THREATS TO A FREE SOCIETY

The United States of America considers itself a free society.  There is a general awareness that freedom can be lost and must therefore be preserved.  The question then arises as to what a free people must do to preserve its freedom.  In the context of bitterly divisive politics in the United States, the answer often given is that the other political party is the danger and my political party knows and has the policies that will preserve freedom.  I propose here to look into the lessons of history for some possible insights. 

Socrates taught that there can be no intelligent discussion without defining terms.  We need to know about what we are speaking.  People often jump into political discourse without agreement on the subject.  The result is that neither party is communicating with the other because they are operating with different concepts in mind.

What is a free society?  It must stand in opposition to one that is not free.  Freedom implies the absence of restraint.  It is the absence of bondage that would restrain the freedom to think, speak, write, go places, or make and follow through with personal decisions.  Freedom is not license; it is not the right or ability to act irresponsibly.  Restraints on behavior that would damage others are not an impingement on freedom; they are the preservation of civilization.  Freedom thus implies some degree of responsibility to authority.

When we look back at history of civilizations, we shall note that free societies are not the norm.  They are unusual.  Most states have been governed by authorities that allow freedom arbitrarily if at all.  Such is freedom by permission rather than autonomous freedom.    Early Mesopotamian civilizations were absolute monarchies.  Egypt was an absolute monarchy. Alexander the Great and his Macedonian successors were authoritative monarchs. The Roman Empire was an autocracy.  Medieval Europe was ruled by nobles and kings, and the common people lacked any independent power unless granted by the lord.  In the Far East authoritarian empires were the rule.

Here we encounter an important aspect to our definition.  Whereas there are varying degrees of personal freedom to be found in civilized societies among those autocratic ones noted above, it is by the will of the governing power.  It is not inherent, autonomous freedom.  I want us to focus on those few societies where the people are sovereign and choose their rulers.  Aristotle gave such a definition of democracy in his The Politics.  He said that a democracy is a state in which the people are sovereign and free.  In such instances freedom is the basis and essence of the society and not a privilege granted by decree of the person or persons who actually hold the power.

Freedom, in the sense defined above, was born in Ionia in the eighth century B.C.  There independent city-states developed a system that involved political power being found in the hands of the common people.  In order to understand free societies, we should begin our quest in Ionia.

The earliest Greeks had kings, but sometime during their sojourn in Asia Minor the concept of autonomous freedom developed.  Scholars are not agreed as to why.  Perhaps it was the pleasant climate that allowed people to go outside and talk with each other.  Perhaps there was just something inherent in these people.  For whatever reason, these independent cities formed councils (gerousia) to govern the everyday activities and a general assembly (ekklesia) that included all citizens.  Administration was in the hands of officials either selected by lot or elected by the populace.

As Greek civilization revived in the Balkan Peninsula about 650 B.C. following the invasion that had driven most of the Greek people eastward to Asia Minor (1200-1000), they imported these ideas from across the Aegean Sea.  Earlier Greeks had been under a feudal system of kings, as we read in Homer’s accounts of the Trojan War.  After a long development from aristocracy to oligarchy in 594, the city of Athens moved beyond the Ionian pattern to place total power in the hands of the people in 508.  They simply rotated the offices among themselves by drawing names out of a clay pot.  Those selected were administrators, and all citizens formed the assembly which held ultimate decision-making power.  

Democracy in Athens survived for 350 years, and they spread their form of government to other cities.  The Democrats were resisted by the Oligarchs who believed that authority should be vested in a few wealthy people and common folk lacked the qualifications for running a city.  The Oligarchs would have preferred to return to the earlier constitution of Solon in 594 that granted them the ultimate political power.  Although the democracy continued, Athens eventually fell to the Macedonians and later to Rome.  

The Greeks loved their freedom and guarded it with ferocity as long as they could.  They were able to legislate, adjudicate, and run the affairs of state on their own.  People could say what they wanted, and took full advantage of that opportunity.  They could go where they wished.  Conflicting ideas were out there, but no one was forced to accept any one ideology.  People could work where they wished.  Generally the economy was strong enough that they could live decent lives.  Their participation in war was voluntary, except for Sparta.  

Thus the concept of democracy was introduced into the world.  However, Athens was conquered by Sparta in 404 B.C., and the entire Greek world was thrown into chaos for several years until Philip II of Macedon conquered them at the battle of Chaeronea in 338 B.C.  While the conquerors allowed the democratic constitution to continue, it was clear that Athens was subject to foreign overlords. 

We need to stop and examine some of the weaknesses in the Athenian system of autonomous freedom from which we can learn lessons today that possibly could help in preserving our own system of freedom.  First, the plan of placing ultimate political power in the hands of all the people proved unwise.  All citizens of Athens did not possess equally the ability and qualifications to assume the administration of the city.  Nor did they possess the wisdom to make legislative decisions.

