Showing posts with label Martin C. Langeveld. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Martin C. Langeveld. Show all posts

Monday, March 11, 2019

The most hated man in America



Presented to the Club on Monday evening, March 4, 2019 by Martin C. Langeveld

During much of the time between the two World Wars, if you had asked an average person on the street, or the average journalistic pundit, who they considered to be the most hated person in America, ranking high among the possible answers would have been the name of Grover Cleveland Bergdoll. But why?

Grover Cleveland Bergdoll, the playboy scion of a Philadelphia family of beer brewers with German roots, was born in 1893. After the Wright brothers set up their first school for airplane pilots, at Huffman Prairie near their home base of Dayton, Ohio, Grover enrolled in April, 1912 and became one of the first 119 people who learned to fly there. Once proficient, he purchased from the Wrights a 40-horsepower Model B flyer, for the sum of $5,625 (nearly $150,000 in 2019 dollars). (The young man, just 18 years old and a student at the University of Pennsylvania, had been receiving a $5,000 allowance annually since he was 15.) The Model B was the first Wright plane to have wheels, enabling it to take off on its own rather than with the catapult system used until then.

Within a few months, Grover was entertaining large crowds in Philadelphia by making exhibition flights. At the time, flying was quite a hazardous pursuit. In 1910, the Wright Brothers had assembled a team of nine expert exhibition pilots to demonstrate their planes around the country — by the end of 1912, six of the nine had been killed in airplane crashes. But Grover was not only fearless but highly proficient. While still working to qualify for a pilot’s license in the spring of 1912, he was offering rides to friends, buzzing crowds, reaching altitudes of 2,000 feet, and staying aloft as long as 34 minutes. That summer, with a passenger on board, he flew from the suburban air field to Philadelphia’s downtown City Hall, circled the statue of William Penn atop its dome three times, and flew low over a westbound train for 22 blocks before revving his engine and passing it. In August, he flew from Philadelphia to Atlantic City, reaching altitudes over 7,000 feet, the first flight between the two cities. After more flights, in September, just five months after his first lessons, Grover passed the necessary trials and was awarded a pilot’s license. He was the 169th person in the U. S. ever to receive one.

Thursday, February 9, 2017

Artificial Intelligence: Should we worry?

Kismet the AI Robot at the MIT Museum, photo by Chris Devers, used under Creative Commons License
Presented to the Club by Martin Langeveld on Monday evening, February 6, 2017

Artificial Intelligence (or AI) is defined as intelligence exhibited by a machine, specifically a computer-driven device.

In popular culture, artificial intelligence is often depicted negatively. Recall the computer HAL in the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey. While HAL appears benevolent at first, taking care of the spaceship’s functions and playing chess with its human travellers, eventually the computer turns evil and seeks to kill the astronauts after discovering they are having doubts about HAL’s reliability and are planning to disable him.

Many other intelligent machines and robots, some nasty, some nice, figure in movies such as The Terminator, The Matrix, Aliens, and back in the 50s The Day the Earth Stood Still. And science fiction writers like Isaac Asimov, Philip K. Dick and many others have explored the implications of intelligent machines as well.

Still, such machines, with true cognitive ability and rational decision making ability, and what might be understood as consciousness or self-awareness, have not yet been invented. In fact, a debate has raged for decades as to how to actually determine whether a computer is intelligent. Most of the methods proposed are variations on the well-known Turing Test, proposed in 1950 by the Enigma code-breaking mathematician, Alan Turing. Turing proposed a test in which an evaluator interviews two entities, a human and a computer in such a way that he can not see them, and receives answers only as text. In Turing’s original formulation, if, after a five minute conversation with each entity, the evaluator can not tell the human from the computer 70 percent of the time, the computer is judged to be intelligent.

Wednesday, July 8, 2015

Allotment: How the 1887 Dawes Act disrupted Native American cultures

Henry Laurens Dawes
Presented to the Club by Martin C. Langeveld on Tuesday evening, May 26, 2015 (that Monday being a holiday)

One of the founding members of this club in 1869 was Henry Laurens Dawes, born in Cummington in 1816. He graduated from Yale University in 1839 and became a teacher in Greenfield, where he also edited the Greenfield Recorder.

In 1842 he was admitted to the bar and opened a law practice in North Adams, maintaining his interest in journalism by editing the North Adams Transcript.

