The American Revolutionary War: Battle of Brooklyn (Long Island), New York, August 1776

During the summer of 1776, a British military force of 32,000 troops and 10,000 sailors on more than 400 ships assembled in Staten Island and the New York Harbor. They were obviously preparing for an attack on New York City at the southern end of York Island (now Manhattan).

General George Washington at his headquarters in the City obviously knew of the assembling adversary forces and of the approaching battle. But he did not know when or where the attack would come. Therefore, Washington split the Continental Army of 19,000 troops into fortified positions in the City and in Long Island across the East River from the City.

In further preparations for the forthcoming battles, the colonial forces that Spring and Summer constructed Fort Stirling on present-day Brooklyn Heights (Long Island) overlooking New York City and four other nearby forts.

British boats, Staten Island to Long Island

On August 22nd, the British made their offensive, tactical decision. They sent 15,000 troops on boats over three miles of water from Staten Island to Long Island. They landed unopposed on the shore of Gravesend Bay. (The red area in the photo to the right is the Narrows which the boats transversed.)

Brooklyn map, 1776

The troops then marched six miles inland to establish camp at the village of Flatbush. (Two days later these forces were augmented by the arrival of 5,000 Hessian troops from Staten Island.)[1]

Washington was aware of the initial British movement into Long Island, but was told it only involved 8,000 to 9,000 troops. Therefore, he thought this was a diversionary move and that the main attack would be on York Island (Manhattan). As a result, Washington only sent an additional 1,500 troops to Long Island to bring the total colonial force to 6,000 at that location.

Battle of Brooklyn Map

Five days later, August 27th, the British launched their attack. Its apparent major focus was the center of the American fortifications on the Guanus hills southeast of Brooklyn Heights. Despite the heavy colonial fortifications, the British met with little resistance at this site. In fact, however, the main British contingent advanced on the unguarded Jamaica Pass, which was the eastern-most passage through the Guana Heights.

Washington and his exhausted men fell back that day to their fortifications on Brooklyn Heights, waiting as night fell for a final British assault. Most of the American soldiers were in a trap, facing 20,000 British regulars at their front, and a mile-wide river at their backs. All the British navy had to do was to move a few warships up the East River to prevent Washington’s escape, and the war would be over, the revolution defeated.

But British General Howe did not press the British victory with an immediate pursuit of the retreating colonial forces. Instead, he halted the attack and started preparations for a siege of the American fortifications in Brooklyn Heights and Cobble Hill.

On August 29th, the temperature dropped sharply and the rain came in torrents on the unsheltered American army. This storm prevented five British warships from advancing up the East River to encircle the Americans in Brooklyn Heights. That same day Washington ordered his troops to withdraw in the dead of night across the river to Manhattan. The storm threatened this evacuation, but at about 11:00 p.m. the wind shifted and facilitated the evacuation. John Glover’s Massachusetts sailors and fishermen with every kind of small craft started over the river from New York City to rescue Washington’s army.

Early the next morning of the 30th, many of Washington’s men were still on Long Island. But a fog appeared on the Long Island side of the East River that concealed the final movement of the American troops to Manhattan. The entire maneuver was completed by 7:00 a.m. that morning, having taken 13 hours to ferry 9,000 men, their horses and their equipment across the East River.

Later that morning the British were surprised to discover the colonial forces had escaped. After that discovery, the British occupied the American fortifications on Brooklyn Heights.

When the last shot was fired, 1,200 Americans were dead and another 1,500 wounded, captured or missing. The British suffered a mere 60 dead and 300 wounded or missing. This was the first major battle of the War and what turned out to be the largest battle of the entire War, and it was a disastrous one for the Americans.

My maternal fifth great-grandfather, Perley Brown, from Leicester (Worcester County), Massachusetts was stationed in New York City at this time and thus did not fight in this battle.[2]


[1]  In addition to the hyperlinked sources in this post, it also draws from David McCullough, 1776 at 122-197 (New York; Simon & Schuster 2005); T. Harry Williams, Richard N. Current & Frank Freidel, A History of the United States [To 1876], at 151 (New York: Alfred A. Knopf 1959); Henry Steele Commager & Richard B. Morris, The Spirit of ‘Seventy-Six: The Story of the American Revolution as Told by Participants, Ch. Eleven (New York: Harper & Row, 1967). From July 1966 through March 1970, my family and I lived in Brooklyn Heights where some of the Battle of Brooklyn (Long Island) occurred. As a result, I frequently walked around this area, but unfortunately I did not scout out these historical sites.

[2] Carol Willits Brown, William Brown–English Immigrant of Hatfield and Leicester, Massachusetts, and His Descendants c. 1669-1994 at 17-23(Gateway Press; Baltimore, MD 1994).

Percussive Preludes at Minneapolis’ Westminster Presbyterian Church

Westminster Presbyterian Church

Two unusual preludes opened the September 16, 2012, worship service at Minneapolis’ Westminster Presbyterian Church. Joining Westminster’s Organist and pianist, Melanie Ohnstad, for the preludes was percussionist Jeffrey Gram.

Concertino for Marimba

The first prelude was Movement II of Concertino for Marimba by Paul Creston, an Italian-American composer (1906-1985) whose works have a strong rhythmic element. This work originally was written for marimba and orchestra. Its second movement is marked “Calm.” After an introductory theme first presented by the piano (solo flute in the orchestral version), the main theme (in chordal structure) is played by the marimba with four mallets. The general mood of tranquility persists except for the middle part.