During the war with Sparta, the Peloponnesian War which dragged on for thirty years, the democratic assembly, composed of whoever came to the Pnyx that day to make the decisions for the city, made some very irresponsible ones.  For instance, they put to death Pericles’ sons for a weather-related naval tragedy.  They vacillated on whether to recall or re-commission the capable general Alcibiades. They opted for the continuation of the war when an advantageous peace was at hand.

The lesson to be learned is that when the people are sovereign under a democracy, they still need to select qualified people to make the laws, administer, and enforce them.  A complete democracy is a very delicate matter.  It can be done, but only when the people as a whole are well-informed and responsible.  Towns in Switzerland and New England (in former times) manifested this kind of capable democratic politics.  Of course, full democracy can exist only when the populace is small and homogenous.  Often it is pointed out that Athens was never a real democracy in that women and slaves were excluded from the process.  That is true.  Women were citizens but did not participate in politics in Athens, although they did in Sparta.  

A second weakness in the Athenian democratic constitution was its failure to incorporate and provide for the dissidents.  I noted earlier that the Oligarchs were always discontent, and as the common people had felt disenfranchised by the oligarchic constitution, now the Oligarchs felt disenfranchised by the democratic constitution.  A weakness in full democracies is the proclivity of the masses to become tyrants…the tyranny of the majority.  In such cases, true freedom of those disagreeing is compromised.  

Let us leave Athens now for Rome, the second example.  And here we find some lessons closer to home because the government of the United States of America is patterned after that of the Roman Republic.  The Romans drove out the Etruscans in 509 B.C., one year before Cleisthenes introduced the democratic constitution in Athens.  The Romans wisely considered that each and every citizen was not equally qualified to serve in office, and thus they decided on a representative form of government where citizens vote for their magistrates on a yearly basis.

The Roman Republic falls under our definition of a free society, because ultimately the common people held the power by means of the vote.  Their constitution was excellent and serves as the model for the American constitution.  It was a living document that was capable of being amended and expanded as Rome grew. 

Administrative and military power was vested in the hands of two consuls who, like all but one of the other magistrates, were elected yearly.  They were assisted by eight praetors, an office added later which gave them judicial and military power (under the consuls or in absence of the consuls).  Finances were handled by twenty quaestors, and the common people were represented by ten tribunes.  Two censors were elected for five-year terms to update citizen rolls, determine who were qualified to stand for office, and control public contracts.  An upper assembly called the Senate made the laws and controlled finances, and a lower house, the Tribal Assembly, represented the commons.  They later gained the power to introduce legislation which had to be approved by the Senate before becoming law.  Obviously, the original magistrates were from the noble class.  However, as pressure increased for more representation for the common people, the constitution was expanded to accommodate those demands.

Rome prospered for four hundred years under the Republican constitution.  The nation was at peace within itself, and in such unity aggressively moved to conquer the Mediterranean.  After driving out the Etruscans, Rome went on to take south Italy, then in three wars conquered the great African empire of Carthage, and in four wars conquered or acquired three out of four of the Macedonian kingdoms.  The fourth, Egypt, would fall to Rome in 31 B.C.

But by 31 B.C. the Republic was dead.  How did it die and what caused its demise?   I discussed the fall of the Roman Republic to some extent in my previous blog on “Contentious Politics,” so I will not repeat the story here.  Suffice it to say that after the foreign wars a century-long and bloody civil war erupted that left Rome an autocratic, monarchical empire.

In that article I mentioned the tension between the privileged and the underprivileged, the need for understanding each other, and the necessity for compromise.  Obviously, Rome’s failure to do those things contributed to the fall of their republic.  There are, however, some other factors to consider.

The first factor was violation of the constitution.  The Roman Republican constitution was well constructed and flexible enough to expand through addition of new offices as the empire grew.  There were checks and balances in place that prevented abuse of power by any one group.  However, when the wars ended in 146 B.C. and troops returned home to find their farm lands bought up by operators of large plantations, they went to Rome to form a large, unemployed urban mob.  This situation was untenable, and the Senate, under control of the aristocratic Optimates, refused to do anything about it.

When the government would not act, a democratic tribune from an aristocratic background took matters into his own hands.  Tiberius Gracchus in 133 B.C. was elected on a platform of agrarian reform.  He proposed a bill in the Tribal Assembly that would enforce an old law still on the books that restricted the amount of public (government) land that a squatter could hold to 500 iugera or about 500 acres.  The lower house passed the bill, but the upper house would not consider it.

Tiberius flaunted the constitution by declaring his bill to be law based only on its passing the lower house, and proceeded to set up a land commission to carry it out.  Land taken from the squatters would then be given to the ex-military so that they could return to farming.  The Senate controlled appropriation, thus they refused to fund the bill, thinking they would thus kill it.  Tiberius did not let that stop him.  The king of Pergamum, Attalus III, willed his kingdom to Rome before his death.  Tiberius appropriated the Pergamum treasury on behalf of the Roman people.  The Senate cried “foul.”