From journalism he moved into politics, being elected to the Massachusetts House of Representatives in 1848, 1849 and 1852, to the state Senate in 1850, and to the Massachusetts Constitutional convention in 1853.

He then served as U.S. district attorney for Western Massachusetts from 1853 to 1857, when he was elected to the U. S. House of Representatives and served there for 23 years until 1875.

That year, Dawes was elected by the Massachusetts General Court as United States Senator from Massachusetts, to succeed Charles Sumner, who died in office. He served in the Senate until 1893, and died in Pittsfield in 1903 at the age of 86.

A friend of Abraham Lincoln, he served as a pall bearer at Lincoln’s funeral.

In the House, Dawes figured prominently in the passage of anti-slavery and Reconstruction measures during and after the Civil War, as well as in tariff legislation, the establishment of a fish commission, and the establishment of a system of daily weather reports, which was a forerunner to the United States Weather Service.

Thursday, April 25, 2013

Terraforming the Earth: Could a little careful geoengineering allow time for sustainability and resilience to work?

Presented to the Club by Martin C. Langeveld on Monday evening, April 22, 2013

Terraforming is a concept that has crossed over from the realm of science fiction into at least theoretical engineering applications. The word was coined by author Jack Williamson in a short story called “Collision Orbit,” published in a science fiction magazine in 1942. Literally, terraforming means earth-forming, or transforming planets into earthlike states. The idea of terraforming is that as humankind begins to travel the universe with the intent of settling on other worlds, most planets we encounter will need a little modification to suit our needs. Perhaps the atmosphere needs a little more oxygen, perhaps the temperature needs to be turned up a notch, and beyond that, the planet might need to be seeded with various microbial organisms in order to provide the basis for a food chain that could support people and a variety of animals. Terraforming would be applied to make the requisite changes.

Astronomer Carl Sagan, in the 1960s and 70s, detailed how this might be done both with Venus and Mars. For Venus, a planet with a greenhouse problem far worse than the Earth’s, Sagan suggested seeding its atmosphere with algae, which would lock water, nitrogen and carbon dioxide into various organic compounds. As carbon dioxide was removed from the atmosphere, temperatures would drop to “comfortable” levels. Unfortunately, later findings showed that the clouds on Venus are far thicker than previously believed, and they contain such high levels of sulfuric acid that algae would not be likely to survive.

The problem on Mars is the opposite: terraforming the red planet would require building up a suitable atmosphere and warming it. NASA was sufficiently intrigued with the notion of making Mars habitable that it held several conferences following up on Sagan’s ideas. The general idea for Mars is to unlock the carbon dioxide in the planet’s ice cap in order to increase its atmospheric pressure, and then to use phytoplankton to create a balanced atmosphere. As the planet warmed up, its frozen reserves of water would become accessible, allowing for the introduction of plants.

While re-engineering Mars to suit human purposes is theoretically more feasible than dealing with Venus, the effort involved would be enormous, since vast quantities of materials would have to be brought to the planet. Depending on the methodology, it would require the mining of ammonia on asteroids, methane or other hydrocarbons on Saturn’s moon Titan, or the mining of fluorine on Mars itself. There are also suggestions for space-based mirrors and the diversion of small asteroids to crash into the Martian surface.

Thursday, June 23, 2011

No longer a god: How Hirohito’s image was refurbished after World War II

Click for larger view
Presented to the Club by Martin C. Langeveld on May 16, 2011

From December 7, 1941, until August 1945, the personification of America’s enemy in the Pacific War was Emperor Hirohito of Japan. Public officials, military leaders and the press rarely missed an opportunity to tie Hirohito’s name to the struggle against Japan. For example, General Douglas MacArthur, speaking in March 1942 to the Australian parliament, promised the lawmakers “there can be no compromise . . . We shall die . . . in the fight to drive Emperor Hirohito’s invasion armies back out of the southwest Pacific.” War correspondents were fond of language like, “Hirohito’s invasion hordes were reported striking peak fury down the Malaya peninsula today.”

Often, Hirohito’s name was being uttered in the same breath as the other Axis leaders: “Mr. Hirohito, Mr. Hitler and Mr. Mussolini will be entirely eliminated from the picture—and that soon!” the mayor of Pittsburgh said in a speech. “Mr. Hitler and Mr. Hirohito, take notice!” the Christian Science Monitor started a story about military preparedness. “Hirohito’s invasion hordes were reported striking peak fury down the Malaya peninsula today,” the Associated Press reported.