Jeffrey Gram says that “this movement is written in ABA form. The A section that begins and ends the movement has the marimba’s rolled melodic lines flowing over the piano’s subtle rhythmic pulse. The B section is a cadenza or an ornamental passage in a free rhythmic style, and it increases in tempo and crescendos to a climax.”

Praise

The second prelude was Praise for steel drum and organ by Carol Barnett. With the steel drum, I was expecting to hear Caribbean rhythms. Instead there was a continuation of the mood of tranquility with a true blending of the sounds of the two instruments.

The Barnett piece, according to Gram, “begins calmly enough to evoke tranquility, with the steel drum providing some rhythmic interest over the organ’s low notes, but the piece develops much more active and rhythmic themes throughout and builds to an exciting finish. The organ provides much of the driving force of the piece. I hear the steel drum almost as hand bells or chimes (an appropriate allusion for a performance in the church) with repetitive rhythms and punctuating melodic lines here and there. The work’s mixed meters and rhythmic patterns require the performer to be on his or her toes.”

Gram said that Praise is scored for organ and steel drum, vibraphone, or marimba, and he learned the percussion part on both marimba and steel drum and decided to play it on steel drum to add another instrumental voice to the preludes.

Another reason, he acknowledged, for using the steel drum is that “it was much easier for me to play accurately on that instrument. The part contains several lines of melody consisting of unison double-stops (two notes played simultaneously) where the two notes are up to a couple octaves apart from each other. On the steel drum, these notes are very near to each other all around the circular drum and thus are relatively simple to execute accurately. On the marimba, notes are laid out linearly like a piano such that notes a couple octaves apart are actually a few feet apart and the performer must reach in opposite directions to strike each note. In the grand scheme of marimba literature, this is a fairly common and not necessarily a difficult task for a performer. But for this part-time percussionist, it can be difficult to perform the part accurately with any measure of consistency. Plus, the steel drum is just plain fun to play and to play it along with organ is a truly unique and rewarding experience.”

The composer of Praise, Carol Barnett, is a charter member of the American Composers Forum and a graduate of the University of Minnesota, where she studied composition with Dominick Argento and Paul Fetler, piano with Bernard Weiser, and flute with Emil J. Niosi. Barnett now is a Studio Artist (Composition) at Minneapolis’ Augsburg College in addition to being a composer and performer. She enjoys the challenge of using instruments in unusual combinations, and certainly the organ with steel drum is such a combination.

The Musicians

Melanie Ohnstad

Melanie Ohnstad has served Westminster as organist since November 1995. She received the Doctor of Musical Arts degree from the University of Minnesota. She also holds the Master of Music in Organ Performance degree from Arizona State University and the Bachelor of Music degree from St. Olaf College.

Jeffrey Gram

Jeffrey Gram is a performer and advocate of new music. His performance experience includes solo and ensemble work with several new music ensembles across the U.S., an appearance at the International Gaudeamus Interpreters Competition in Rotterdam, The Netherlands, and premier performances of percussion works by Thomas DeLio, Roger Zahab, and Stuart Saunders Smith. He performs on a CD of new music.

Jeffrey earned bachelor’s and master’s degrees in percussion performance from Northwestern University and the University of Akron and taught percussion at the University of Pittsburgh and Muskingum College.

Jeffrey has since earned a Juris Doctor degree and practiced law. He now is a Gift Planner with Minnesota Philanthropy Partners, a network of foundations, funds and organizations that share knowledge and services to have the greatest possible impact through charitable giving. He specializes in connecting individuals, families and businesses with giving opportunities that match their values and meet their personal goals.

Gram is a Westminster member.

Conclusion

Following these two preludes was the moving Processional Hymn, “O Holy One and Nameless,” that was discussed in a prior post. The sermon that day–“What Do Our Hearts Treasure?”–was also excerpted in another post. A video of the entire service is on the web.

In Memorium: Rev. Dr. Henry William Andersen,1925-2012

Rev. Dr. Henry W. Andersen
Hank Andersen

 

Rev. Dr. Henry William Andersen, a retired Presbyterian minister, died in Portland, Oregon on Sept. 3rd, surrounded by his beloved family.

Born on Jan. 16, 1925, in Omaha, Nebraska, he studied at the University of Nebraska before serving in the Army in WWII.

Hank was an infantry squad leader, and on Christmas Eve, 1944, he was on the troopship S.S. Leopoldville in the English Channel on the way to Cherbourg, France to fight in the Battle of the Bulge. He led a group of 15 or 20 soldiers to go up on the open deck to sing Christmas carols. A German torpedo struck the ship, killing many troops below deck before it sunk. A British destroyer pulled along the sinking ship. Andersen leapt across the gap, and his carol-singing comrades followed. Later on shore, an all-black unit fed and comforted the survivors. One of the carolers and thus saved from death was a Jewish man. This event is commemorated in a Dec. 23, 2011, PBS News Hour report.

This experience along with battle scars; a Purple Heart; and other citations changed the direction of his life from law to the ministry.

After the war, he returned to University of Nebraska, where he finished his undergraduate degree and met and married Mary Esther Dunkin, who survives him. He then went to McCormick Theological Seminary in Chicago, where he graduated with honors. Later Hank was on the Board of Trustees at McCormick, which established two annual Henry W. Andersen Awards in Pastoral Ministry and in Preaching. He did post-graduate study at Yale Divinity School and at Mansfield College, Oxford, England. He was awarded an honorary Doctor of Divinity Degree by Buena Vista College and received the University of Nebraska and McCormick Seminary Distinguished Alumnus awards.

