particularly bedroom bookshelves, without worrying about what might happen in an earthquake.
It turns out that residents of San Francisco and Los Angeles are more prepared for disaster than other American urbanites. The LAT's Richard Marosi reports on a Duracell/Harris Interactive study of disaster preparedness:
Forty-eight percent of households in Los Angeles—the highest rank among America's 10 largest cities—said they have a disaster plan.
New Yorkers are the least prepared, though they are the most fearful of terrorist attacks, according to the poll.
The poll also found that even though residents on the earthquake-prone West Coast are more prepared, the majority of households still don't have a family plan for dealing with a disaster.
Only 36% of households nationwide reported having a disaster supply kit in the home. In Los Angeles, 49% said they had kits; in San Francisco, 57%. The kits usually contain food and water supplies, flashlights and a portable radio.
The San Francisco Chronicle story is here. [Posted 3/13.]
Posted by Virginia Postrel on March 13, 2003 • Comments