“Blame Hitler, Hirohito and Benito! . . .Don’t blame your grocer!” was the headline on a 1942 newspaper advertisement from Heinz, explaining why tin rationing might squeeze supplies of some of the “57” varieties.

In 1944, this ad headline in the Spokane Spokesman Review offered an incentive to buying $18.75 worth of war bonds: “How’d you like to send your compliments to Hirohito on a bomb? Well, here’s your chance . . . There’s a parachute bomb that’s all yours, just waiting for your personal greetings to be added to start it on its way.”

But while that kind of rhetoric continued, by 1945 there were hints that Hirohito might not be in the same archfiend league as Hitler and Mussolini.

The government had begun to hint at a go-easy on Hirohito policy, and some columnists were beginning to warm up to it. Direct military attacks and even propaganda attacks on him were being avoided out of concern that doing so would elevate the conflict to a religious war and increase the fanaticism of the Japanese people, and because the word for unconditional surrender would ultimately have to come from the emperor’s lips.

Thursday, July 23, 2009

The American Centinel: The first newspaper in Pittsfield, Massachusetts


Presented to the Monday Evening Club, April 14, 2003 by Martin C. Langeveld

Every day, the editorial page of The Berkshire Eagle carries a line proclaiming that the paper’s origins date back to the founding of The Western Star, a newspaper launched in Stockbridge on December 1, 1789. In an age when newspapers were generally both short-lived and strongly partisan, The Star was a mouthpiece for the county’s Federalists, then led by the venerable Stockbridgian judge, later U.S. Senator, founder of the Sedgwick clan and hub of the Sedgwick circle at the Stockbridge cemetery, Theodore Sedgwick.

One might assume that with this ancient origin The Western Star must have been the first newspaper in Berkshire County, but it was not. That honor belongs to a Pittsfield sheet, The American Centinel, launched about two years earlier in 1787. At the time, there were only two other newspapers in Massachusetts west of Worcester – the Hampshire Herald, which started in Springfield in 1782 as the Massachusetts Gazette; and the Hampshire Gazette, progenitor of the present Daily Hampshire Gazette, begun in Northampton in 1786.

Everything we know today about The Centinel is based on three copies, two of which were last seen in the 19th century. Those two we know only from mid-19th century published descriptions. The third issue was in the collection of Robert C. Rockwell of Pittsfield, who died in 1928. At his death, that copy, too, went missing and was unavailable to scholars for the rest of the 20th century. Rockwell’s copy, Vol. I, No. 4, dated October 19, 1787, was apparently examined during the 1920s by Clarence S. Brigham, a bibliographer who compiled the History and Bibliography of American Newspapers 1690-1820, which is the definitive bibliography of early American newspapers. Brigham provided little further detail about The Centinel, however, and the whereabouts of the Rockwell copy were unknown for three-quarters of a century following Rockwell’s death. But based on this copy, Brigham deduced The Centinel’s starting date of September 28, 1787.

In March 2000, however, the Rockwell copy resurfaced, when it was donated to the collection of the American Antiquarian Society in Worcester by Peter R. Haack, a West Newbury antiquarian book dealer. The Antiquarian Society boasts the country’s largest selection of early American imprints of all kinds, especially newspapers. Haack had acquired this copy, along with other newspapers and books, from a relative of Rockwell who lived in Andover. So today, for the first time in over 200 years, a copy of The Centinel is available for public perusal, and I recently visited the Antiquarian Society’s library and examined it and other early Berkshire newspapers.

The Centinel, a 4-page paper with pages 11 by 17 inches, was published by the partnership of Elijah Russell and Roger Storrs, “at their office, only a few rods west of the meeting house.” This would place them on the site of the present Berkshire Bank headquarters.

As I mentioned recently during a club discussion, newspapers in this era before copyrights reprinted somewhat random bits of news (much of it inaccurate and incomplete), anecdotes, opinions, reviews, poems and the like, all lifted without compensation from whatever other newspapers, books or pamphlets happened to reach the office of the publisher, whose principal occupation was generally that of printer. Local news was virtually absent from these newspapers because it circulated faster and more reliably via the grapevine, so there was no point in wasting valuable paper by printing it. The papers we will examine here follow that style.