Unquestionably the constitution had been violated by this tribune who had no legal right to by-pass the Senate in enacting legislation.  At this point the Senate had the option of preserving the constitution by dealing with their grievances against Tiberius according to law, but when Tiberius stood for re-election the next year, and was elected; a senator assassinated Tiberius.  By law a tribune was immune from prosecution and his person was sacrosanct.  Those who stood for preserving the constitution had violated it.  Violations occurred on both Democratic and Republican sides.

Once the constitution was violated, it lost its authority.  Soon the military stepped in to assume the sovereign authority in the state and fill the vacuum left by the slow and steady demise of the Republican constitution.  From that point on, about 100 B.C. and the time of Marius, the military was the real power in Rome, and whoever controlled the military could control the state.  That was the fatal secret of the Roman Empire.  And with military control, freedom, as we have defined it, was gone.  There followed a century-long civil war in which Democratic generals, Republican generals and generals who were “independent” committed horrible atrocities against political leaders and people in general, leaving eventually only one person to assume control as the emperor…with support of the military.

Also, we should note that the assassination of the tribune Tiberius Gracchus introduced violence into Roman politics.  Violence continued and escalated.  Once violence enters the scene and is viewed as a means to settle political grievances, it is very difficult to end it.  Eventually it will end, but by then freedom will long have fallen by the wayside.

Finally, the Roman people lost the will to maintain the Republic.  There were die-hard Republicans who wished for a return to the old system, but the people no longer cared.  They were satisfied with a stable government, strong economy, peace in the land, and high standard of living.  The cost of freedom was too high, and people were unwilling to expend the effort to restore it.  Freedom is a quality that once lost is very difficult to replace.

To sum up, we have defined six reasons for the death of a free society, defining a free society as one in which the people make the ultimate decisions and have the freedom to think, speak, and act without restraint from any source.  They are willing to put into place the self-restraints that allow all to be free.  Two of these factors are derived from the Athenian experiment in democracy and four from the Roman Republic.

1.       Unqualified and inexperienced leadership

2.       Internal disunity (These were the weaknesses in the Athenian democratic system.  I find it strange that Aristotle claimed that democracies are usually free of internal factions, but in Athens there was always tension between Oligarchs and Democrats. )

3.       From Rome we find disrespect and violation of the constitution from both major factions.

4.       The military assuming control of the state in the absence of constitutional authority.

5.       The introduction of violence into politics as a means of settling differences.

6.       The people of Rome (Athens as well) losing the will to maintain freedom as we defined it.

There may be lessons from Athens and Rome that would be helpful to free societies today, although circumstances are never exactly the same.  Any people must ask if freedom is worth preserving, what they must do to preserve it, and if they are willing to take the necessary steps to do so.

-David Lawrence    

Perspectives by David Lawrence: Contentious Politics

Perspectives by David Lawrence: Contentious Politics: CONTENTIOUS POLITICS As of the date of this writing (November 2013), the political process in the United States has about ground to...

Contentious Politics

CONTENTIOUS POLITICS

As of the date of this writing (November 2013), the political process in the United States has about ground to a halt.  There is an acerbic and often hateful tone attached to proponents of both parties.  There seems to be no immediate end to the gridlock with one party determined to block any attempt at legislation by the other.  I shall leave an analysis of the reasons and the process by which this stand-off can be resolved to political experts of the current day.  I am an historian, and the point I want to make here is that this situation is not at all new.

Free societies have always found themselves forming opposing parties or factions.  Usually there is one that represents the interests of the common people and another that represents the interests of the privileged class.  At times these opposing viewpoints have hammered out solutions by way of compromise, and at other times impasse has given way to violence.

Please note that I qualified my remarks to free societies.  Totalitarian states, dictatorships, and tyrannies do not allow for any other viewpoint than that of the leaders in power.  There were no other political parties allowed in Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union.  Those in our country who protest “the loss of freedom” betray their own misinformation, for if freedom were lost, they would not be able to speak out critically of the regime with impunity.  But free societies allow for free expression of thought and for opposing viewpoints.

There are two prominent examples which stand out: that of Athens in the fifth century and Rome in the second and first centuries B.C.  We could also cite Renaissance Florence and perhaps a few other examples like the Medieval guild system.  I would prefer to remain with the classical models for the simple reason that America fashioned its government on that model.  From Athens came the idea of democracy, and from Rome came the concept of representative government and the constitution.

Democratic interests cannot flourish in an aristocratic society where wealth and power are concentrated in the noble class and everyone else is classed as commons with no say in anything political.  The very word political comes from the Greek word polis which means city.  The inference is that cities have developed which included commerce, requiring a viable middle class.  As trade and commerce increased in the Greek cities, beginning in the eighth century in Asia Minor with cities like Miletus, and then spread to the Balkan peninsula in cities like Athens, Corinth, Sparta, and Thebes, the emerging middle class was no longer content with the absolute authority of the aristocrats.  The quest for political power first came from the business class, but after they achieved some measure of success, the workers wanted their share.