Over the 40 years following seminary, Hank served four Presbyterian churches as pastor and head of staff: in Ellsworth and Wichita, Kan., LaGrange, Ill. and Cleveland Heights, Ohio. In every church he advocated for racial, economic and social justice. He believed that love and justice were inseparable, that love of God and love of one’s neighbor were necessary to establish a just world, and was committed to working for social change to create a world in which the poor would have justice, not mere charity. He held numerous local, national and international church positions and was active in the greater community.

He inspired international religious, medical and business leaders to work on concrete solutions to problems facing the developing world, and in 1982, he delivered the keynote address at a United Nations conference on developing nations. From 1982 until 1991, he served on the Nestle Infant Formula Commission, chaired by former Senator and Secretary of State Edmund Muskie. In service to this Commission, he engaged in on-site inspections of Nestle’s practices around the world. The Commission’s work led to a lasting change in Nestle’s practices.

Hank wrote many articles for religious journals and wrote and spoke on the German theologian and WWII martyr, Dietrich Bonheoffer, a personal hero. I was privileged to hear one such presentation in Minneapolis.

I got to know Hank and his wife, Mary, when they lived in Minneapolis and attended Westminster Presbyterian Church, where their son, Rev. Dr. Timothy Hart-Andersen, was the Senior Pastor.

I can attest that an obituary accurately said, “Hank loved life and sought to engage it fully and faithfully in every role he assumed. His sense of humor and wonderful laugh endeared him to everyone. He was present with each person he met and made each one feel special. He was sweet, kind, and gentle, but powerful for the greater good and for social justice. He was down-to-earth yet filled with an inner light which unceasingly radiated to all. His impact is lasting.”

He is survived by Mary, his wife of 65 years; children Jennifer (Rhys) of Vancouver, B.C.; Henry Thomas (Jessica) of Salem, Oregon; Timothy Dunkin (Elizabeth) of Minneapolis; and Barbara (John) of San Antonio, Texas; nine grandchildren; and three great-grandchildren.

A memorial worship service was held at Westminster Presbyterian Church, Portland, on September 15th. Other memorial services will be held at Minneapolis’ Westminster Presbyterian Church on Saturday, October 13 at 10 A.M. and on Saturday, October 20, time to be announced, at Fairmount Presbyterian Church, 2757 Fairmount Boulevard, Cleveland Heights, Ohio.

Memorial gifts may be sent to the Henry W. and Mary E. Andersen Global Awareness Fund at McCormick Theological Seminary, 5460 S. University Avenue, Chicago, IL, 60615. This fund helps the seminary increase opportunities for international students and provide all students with opportunities for cross-cultural experiences across the globe.

This obituary is drawn from others in Oregonlive, the Cleveland Plain Dealer and the McCormick seminary website.

 

 

“How Do We Know God: Human Community”

Rev. Dr. Timothy Hart-Andersen
Westminster Presbyterian Church

On September 23rd, Rev. Dr. Timothy Hart-Andersen, Senior Pastor of Minneapolis’ Westminster Presbyterian Church, delivered the sermon with the above title.

How do we know God?

Two weeks ago we answered that question by looking at the story of Creation found in Genesis 1 [: 1-25]. The beauty and majesty and wonder of the natural world and its inhabitants, the creatures – all of that, we concluded, introduces us to the Creator. . . .

But the ancient Hebrew account of Creation doesn’t stop there, with the mountains and rivers, with the birds in the air and the creeping things on the earth and the fish of the sea. The old stories take us, eventually, to the creation of humankind.

There are two accounts of creation in the Hebrew Scriptures.

One of them, the better-known seven-day version in Genesis 1 [:1-25], ends with humankind being created in the image of God – ‘male and female, God created them,’ . . . – and that happens after . . . the heavens and the earth, next the waters and the dry land, then the plants and animals [are created]. . . .

[This passage in Genesis 1: 27-28 goes on to say that “God told them to ‘be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth [and subdue it] . . . . ‘ [This passage is often used  to argue that] “the very design of humanity . . . revealed God’s intention for male and female to procreate [and, therefore, that gay marriage was against God’s will.] . . . [Rev. Hart-Andersen agreed that] giving birth is a wonderful and necessary part of life, but there’s more to the biblical story of creation.

The second account [of creation], from Genesis 2, puts the human being on the earth before the plants and animals, and humanity does not come in a pair this time, but, rather, as a singular, non-gendered person. [As Genesis 2:7 puts it, ‘the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground.’]

[In other words,] God bends down and scoops up the dust of the earth – the Hebrew word for the dust of the ground is ha adamah – and, like an artist working with clay, God forms a new creature. Arms and legs and head, hands and feet, each little toe, every joint, eyes and mouth, ears and nose. Then God blows breath into the nostrils of the mud-creature – and ha adam, the earthling, the one made from the adamah, the dust of the river bank, stirs to life. God then uses the same soil to form the creatures of the earth, to whom the earthling, gives names. There is no gender identity to the earthling at this point. That enters later in the story, when the Hebrew changes to ish, man, and isha, woman. It’s simply not correct to use the English term man as the translation of adamah. . . .