Vol. I, No. 4 of The Centinel is a well-preserved copy that leads off with the concluding portion of a letter by George Washington, as president of the Constitutional Convention, transmitting the proposed Constitution to the president of the Continental Congress. Washington wrote “in our deliberations on this subject, we kept steadily in our view that which appears to us the greatest interest of every true American, the consideration of our Union, in which is involved our prosperity, felicity, safety, perhaps our national existence.”

Under its flag, or title, The Centinel carried the motto, “Here you may range the WORLD from POLE to POLE – increase your KNOWLEDGE, and delight your SOUL.” The publishers had lifted this quotation, without attribution, from the introductory poem in the “The World in Miniature,” an anonymously written account of travels around the then-known world published in 1752. (Incidentally, in 1800, when the Pittsfield Sun was launched in the same location, its first two numbers bore what appears to be a parody of The Centinel’s motto: “Here all may scribble with unbound sway, If they will do it in a DECENT way.”)

Immediately following Washington’s message, the paper presented a remedy for cancer, cribbed from the Maryland Gazette, followed by an item called Miscellany, submitted by “A CUSTOMER” and signed “Observator,” who offers “Reflections suited to the Times.” These appear to be for the most part swiped without attribution from Jonathan Swift, including: “Law in a free country, is, or ought to be, the determination of the majority of those who have property in lands.” And: “When a true GENIOUS [sic] appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the Dunces are all in confederacy against him.”

The Centinel had its readership’s moral needs strongly in mind and continued with an extract from Matthew Hale’s Sum of Religion, a 17th century tract reprinted by Benjamin Franklin in 1740, and “A Portrait of Pleasure” – “Pleasure is a beautiful harlot sitting in her chariot, whose four wheels are Pride, Gluttony, Lust and Idleness.” It then lightened things up with an “Anecdote of Antisthenes:” “Anthistenes, being asked what he got by learning, answered, that he could talk with himself, could live alone, and that he needed not to go abroad and be beholden to others for delight.”

The Centinel offered its readers a collection of brief news items on European affairs as well as domestic dispatches, all of them gleaned from and attributed to a variety of other newspapers that had made their way to Pittsfield.

From Europe, there was news of a European peace conference being held at Versailles, with a July date (remember, this issue is from October, 1787), as well as items from Madrid, Utrecht, London, the Hague and the East Indies (the latter dispatch was fully a year old).

The domestic news led with this from Philadelphia, dated September 26 (and note the tenuousness of the source): “A report was circulated Monday (said to be upon the authority of a gentleman who came in the British packet which arrived at New York on Saturday last), that war had been declared between England and France before the packet sailed from Falmouth.” This roundabout intelligence obviously superceded the July item in the same issue on a Versailles peace conference. In any case it appears that both items were wrong. The Versailles conference most likely refers to the Assembly of Notables held at Versailles, a domestic gathering. A precursor to the French Revolution, the Notables first established the idea of representation in French politics, and no new war on Britain was declared that year.

Shays’ rebellion being fresh in the minds of Berkshire readers, the editor included a dispatch from Petersburgh, New York, dated September 6, in turn quoting “a gentleman from Great Brier county [meaning Greenbrier, now West Virginia] that a number of the inhabitants of that county, headed by one Matthews, have lately attempted to stop the court from proceeding to business . . . and had nearly effected their purpose … but in consequence of the interference of civil authority, Matthews thought proper to retire, and the rest dispersed. It is said Matthews has since been apprehended, and is now in close confinement.”

Closer to home, there is news from New Haven that the town meeting, on October 1, voted to request the legislature to hold a convention as soon as possible to ratify the proposed Constitution.

Finally, there is a Pittsfield item, an extract from a letter from a gentleman in Ridgefield, Connecticut to his brother in this town, dated the 29th of September, recommending “that this Constitution, once established, will do immortal honor to the patriots who formed it, establish the fame of America, and suit the greatest part of its inhabitants.”