This development was most apparent in Athens where the constitution was changed in 594 to admit the middle class and again in 508 to favor the people.  Those who resisted this constant shift toward democracy and preferred the control of the wealthy were known as oligarchs, and those who favored power in the hands of all the people equally were the democrats.  The landed aristocracy, of course, lined up with the oligarchs, and the middle class split although they usually favored the aristocracy because of their own personal wealth.  

The army was formed of men from the aristocrats who supplied the knights for the cavalry (hippeis) and the middle class who supplied the infantry (hoplites).  Because the knights had to supply their own horses and the infantry their own body armor, those of the poor class who could afford neither became sailors.  Thus the navy developed a definite democratic orientation.  Because naval supremacy was of the utmost military importance to Athens, especially in the war with Persia, the democracy gained considerable political power.

Under the democratic constitution all offices were elected by the people meeting in voting districts called demes.  These demes were gerrymandered to favor the democrats much as we see congressional districts gerrymandered to favor the party in power at the time of the redistricting.

And then as the democracy emerged fully-developed by the end of the sixth century, there were two distinct and opposing parties in Athens: the oligarchs who represented the wealthier and propertied interests, and the democrats who represented the common people.  The most powerful office in Athens was that of the general.  Each year ten generals were elected, one for each of the ten tribes.  One general always was the foremost.  The general was the only office that could be re-elected.  Both oligarchs and democrats produced capable generals.  Miltiades who won at the battle of Marathon in 490 against the Persians and his son Cimon who won at the battle of the Eurymedon in 465 were oligarchs while Themistocles, the hero of Salamis in 480 and Pericles the great leader of Athens at mid-century were democrats.  

The Athenians wrote ugly and defamatory diatribes against each other.  They were very much into political propaganda and denouncing the other side.  Many of these political articles remain today.  However, the conflict never escalated to the point of violence, and democrats and oligarchs united in defeating the Persians (496-465).

The political cracks, however, emerged in the war with Sparta (435-404).  During the time of the democratic and charismatic general Alcibiades, there was a revolt against the government, and the oligarchs took over (411).  Turbulent times followed in which power shifted back and forth.  Athens lost the war to Sparta, and eventually fell to the Macedonians under Alexander.  However, the democracy in Athens did endure for 350 years, although dominated by foreign powers such as Macedon and Rome.  

The situation in Rome was somewhat different.  Like Athens, in its early days it was dominated entirely by the nobility who gained wealth and power from land.  They were the heads of the families and the head of the fatherland (patria).  Thus the class became known as the Patricians.  Like Athens Rome developed its middle class, the Equestrians whose wealth allowed them to own a horse.  Early on the common people demanded representation and were granted some by virtue of an assembly (the tribal assembly) along with the Senate which represented the aristocrats.  They also had ten tribunes to protect the rights of the commons.

These offices were all incorporated into the Roman Republican constitution which was formed, like our own after which it was patterned, over the years.  Originally the power tilted to the aristocrats (Patricians or Optimates), but more and more the common people (Populares) sought, demanded, and received power. 

The Romans freed themselves from Etruscan domination traditionally in 509.  The Athenians adopted their democratic constitution one year later.  Romans were well aware of what was transpiring in Athens.  The Etruscans who had controlled them for two hundred years were in close touch with the Greeks through trade.  The Etruscans had also taught the rural Romans the art of statecraft.  Once the Romans were liberated, they needed to decide on what form of government would best suit their needs.  They rejected the idea of monarchy because it reminded them of the tyrannical Etruscans, and they also rejected the Athenian concept of democracy because they did not believe that each and every citizen was equally qualified to hold political office.  They opted for representational government in which the people voted for qualified politicians who would govern for them.

Their constitution was such a masterpiece that it became the model for the United States’ constitution when this nation separated from Great Britain.  Ours has a bi-cameral legislature, a Senate as the upper house and a House of Representatives that is the counterpart of the Tribal Assembly in Rome.  The elected executive officers hold the supreme military commander-in-chief position.  For Rome it was two consuls, and for the United States a President aided by a Vice President.  We need not discuss all the similarities or the differences, but suffice it to say that we sought to employ the classical model of Republican Rome for our new nation.

After many years of military success in which Rome conquered the entire Mediterranean world and during which the commons and the privileged classes fought side by side, the constitution and the political consensus that supported it began to unravel.  Both the Democrats (Populares) and the Republicans (Optimates) were at fault.  The Republicans feared that the constitution was being disrespected and that doing so would mean the end of the Republic.  The Democrats believed that unless they proceeded with a progressive agenda, veterans returning from the war and finding their lands bought up by plantation owners and dispossessed of home and job would just join the unemployed mob in Rome.  The government was doing nothing to correct the situation, and a Tribune, without constitutional power pushed through a land reform bill.  He believed that as he was elected to represent the people, that his actions were justified.  