I think it’s best to hear these texts not as technical descriptions but, rather, as stories told around the campfires of desert dwellers, repeated during rituals, shared by parents with their children. They’re narratives of profound and lasting significance, telling us who our God is and how God has been with us since before the beginning of time.

It’s not a question of which version is correct; there’s wisdom in both stories. Both accounts contain deep and ancient truth about God and our relationship to God. From my vantage point each of the old stories holds at least one deep truth.

First, in Genesis 1, when God decides to create the human being, the big news is who they look like. God says, “Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness.” (Genesis 1:26)

The chief point of this account is not the business about being fruitful and multiplying – it’s the astonishing claim that every human being, male and female, is made in the image of God. That’s a breath-taking, life-altering declaration.

How do we know God?

Take a look around. Look into the face of another, look into a mirror, and you will see something of God. That claim revolutionizes religion: the God we worship and serve is as close to us as the next person. No one – not our enemies, not those who hate us, not those ‘on the other side,’  not those we despise or fear or view with revulsion – no one is excluded from the image of God. Everyone bears it alike and is, therefore, worthy of respect and honor. . . .

We may be introduced to God by the dazzling wonder of the natural world, but we know God most completely in our fellow human beings. That, above all else, should compel us to strive for fullness of life for all people. The pursuit of justice is not simply some vague prophetic imperative – it is how we come to know God.

If the linking of the divine image with every human life is the salient point of the first version of creation, the second account yields another great theological truth. When God has formed the one earthling and placed that creature in the garden, God is not satisfied. Everything else in creation up to then had been deemed good, but when God sees that the human creature lacks a companion, God says, “It is not good that the earthling should be alone; I will make the earthling a partner as a helper.” (Genesis 2:18)

The human creature needs a companion. God throws everything at the earthling as a possible partner – birds, beasts, fish of the sea, and nothing sticks. The earthling needs a companion of its own kind. The human creature is not meant to be alone. Human beings need community. Do we not all understand that, from our own experience?

Three weeks ago today, in the early morning darkness, I was in my father’s room on the skilled nursing floor of the retirement community where my parents live. I was alone with him, and lonely, as he was moving toward death. All was quiet, save for his raspy breathing. It was 1:30 in the morning in Portland, [Oregon,] but I needed to be in touch with someone.

It is not good for the earthling to be alone.

I decided to send a text message to my colleagues on staff, to tell them my dad was nearing the end. I knew they would be waking in a few hours to prepare for worship at Westminster and I wanted this community to include us in prayer that day.

[Tim immediately received a response that he had sent it to a wrong number, but the recipient also said that he was sorry to hear about Tim’s father.] We continued our texting back and forth, this stranger and I, for some time [until after his father’s death on September 5th].[1]

Whoever it was sensed I needed someone by my side, and he or she was willing to stand with me through those lonely hours. We were created to be in community, and I needed it that night. The stranger mediated for me the divine presence. How do we know God? We know God in human community, in the love that binds us to one another, even when we may not know each other. . . .

It is not good for the earthling to be alone.

The Sunday after my father’s death I received an email from our partner church in Matanzas, Cuba. . . . It was a very long email, with a string of personal messages from every member of the congregation who was there that day. Very few of them have access to email, and regular mail service to the U.S. is not reliable, so they patiently lined up in the church office and one by one typed in their words of love and support on that old, slow computer.

We come to know God through the love of others. . . .

It was a summary of the truth found in the two accounts of creation: we bear God’s image – because of God we are – and we are given each other – because of God we are one.

We cannot exist, God realizes in this account of Genesis, apart from one another. Here we see an early indication of God’s own Trinitarian nature – even the divine being exists only in community. Remember the Word that was in the beginning with God? The Spirit that brooded over the dark waters was there, too. “Let us make the human being in our image,” God says, “according to our likeness.”

Relationships matter; in them God looks back at us.”

The full text of the sermon is available online as is a video of the service.


[1] A subsequent post will set forth an obituary for Tim’s father, Rev. Dr. Henry William Andersen.

Prayer of Confession

An important part of every worship service at Minneapolis’ Westminster Presbyterian Church is the prayer of confession.

The text often differs, but the essential elements do not. They are confessing our individual and collective failures to do what we should do and our doing what we should not be doing and then asking for God’s forgiveness.

The Prayer of Confession on September 23rd was from the United Church of Christ, USA (1986). Here it is:

  • “God of all mercy, we confess before you and each other that we have been unfaithful to you. We lack love for neighbors, we waste opportunities to do good, and we look the other way when you cry out to us in the suffering of our brothers and sisters in need. We are sincerely sorry for our sins, both those we commit deliberately and those we allow to overtake us. We ask your forgiveness and pray for strength that we may follow in your way and love all your people with that perfect love which casts our all fear; through Jesus Christ our Redeemer. Amen.”

The Prayer of Confession then continues with silent personal prayers by the members of the congregation.

In response to these prayers, one of the ministers leads the congregation in the Declaration of God’s Forgiveness (from the New Testament‘s Romans 8:34; 2 Cor. 5:17):

  • One: Anyone who is in Christ is a new creation. The old life has gone; a new life has begun. Friends, hear the good news:
  • All: In Jesus Christ we are forgiven. Alleluia! Amen.

 

“What Do Our Hearts Treasure?”

Westminster Presbyterian Church

 

Rev. Dr. James Gertmenian

This was the title of the sermon by Rev. Dr. James Gertmenian of Minneapolis’ Plymouth Congregational Church at Westminster Presbyterian Church on September 16, 2012. A prior post examined the Processional Hymn that day–“O Holy One and Nameless”–which was written by Rev. Gertmenian. A video of this service is on the web.

The sermon was based upon two passages from the New Testament of the Holy Bible.

The first, Luke 10: 25-28, says: “Just then a lawyer stood up to test Jesus.’Teacher,’ he said, ‘what must I do to inherit eternal life?’ [Jesus] said to him, ‘What is written in the law? What do you read there?’ [The lawyer] answered, ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind’ and your neighbor as yourself.’ And [Jesus] said to [the lawyer], ‘You have given the right answer; do this, and you will live.'”

Rev. Gertmenian said the lawyer, at least on the surface, wanted to know how he might gain eternal life. “It is what we all want, I think, though we use different languages to describe it. Not length of life, really, not just simple persistence into some imagined future heaven, but something that endures by virtue of its depth, by virtue of a quality that transcends time. Our faith tells us that God, the eternal one, has somehow touched us with that quality, that the life spark in us means that we partake of or are connected to the enduring, the unquenchable, the forever.”

The second Scriptural text for the day, II Corinthinians 4: 16-18, states: “So we do not lose heart. Even though our outer nature is wasting away, our inner nature is being renewed day by day. For this momentary slight affliction is preparing us for an eternal weight of glory beyond all measure, because we look not at what can be seen but at what cannot be seen; for what can be seen is temporary, but what cannot be seen is eternal.”

Yes, said Gertmenian, ”but what are those unseen things? What lasts?”

He said, “Our lives . . .  are over in a flash; we burst forth, sparkle, glimmer, grow dim, and then are gone. In the cosmic scheme of things, flesh is practically as ephemeral and evanescent as vapor or gas; only rocks, ice, dust, and space endure.”

“What lasts? What do our hearts treasure? What is eternal? More specifically, what have been the eternal moments in your life? I don’t mean the big moments, or even the most memorable ones, but the deepest ones which, by virtue of their depth, make the passing of time – and even memory – irrelevant?”

Gertmenian offered two moments in his own life that upon reflection he regarded as eternal.

One was spending time with his eight-year-old daughter having ice cream after watching Halley’s Comet. “I know that for the momentary gift of [my daughter’s] hand in mine, for the frivolous pleasure of tasting ice cream, for this odd adventure on a warm evening, I will gladly, willingly, joyfully embrace the limits of my life: its brevity, its fragility, its impermanence. It is rich – this life – rich like found treasure and meant, I think, to be spent extravagantly and with exuberant gratitude to God.”

“Eternal life consists in this: in taking even one moment and living it so prodigally, with such abandon, that we do not grudge its going. One moment lived like that is eternal. One moment, lived like that, is heaven. Jesus draws this truth to its deepest level when he says: ‘Whoever seeks to save their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will save it.'” (Matthew 10:39.)

“Think about your own life, your own self. What lasts? What [does your heart] . . .  treasure? What is eternal?”

“Maybe you’ll take a few moments . . . to think about these things. And as you mull them, remember how Jesus replied to the man who wanted eternal life. Ultimately, he said, after obedience to the core commandments, the way to eternal life is in giving up what you have, in opening your hands and releasing the things you cling to. Not just possessions, but everything. Even time.”

I have pondered the question posed by Rev. Gertmenian and will share those reflections in a subsequent post.

 

“O Holy One and Nameless”

Westminster Presbyterian Church

“O Holy One and Nameless” was the beautiful and moving Processional Hymn at the September 16, 2012, worship service at Minneapolis’ Westminster Presbyterian Church.

Rev. Dr. James Gertmenian

The lyrics were written by Rev. Dr. James Gertmenian, Senior Minister of Minneapolis’ Plymouth Congregational Church, and are set to the “Munich” hymn tune by Felix Mendelssohn.[1]  Rev. Gertmenian said in writing this hymn he “wanted to use images and themes which, while rooted in the Christian tradition, spoke of a more universalistic vision. All religions are not the same, and we need not adopt a goal of amalgamating the great families of faith, but humanity’s future depends on our ability to see that the taproots of religion are sunk in common soil and draw from the same nutrients of spirit and truth.” Here are the hymn’s lyrics:


O holy  One and Nameless Who wears a thousand names,

Throughout the ages changing, yet steadfastly the same;  

We gather here to worship in hopefulness and praise,  

Recalling all your mercies that magnify our days.

==============================

In awe we humbly witness that your are greater still

Than any human language could compass or fulfill.

We praise your for the myst’ry in which your truth is sealed.  

We praise you for the story that is your truth revealed.

===============================

That story’s long unfolding from temple, mosque, and church,

Grows ever wide and deeper and sanctifies the search

That leads to your dwelling within the common place,

Where all the world is holy and radiates your grace.

================================

And yet this wider story is told a thousand ways,  

With each a matchless vision with each a certain praise

So ev’ry human family and ev’ry human soul  

May know you in their language and, knowing, made whole.

================================

For wisdom free from doctrine, for faith transcending creed,  

For simple, true compassion, for love enshrined in deed:  

We offer up our bodies, our hearts, our hands, our minds    

To find our truest worship in serving humankind.

================================

This hymn was especially appropriate at this time in light of the recent Muslim rage about the trailer for an outrageous movie about the Prophet Mohamed that apparently was created by individuals who said they were Christians.