Although he (Tiberius Gracchus) did indeed act without constitutional authority and by-pass the authority of the Senate, the Senate undermined the constitution by assassinating Tiberius.  From that point on violence prevailed on both sides and grew worse and worse with each general.  The power fell to the military, and generals alternated between being Democratic (Marius, Julius Caesar) and Republican (Sulla and to some extent Pompey).  It was a bloody civil war.  Ours lasted for four years; Rome’s lasted for a century.  At the end all the leaders were dead except one, the grand-nephew of Julius Caesar, Octavian.  It was he who established a veritable monarchy under the guise of restoring the Republic.

The above is only the outline of the events of Athens and Rome.   What we can learn is that the privileged class always sees itself as the preservers of the nation and its traditions.  The common class seeks for greater representation and better living conditions.  This tension between the two classes can either continue to exist in tension in which compromise is reached in which both sides, although neither party gets all that it would want, and each side attains a measure of satisfaction, or the tension breaks and results in violence as in Rome.

The Roman civil war was a terrible event with mass executions of the losing side by the winning side, only to be reversed when the losers became the winners.  However, it did not end Rome, and the resolution came by a monarchy (Principate) which took Rome to new heights of power and a higher standard of living.  This government existed in one form or another for 1500 years.

Neither of these examples is an exact template for the United States and its political problems in the early twenty-first century.  If we may learn from the classical examples, we can say that it is to be expected that there will be tension between the privileged classes and the common people.  The privileged class will always believe that they are right because their policies will preserve the state and its traditions.  The commons will always believe they are right because they, as citizens, should rightfully have power and a better life.  We see this situation in our nation today.

The question is how to deal with the tension.  Uncompromising postures do not resolve conflict.  Violence is never a desirable option because it creates conditions that are far worse than those that precipitated it.  Ignoring it does not work.  The privileged classes need to understand that the commons will never be satisfied unless their demands are met and also that historical precedent indicates that the people shall increasingly gain what they seek.  The commons need to realize that the privileged classes have in view the integrity of the nation as a whole and see themselves as its protectors.  Too much change too quickly can be a threat; and it can destroy the consensus upon which all rational government rests.  Reasoned discourse and compromise appear always to be the best way to avoid serious problems.  Respect for the integrity of both individual people and for the traditions of the nation as a whole need to be maintained.  The tension will always be present, but it can be maintained in equilibrium.  

Perhaps there are more lessons that can be drawn from the conflict of the democrats and oligarchs/republicans of Greece and Rome, but these are probably sufficient.  May we learn from the past and gain wisdom to deal rationally and realistically with the problems of the present.

-David Lawrence

 

History of My Family in Springfield, Missouri

J. W. and Blanche Chilton in Springfield

My wife and I left Nashville on May 8, 2011 to spend a little more than two weeks in Springfield, Missouri visiting our siblings and Wichita, Kansas visiting our son and grandson.  On the way we stopped at Winona, Missouri to locate the grave of my uncle, who died as an infant of about eighteen months, the year before my mother was born.  My wife had discovered information about the grave doing genealogical research.  I had planned to spend time in the Springfield library trying to determine the movements of my grandparents.  That intention resulted in parts of four days there plus a most informative session at the home of my cousin who took us through the files of her father, my uncle, who had many of his father’s and mother’s correspondence.

First, I wanted to know why they left Winona and moved to Springfield and then exactly when.  I had some piecing together of information to do and found far more than I had anticipated.  First, my grandfather, James William Chilton, was an interesting man.  Self-educated, he passed the bar in California in 1913 and became a successful lawyer for the Frisco Railroad and, I found out, for the American Savings Bank in Springfield.  He also served two terms as mayor of Winona, Missouri and supervised the construction of the city hall, still used there.  He was also a well-known writer and a successful owner and president of a bank, the Farmers’ and Merchants’ Bank in Springfield. 