I believe that all religions and all religious institutions, leaders and followers are human and, therefore, imperfect or flawed. They all have their positive qualities, and they all have their negative or sinful qualities. We have been seeing too much recently of the latter for Islam and Christianity. This hymn reminds us of their positive and common qualities.

Rev. Gertmenian also delivered the sermon that day, “”What Do Our Hearts Treasure?,” that will be covered in a subsequent post. The entire service, including the Processional Hymn and the sermon are available in streaming video on the web.

————————————————–

[1] This hymn was written on commission for the 300th anniversary in June 2011 of Green’s Farms Congregational  Church of Westport, Connecticut.  The most well-known lyrics for the “Munich” tune are “O Word of God Incarnate.”

The Impact of the Minneapolis Public Schools Desegregation/Integration Litigation on Native American Children

A prior post reviewed the Minneapolis Public Schools (MPS) desegregation/integration litigation from 1971 through 1977 while another post looked at that case from 1978 through 1983.

During this entire period the MPS had significant numbers of African-American and Native American students, and the U.S. District Court in Minneapolis attempted to recognize the different interests of these two groups by its May 1975 adoption of a two-tier formula for determining compliance with the court’s order for the desegregation/integration of the schools. At that time the court modified its order to require that no school could have more than 42% total minority enrollment and no more than 35% of a single minority group.

The issue of the impact of the court’s orders on Native American students came to the forefront in May 1978 in connection with a MPS semiannual report to the court requesting approval of a variance of up to 60% total minority enrollment for schools with heavy concentrations of Native American students.

Such a variance had been sought by Native American parents so that their children would not be forced to leave the new Andersen Elementary School in the southern part of the city, and a group of those parents appeared as amici curiae (friends of the court) in connection with the court hearing on that MPS semiannual report. Their attorney, Larry Leventhal, raised the legal argument that the 14th amendment’s equal protection clause did not prohibit such a variance because of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recognition that Native Americans have a unique status in U.S. law derived from their tribal quasi-sovereignty.

As part of the MPS evidence supporting this variance, I put on the witness stand a MPS employee who was responsible for creating curricular materials that featured contemporary Native Americans who were successful in the broader culture. He was of Ogibwe heritage and testified to his being “a well-balanced schizophrenic” because he had one foot in his native culture and the other foot in the dominant culture.

Nevertheless, the court in May 1978 denied the MPS request for approval of this variance for Native American students. The court said it was “sensitive to the concerns of the School Board and amici that the special educational needs of Native American students be met and that concentration of [such] pupils may be helpful to the expenditure of [special federal educational funds].” The court also acknowledged that the Supreme Court had in certain cases allowed separate treatment of Indians, but distinguished those cases on the ground that the MPS proposed variance was not tied to tribal membership or any quasi-sovereign interests of particular tribes or reservations.[1]

The Eighth Circuit affirmed this ruling. It acknowledged that “in certain contexts separate classification and treatment of Indians as a race are constitutionally permissible in the light of the unique status of Indians in this country, and in light of history and policy.” This statement, however, was subject to this important qualification by the appellate court: “the Supreme Court has not held that a school district is exempt from its obligation to eliminate racial segregation ‘root and branch’ . . . simply because the district’s student population contains a substantial number of Indian students with specialized educational needs.”  Moreover, the Eighth Circuit upheld Judge Larson’s finding that these legitimate needs had been met by the district court’s past 35/42% and prospective 39/46% guidelines.[2]

When the MPS asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case, its final argument was that the lower courts erroneously had determined important and federal statutory issues regarding the education of American Indian children.[3] The Supreme Court, however, denied review.[4]


[1] Booker v. Special School District No. 1, 451 F. Supp. 659 (D. Minn. 1978). This order also denied the MPS motion to terminate the case that was discussed in a prior post.

[2] Booker v. Special School District No. 1, 585 F.2d 347 (8th Cir. 1978).

[3] Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Special School District No. 1 v. Booker (No. 78-__ Sup. Ct. Nov. 10, 1978).

[4] Booker v. Special School District No. 1, 433 U.S. 915 (1979).

Minneapolis Public Schools’ Desegregation/Integration Litigation, 1978-1983

As described in a prior post, from 1971 through 1977, the Minneapolis Public Schools (MPS) were subject to an order to desegregate/integrate its schools and to semiannual court and, therefore, public scrutiny of its compliance with that order. This was an order by Minnesota’s U.S. District Court. (To the left is a photo of the Minneapolis Federal Office Building and U.S. Courthouse, 100 4th Street South, that was the site of this entire litigation. Today it is the Hennepin County Family Justice Center.)

In or about 1978 the MPS School Board, frustrated by the continued bad publicity generated by the case,  decided to hire me as its outside attorney for the case with the objective of having the court end the litigation on the ground that the MPS had done everything that a federal court legitimately could require it to do.[1]

The first such effort was unsuccessful.

In early 1978 I filed a MPS motion to terminate the litigation that was based on the then recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Dayton v. Brinkman, 433 U.S. 406 (1977) that held the permissible court injunction in the Dayton, Ohio school desegregation case was limited to eliminating the “incremental segregative effect” of its constitutional violations.