J. W. was born in 1874 in Van Buren and married Virginia Crandall.  A few years later they divorced, and he married my grandmother, Blanche Chilton, a first cousin once removed.  Their children: Ruth, J. W., Jr. (Bill), Gladys, Edgar, Mabel, and Paul were all born in Winona.  Edgar was born in 1908 and died in 1909.  My aunt Gladys had a little notebook that was supposed to belong to Edgar with notes written in it from family members, and my uncle Bill had a letter that he supposedly wrote, but actually written by his grandmother, sending best wishes to Edgar.  He had some childish scribbles on it.  Then there was a letter from my grandmother to “Willie” telling him that Edgar was at the time standing at the hotel window watching the horses.  They had taken him to St. Louis for treatment, but he did not survive, dying in February 1909.  Each child received a lock of his hair, and my wife took a picture of the lock in my cousin’s possession.  Subsequent to that they moved to Glendale, California, and then apparently back to Winona before coming to Springfield.  After visiting Edgar’s grave and thinking that perhaps I was the first family member to be there since he died, as I heard no mention of anyone going there when I was growing up, and remembering the one time my grandmother referred to him and showed her pain even those many years later, we wondered if Edgar’s death was the motivation for their leaving Winona for Springfield. What she said, and I remember it well after all these years was, “I raised six children….well, five.” Then it could have been merely that my grandfather saw greater chances for advancement in his law career in the “big city.”  As an up-and-coming young lawyer, he once argued a case in which the lawyer on the other side was Harry S. Truman, later to be president of the United States.  I recall that my grandparents never cared much for Truman.  During his Winona years, in 1897, my grandfather had his fourth finger amputated due to tuberculosis in it, and my uncle Bill had his tender letter to Blanche informing her of the surgery.  My mother said he played the violin beautifully before that, or so she must have heard, and after he could not.  I well remember his hand with the missing finger.  My sister recalls that when she asked him what happened to his finger, he would reply, “A snake bit it off.”  There was another interesting letter describing his bouts with uncontrolled nose bleeds, a condition my mother mentioned to me that her father had.  Eventually this very debilitating disease went away.  Evidently he lost great amounts of blood, even threatening his life.  His doctors advised his avoiding physical activities, which may have been the factor in my grandfather pursuing his careers of law, writing, and business.      

The Farmers and Merchants Bank in Springfield was established before J.W., his wife Blanche and their family arrived.  It began in 1903 at 223 S. Campbell with J. Y. Fulbright as president, O. Oldham vice-president, and H. H. Smith cashier.  By 1906, the year my father was born in Moreland, Texas, there were no Chiltons in Springfield, but in that year the bank moved to 330 S. Campbell, the northeast corner of Campbell and Walnut where it would remain for thirty-three years.  That site was later the location of Sullivan Shoe Store where my parents bought my shoes for a number of years.  In the intervening years the bank was first listed with a telephone number (74) in 1915 and R. R. Ricketts had become president, D. M. Diffenderffer vice-president, and H. H. Smith still cashier.  Jesse Smith, perhaps his son, was listed as bookkeeper. 

J. W. and Blanche are first listed as Springfield residents in 1917, living at 457 Cherry, a house that once stood in front of St. Agnes Cathedral.  J.W.’s occupation is listed as attorney.  My uncle Bill has a note that they moved on Labor Day 1916.  Bill had noted that his father said he felt like “a fish out of water.”  His position as attorney for the American Savings Bank came about due to his relationship with Frank B. Williams.  Both Ruth and Willie at one time in 1920-1921 worked for the bank at 400 South Ave., Ruth as a teller and Willie as a messenger. 

By the time of the 1918-1919 city directory, J. W. and Blanche had moved to 986 S. Jefferson, a fairly large two-story house down the street from Jarrett Junior High that I attended in the early 1950’s.  My mother, who was born in 1910, remembered that house.  In 1917 the F&M Bank had as its president G.G. Milliken, vice-president: W. W. Coffman, and H. M. Smith as cashier. (Was H.M. Smith H.H. Smith’s son?)  By 1919 W. W. Coffman was obviously promoted to president, F.F. Thompson was vice-president, and H. M. Smith was cashier. But in 1920 J. W. Chilton is listed as the president of the bank.  It is interesting to note that Mr. Coffman was now vice-president with R. J. Mitchell listed as cashier.  He had moved from vice-president to president and then back to vice-president.  It would be interesting to know more of the details on his career there.  By 1926 he had moved down to the position of cashier.  In that year F. F. Thompson was vice-president.  The events leading to my grandfather’s giving up an increasingly distinguished law career for banking came when H. M. Smith, the cashier of the F&M Bank sold his stock to my grandfather, enabling him to now have controlling stock and to become both owner and president.  At the time my grandfather was listed as being associated with the American Savings Bank.  It would seem that Frank Williams was involved in helping him to become the lawyer for ASB.  It is interesting that by 1926, three years before the depression, the American Savings Bank seems to have closed. 