The Minnesota court, however, distinguished the Dayton case and denied the MPS motion on the ground that it had not yet fully implemented its desegregation/integration plan. The court also rejected a MPS proposal to address concerns of the Native American community that will be explored in a subsequent post. [2]

In addition, the court in its May 1978 order rejected the MPS request to increase the allowable maximum minority enrollment in each school to 50% and to eliminate the single minority ceiling requirement. The court did say it had “never regarded the percentage figures [in its orders] as rigid requirements” and that it had set the percentage “guidelines at approximately 20% above the projected total minority student population.” The court then went on to modify its injunction to increase the maximum total minority student of each school to 46% (an increase of 4%) and a single minority’s maximum percentage to 39%(also an increase of 4%).

The MPS then took its only appeal in the 12 years of this litigation. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that that the district court had not abused its discretion in denying the motion to terminate the case. The appellate court, therefore, affirmed the district court’s decision[3]

The MPS then made its only application to the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case. Two of the petition’s three arguments for such review were that the decisions in the lower courts conflicted with, and misapplied (1) the Supreme Court’s holding that desegregation decrees must be limited to eliminating incremental segregative effect of constitutional violations; and (2) that Court’s allowing modification of desegregation decrees where new circumstances of law or fact had arisen.[4]

The Supreme Court, however, refused to do so.[5]

The second and third efforts to end the case also were unsuccessful.[6]

The fourth motion to terminate the injunction and end the case, however, was granted by Judge Larson on June 8, 1983.[7] The court did so despite opposition by the plaintiffs, who later decided through their attorney, Charles Quaintance, Jr., not to seek a rehearing in the district court or an appeal to the Eighth Circuit.[8]

Dr. Richard Green

Afterwards the MPS Superintendent Richard Green said the decision was “a major moment in the history of the district” and that the MPS would “continue to work with the state department of education [with respect to its desegregation regulations] to show the good faith that was demonstrated by the court.” Green also said the court order had “created a climate for change in the school system that led to better-quality schools.” He specifically mentioned the change from neighborhood schools to ones that drew students from many parts of the city; the increase in student busing; and the creation of alternative programs, including “magnet” schools.[9]

Dr. Green wrote a personal note to me about the end of the litigation. He said, “Without question, the Minneapolis community has now met one of the major tests for equality, and my sense is that your leadership has been a crucial factor.”[10]

I certainly appreciated that kind compliment even though I thought it was unjustified. The successful desegregation/integration of the MPS was due to the efforts of many students, parents, teachers and administrators and of the School Board. The leadership of Dr. Green was the crucial ingredient, and his skills were recognized in 1988 when he became the Chancellor of the New York City Public Schools, the first African-American to hold that position.

I was very saddened when Dr. Green died of asthma in 1989 at the age of 53 after only 14 months as Chancellor.[11] He was honored by a memorial service at the Cathedral of Saint John the Divine in Manhattan with a eulogy by then New York City Mayor Edward Koch.

Being the lawyer for the MPS in this litigation obviously was an important professional and civic responsibility and challenge. The MPS was committed to desegregation/integration and to respect for the law and the court’s orders, and yet it wanted to terminate the case. I personally shared these values and commitments and drew inspiration from these words of Learned Hand, one of the preeminent jurists in U.S. history:

  • “[A] society so riven that the spirit of moderation is gone, no court can save; . . . a society where that sprit flourishes, no court need save; . . . in a society which evades its responsibility by thrusting upon the courts the nuture of that spirit, that spirit in the end will perish. What is the spirit of moderation? It is the temper which does not press a partisan advantage to its bitter end, which can understand and will respect the other side, which feels a unity between all citizens . . . which recognizes their common fate and their common aspirations–in a word, which has faith in the sacredness of the individual. . . . [Such a temper and such a faith] are the last flowers of civilization, delicate and easily overrun by the weeds of our sinful human nature . . . . [They] must have the vigor within themselves to withstand the winds and weather of an indifferent and ruthless world; and that it is idle to seek shelter for them in a courtroom. Men must take that temper and that faith with them into the field, into the market-place, into the factory, into the council-room, into their homes; they cannot be imposed; they must be lived. Words will not express them; arguments will not clarify them; decisions will not maintain them. They are the fruit of the wisdom that comes of trial and a pure heart; no one can possess them who has not stood in awe of this mysterious Universe; no one can possess them whom that spectacle has not purged through pity and through fear–pity for the pride and folly which inexorably enmesh men in toils of their own contriving; fear, because that same pride and that same folly lie deep in the recesses of his own soul.”[12]

[1] I have donated my papers relating to this case to the Minnesota Historical Society Libray, St. Paul, Minnesota.

[2] Booker v. Special School District No. 1, 451 F. Supp. 659 (D. Minn. 1978). Four months later, in another case In which I represented the MPS, the same district court granted judgment for the MPS in a challenge to the constitutionality of the MPS decision to close Longfellow School in the southern part of the city. (Hernandez v. Special School Dist. No. 1, No, 4-78-349 (D. Minn. Sept. 13, 1978).)

[3] Booker v. Special School District No. 1, 585 F.2d 347 (8th Cir. 1978).

[4] Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Special School District No. 1 v. Booker (No. 78-__ Sup. Ct. Nov. 10, 1978). The third reason for review relating to the issues regarding Native Americans that will be reviewed in a subsequent post.

[5] Booker v. Special School District No. 1, 433 U.S. 915 (1979).

[6]  Memo Order, Booker v. Special School District No. 1, (D. Minn. May 1, 1980); Memo Order, Booker v. Special School District No. 1, (D. Minn. June 22, 1982). On December 17, 1982 after a semiannual MPS report had been submitted to the court, the MPS Superintendent Richard R. Green sent me a note thanking me on behalf of “the entire School District and community” for my “contribution” in helping the MPS to report total compliance with the court order.