That same year the new bank president and owner moved to a much larger and more prestigious house on south Pickwick.  Pickwick was one of the most elite addresses to have, and it is still a quality neighborhood.  The street has its own history, which I also researched while in Springfield.  For a long time the street ended at Grand, but the president of the traction company saw an opportunity for developing real estate and had the street extended to Catalpa in 1916 and built the 3 Elm St. car line to that point.  By that time the Normal School at Pickwick and Cherry, on the south east corner, had closed, removing an obvious destination for riders.  However, there must have been some kind of road there earlier, as my grandparents’ house at 1151 S. Pickwick was built in 1913.  It included gas jets which causes speculation as to why, as electricity was already available. Was it not extended yet to areas outside the city?  Or was the service unreliable?  In any instance, those jets were a point of curiosity for me as a child, and I was always told when I asked if we could light them that they had been disconnected. I recall my grandmother’s saying that they bought the house from a Mr. Smith, and indeed my research proved her correct.  Mr. Edgar M. Smith built the house.  He was an auditor for the Frisco Railroad, and his wife’s name was Alice.  He was the only owner before my grandparents, and it was sold to the Eck family in 1961 after my grandfather’s death, and it is now owned by their daughter and son-in-law. Thus only three families have lived there.  I spent a good part of my childhood in that house; so many memories are connected to it.  I remember my grandmother showing me the window at the end of the large wooden-beamed living room which was quite wide and had a large facing.  She told me Mr. Smith told her it was so built so it could simply be cut down to the floor and finished as a door for any future addition to the house.  That addition was not made there, but rather on the north side by the Eck family.

I was interested in determining when the bank moved from the northeast corner at 330 S. Campbell across the street to the northwest corner at 331.  I had assumed it was long before I was born, but after having lunch with my cousin, who is a year and a half older than I and never forgets anything, she said she remembered the 330 location.  She remembered the corner entrance.  The move actually occurred in 1939, and I would have been two years old.  I remember well that building, which is still standing as of this time.  It was an old saloon, and the drug store next door but in the same building still had the old bar.  I remember my grandfather’s office up front and my uncle Paul’s opposite the door.  Paul was the cashier in my youth.  My Dad was a teller at first.  I recall the old spittoons that were positioned throughout the lobby, and the vault door in which I once got my finger pinched trying to help Daddy close it when I was about ten.  The bank was in that location only ten years before moving across the street to 408 W. Walnut.  I well remember the night the move was made and my uncle Paul letting me carry thousands of dollars in cash across the street.  The money was concealed by some old lamps and desk items. I guess he thought that no one would bother a ten-year old kid.  That is NOT the way banks make moves today.  My grandfather had lost the lease on the 331 property, which had obviously expanded into another part of the building to the north, as the address was 331-333 at some time before 1947.  However, he bought the building on Walnut and now owned the physical facility, the bank itself, and served as president.  My Dad always admired his foresight and business sense.  Not that my Dad did not also possess those qualities, but he never had the resources my grandfather did.  By that time my Dad, H. H. Lawrence, was assistant cashier, the title I remember his having as I grew up.  I recall the yearly Farmers and Merchants calendar which appeared in our homes and throughout town every year.  It had the special events for each day marked on it.  One unexplained mystery I uncovered came from the 1925 directory.  The listing for the F&M Bank showed my grandfather as president, but his residential listing showed him as treasurer of the Groblebe Lumber and Material Company.  A study of the residents of the 1100 block of south Pickwick shows that Jewish people owned most of the homes.  As this name appears to be Jewish, it could be a deal he worked out with one of his neighbors.  I have never heard any mention of that position.  Among the neighbors on south Pickwick Street were Francis X. Heer and his wife.  They built a large imposing house next door, not listed in early directories before 1925 but appearing in 1938.  I would assume it was built in the late twenties.  The Heers’ owned the largest department store in Springfield on the Public Square.  Their house was just to the north, but separated by trees so we never could see over there.  I remember once as a child rolling down the hill by their porch and Mrs. Heer talking to me about hearing my grandmother’s calling for Paul when he was young.

My grandfather kept his law books, although many books of his vast collection were destroyed in a fire that damaged the third floor library, or den, as they called it.  He willed the books to me, but I later gave them to my cousin’s husband who was a lawyer.  As a poet and writer, my grandfather had a large collection of history books and literature.  He was a great admirer of Edgar Allen Poe, hence his naming his son Edgar Allen.  My cousin and I have speculated that he may have picked him as a favorite son, as there is some evidence that he and my grandmother neglected Willie (Bill), his oldest son.  He had hoped for a son to replace Edgar, but my mother was born.  She was aware that her gender was a disappointment to her parents.  Maybe that is why she worked so hard to please them.  Then when the younger son, Paul, was born, it was clear that he was the favorite.  It is thought by the family that my grandmother died suddenly the day after Christmas in 1953 when she was only 73 because she was so upset that Paul did not come to the family Christmas gathering at her house.  She was almost obsessed with the idea that the whole family should be present for Thanksgiving and Christmas gatherings at “the house.” My grandfather lived another eight years to die in 1961.  He never recovered from Blanche’s death, and his last years were clouded with Alzheimer’s disease. 