[7] Memo Order, Booker v. Special School District No. 1, (D. Minn. June 8, 1983).

[8]  During the five years of my representation of the MPS in this case, Quaintance and I were professional adversaries without any other relationship. In recent years, however, as fellow members of Minneapolis’ Westminster Presbyterian Church, we have become friends.

[9] Paulu, Judge Larson ends court jurisdiction in city public schools’ desegregation, Mpls. Star & Trib. (June 9, 1983); Pinney, Case kept desegregation effort aimed toward stability, Mpls. Star & Trib. (June 9, 1983).

[10] Letter, Dr. Richard R. Green to Duane Krohnke (June 16, 1983).

[11] A park in Brooklyn, New York was named in his honor.

[12] Learned Hand, The Sprit of Liberty, at 164-65 (3d ed.; Univ. Chicago Press; Chicago 1977).

Minneapolis Public Schools Desegregation/Integration Litigation, 1971-1977

Dr. John b. Davis, Jr.

In the winter of 1970-71 under the leadership of Superintendent Dr. John B. Davis, Jr.,[1] the School Board of the Minneapolis Public Schools (MPS) decided, 6 to 1, to adopt a general commitment to racial desegregation and its first mandatory desegregation step: the pairing of Field and Hale Elementary Schools on the south side of the city.[2]

The local chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and some citizens, however, were concerned about the long-term commitment to this effort and the possible election of a school board that would be opposed to such measures. Therefore,  in August 1971 the NAACP and others started a federal lawsuit alleging the racial imbalance in the schools was due to intentional acts of the MPS.

Judge Earl Larson

The case went to trial in April 1972 before U.S. District Judge Earl Larson of Minnesota’s federal district court, and on the last day of the trial (April 25, 1972) the School Board adopted a widespread Desegregation/Integration Plan.

A month later (May 24, 1972), the court decided that the MPS were segregated on the basis of race and that such segregation resulted from the following intentional acts of the MPS: (1) the construction,  size and location of Bethune School ; (2) the addition of seven new classrooms to Field Elementary School in 1964; (3) the 1967 construction of an addition to Washburn High School; (4) the location of portable classrooms; (5) decisions over school size; (6) the 1968 change in boundaries between Washburn and Southwest High Schools; (7)  the policy of allowing special transfers of students;(8) the creation of optional attendance zones along the perimeters of racial minority neighborhoods; and (9) the practice of assigning and transferring teachers and administrators.[iii]

The court, therefore, concluded that the MPS had violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and permanently enjoined  the MPS, “its school board, its administrators, its employees, its agents, and all those who are in active concert or participation with them . . . from discriminating on the basis of race or national origin” in its operation.

The court further ordered MPS to “take affirmative action to disestablish school segregation and eliminate the effects of its prior unlawful activities.” More specifically the court ordered MPS to implement its own Plan for Desegregation/Integration with the following modifications: (a) no more than 35% of the study body of any one school could be minority children; (b) increase faculty integration; (c) not allow any student transfers that increase the segregated nature of either school; (d) submission of any plans for new schools or additions to old schools to the court for prior approval; and (e) submission of any changes to the Desegregation/Integration Plan to the court for prior approval.

Finally to monitor MPS’ compliance with the court order, the MPS was required to submit semi-annual reports to plaintiff’s’ counsel and to the court.

In May 1975 the court modified the injunction to change the maximum permissible minority enrollment in any school to 42% total minority and 35% of any single minority group.[4]

In July 1977 the court found that MPS had fully complied with the injunction except for racial balance at several schools, but it denied the MPS motion to terminate the case.

The litigation continued until June 1983, and the latter phase of the litigation (1978-1983) will be covered in a subsequent post.

The plaintiffs’ lawyer was Charles Quaintance, Jr. The defendants were represented by Norman Newhall and Gerald Bergfalk.

My family and I had moved to Minneapolis in the Spring of 1970, and I had no involvement as an attorney in the early phase of this case.

In 1971, however, as a citizen and as a parent of two sons who would be going to the MPS, I was shocked to read that the two new members of the city’s School Board were opposed to further desegregation/integration, and at least one of them in campaigning had talked about resisting any federal court order. As a result, over the next seven years I became very active in various activities relating to the public schools in Minneapolis and elsewhere in Minnesota.

In the next local election in 1973 I was very active in Citizens United for Responsible Education (CURE), a successful bipartisan coalition to elect two moderate candidates to the School Board. I went on to become active in other public education projects: Member of the Citizens League Study Committee on Fluctuating School Enrollments; Member (by gubernatorial appointment) of the State of Minnesota Commission on Fluctuating School Enrollments; Member of the Board of Directors of the Minneapolis Citizens Committee on Public Education; unsuccessful candidate for appointment to fill a vacancy on the Minneapolis School Board; and Chairman of the MPS Citizens’ Advisory Committee on School Finance.

This civic experience would turn out to be very useful for me in the next phase of the litigation.


[1] Davis subsequently became the President of Macalester College in St. Paul, Minnesota.

[2] Pinney, Case kept desegregation effort aimed toward stability, Mpls. Star & Trib. (June 9, 1983).

[iii] Booker v. Special School District No. 1, 351 F. Supp. 799 (D. Minn. 1972).

[4] Memo Order, Booker v. Special School District No. 1, (D. Minn. May 7, 1975).