H. H. and Mabel Lawrence

My mother, Mabel, was born in 1910 as the fifth child of J. W. and Blanche Chilton.  Mother was named for Mabel Rollins, a close friend of the family in Winona, where she was born and lived until their move to Springfield in 1916 except for the short time they spent in Glendale, CA when Mother was two.  She said she remembered falling out a window there and hurting her head.  She never mentioned the Cherry St. house, but she would, of course, remember the South Jefferson St. house where she lived from age six to age ten.  She attended Greenwood High School and Lindenwood College in St. Louis.  She met my father, Henry Hoyt Lawrence, at a party held at the house of her friend Elaine Fayman at 1104 S. Pickwick. (Later my best friend, Dickie Johnson, lived there with his grandparents, Mr. and Mrs. Hiram Johnson.  Dickie was killed by his father in 1948 in a hunting accident.)  My Father was from north Texas and was a traveling salesman at the time.  One of his friends told him about the party.  I know it was love at first sight for my mother, and they had a happy marriage that lasted almost sixty years.  They were married at the home of the pastor of the South Street Christian Church on the northwest corner of Pickwick and Catalpa, 1059, where the Carnahans lived when I was a child.  My parents later moved to 1050, later 1036 (streets in Springfield were renumbered in 1948, though not all house numbers were changed) where I lived from age two to nineteen. 

I know that for a while after they were married they lived with my Father’s family in Sherman, Texas.  I think my mother wanted to return to Springfield, especially after my Dad’s brother shot and killed her pet German Shepherd because it looked like a wolf; thus, at some point in the 30’s they made the move.  They were married December 16, 1931, and I was born October 8, 1937.  At one time Daddy was working for Harlan Fruit Company in Springfield as a salesman, but I can remember as a small child his working for Western Auto Tire Company.  I can still remember the smell of the rubber tires when I climbed with my mother to the second floor area where he worked.  My grandfather brought him on board as a teller and later an assistant cashier of the F&M Bank. 

They lived for some time with my grandparents at 1151 S. Pickwick.  I know that from reading my Mother’s diary of that year with entries on how many times she took the streetcar downtown to see a show.  When I was born, that stopped. Before the end of the year the diary stopped, and I was the reason.  I know they moved at some point to a small house on East Sunshine.  That would have been after March 1938 and before March 1939, dates of the telephone book.  By the latter date they were living at 700 S. Weller, a house my mother intensely disliked.  Obviously, they were renting at both places, as I remember their telling me that my grandfather helped them obtain a loan to buy the house at 1050 S. Pickwick.  With the marriage of Mother’s younger brother, Paul, all the children were located close to “the house” as they called the 1151 house of my grandparents, like planets rotating around the sun.  We lived a block and a half, my aunt Ruth and her husband, Frank Knox, lived about a half block or less from the back end of their property, which extended from Pickwick to Fremont along Catalpa.  My uncle Paul and his wife, Ramona, lived a few doors to the south of Ruth and Frank.  My aunt Gladys never married and continued to live with her parents until my grandfather’s death.  My uncle Bill and his wife, Lucile, were the farthest, about four blocks away on E. Loren. 

I was interested in determining when they moved from 700 S. Weller to 1050 S. Pickwick, and according to the telephone directories, that would have been in 1939.  In March 1939 they were still listed at 700 S. Weller, but by Nov. 1939 they were at the Pickwick address.  I was also interested in learning when the house was built, as I could not find it nor the next door house to the north listed for many years.  The red brick house at 1020 (earlier 1098) showed up in the city directory as early as 1919 owned by Dr. Howell Boatner and his wife Myrtle.  Our house and the house to the north are virtual twins, although recent owners of our house have added a much-needed second story.  I am sure they were built at the same time, and county assessor’s records show that date as 1923.  The occupants of the house to the north of ours were Jesse Coon and his wife, Allie.  Mr. Coon operated the Electrical Equipment Company on South Ave, and his brother, Walter Coon, was president of the Union National Bank where my uncle, Frank Knox, worked his way from janitor to vice president, then to replace Mr. Coon as president.  I am sure the Coons were the first occupants.  I had forgotten from whom my parents bought the house, but the records show that the previous owner was Joseph V. Bossi and his wife, Bessie J.  Mr. Bossi was secretary-treasurer of the J. P Cantrell Oil Company, and his wife, unusual for a woman of that day, operated the Bossi Super Service Station which advertised that it sold Skelly Gasoline, Oil, and Grease, Gulf Oil, Thermo Royal and Super Thermo Royal Antifreeze, car lubrication, washing and waxing.  It was located at 754 N. Grant.  It was probably no coincidence that Mr. Bossi as an oil man had something to do with his wife being in the oil/gasoline retail business. 

My sister and I had a wonderful childhood in the 1000 and 1100 blocks of South Pickwick, and we lived there until we bought a larger house at the corner of Pickwick and Elm, 1421 E. Elm, where my parents lived until they passed away: my father dying in 1991 and my mother in 1996.  The Elm Street house was sold in 2002 to Dan and Marla Fritz who have been in the process of restoring it to its former glory, as that house was older than either my grandparents’ or my parents’ Pickwick Street house, having been built in 1910, the same year as my mother’s birth.