To this the editor of The Centinel could not resist adding the following, full of typographical flourish: “This Constitution will not only raise Columbia (DIRECT) from a lingering despair, which (if nothing can rouse her therefrom) will justly entitle her to the animadvertion of him who once extracted her from the iron bounds of tyrannical power, and saved her from impending ruin, but directs a way to the FUTURE prosperity and national honor.” Getting more excited and carried away with punctuation and capitalization, he continues: “The only question to be determined now is, Where shall we find a PRESIDENT? --- Surely we need not apply to the king of Great Britain for one! --- Will the immortal WASHINGTON take on him the task, the laborious task, to navigate us through the second gulph, and land Columbia on a peaceful shore? --- If WE will be United, He doubtless will; but there’s the FEAR!” It seems very likely that Russell and Storrs founded The Centinel precisely in order to help drum up support for the not-universally-approved-of Constitution as well as for Washington himself as president. Interestingly, their landlord at the corner next to the meetinghouse, the redoubtable Parson Thomas Allen, was, at least in later years, a well-known anti-Federalist, who helped his nephew Phinehas start the staunchly Democratic Pittsfield Sun in 1800. But Allen named his fourth son George Washington Allen, so these may in fact be his own words.

Next we turn to a 1787 lawyer joke headed “Recent Anecdote:” A ‘countryman’ assured his friend the Judgment Day was near at hand. Asked how he knew, he told of a client of a lawyer of his acquaintance, who sent the lawyer 15 dollars and the promise of more if he won his case, and the lawyer “very honestly returned all but FIVE, which in my opinion forebodes some dreadful event.”

Rounding out the issue is an advertisement from J. Danforth’s general store, and a message from the publisher stating that “a few copies of the New Federal Constitution may be had of the printers.” There are also some poems, an essay on happiness, a list of axioms in Trade, and a set of Maxims, prepared for The Centinel by one Maximus.

Even in this age before telemarketing, circulation sales were on the mind of the publishers and their distributors. Bela Smith, Post Rider, offered in an announcement to deliver The Centinel in Lanesborough, New Ashford, Williamstown, Adams, Windsor, Partridgefield (later known as Peru), Dalton, Washington and Becket each Friday, at 2 Shillings per quarter, but “To obviate a great difficulty (viz. the want of cash) he will take grane of those who will advance a half year’s pay,” quoting rates per bushel for wheat, rye, oats and flaxseed.

As I mentioned, we only have 19th century descriptions by previous historians, but no physical copies, of a few other issues of The Centinel, so we have no idea how long Smith actually delivered The Centinel. Based on those descriptions, we do know that by December, after only about half a dozen issues, the publishing partnership was dissolved and only Elijah Russell was listed as publisher.

One of those issues, most likely the first published by Russell alone, on December 11, 1787, was described in the Pittsfield Sun, 91 years later, as having contained a continuation of a story of shipwreck and adventure, two or three contributions on abstract subjects addressed to “Mr. Printer,” a poem, a ponderous article on the study of history, the obituary of John Lippit of Adams, “a man of unblemished character who had lived above 60 years with his surviving widow,” and news from Lanesborough that Capt. Daniel Brown had slaughtered a heifer two years and seven months old, which weighed 782 pounds. “It is experienced that by good keeping and proper care we may make our cattle weigh near double to what they do with ordinary treatment.” The no-local-news rule could, apparently, be broken with something extraordinary. (By the way, a typical heifer today should weigh 600-700 pounds, depending on breed, at puberty or age 12 to 14 months, and fully 1200 pounds as an adult cow by age two and a half years.)

In another issue, (described in Josiah Gilbert Russell’s 1855 History of Western Massachusetts), Russell wrote that he “returns his thanks to those gentlemen who expressed their anxiety to have the printing office at Pittsfield . . . print a certain number of papers, and begs leave to inform them that he has a large number of papers on hand for which he has, as yet, received nothing, and which he wishes those gentlemen to call for, according to agreement. If agreements are not fulfilled, the Centinel must stop.”

Ultimately The Centinel did stop, but we don’t know quite when. However, the following springtime, Roger Storrs, the other partner, appears solo as publisher on the masthead of a successor publication, The Berkshire Chronicle, established May 8, 1788. On December 19 that year its name was changed to the ponderous title of Berkshire Chronicle and Massachusetts Intelligencer, which was published at least until September 30, 1790, and of which a fairly complete run is extant.

In No. 5 of The Chronicle, June 5, 1788, the publisher ran the first known “carrier wanted” ad in Berkshire County, apparently to replace Bela Smith, stating that “diligent, faithful post-rider is wanted to ride from this office.” Apparently he hired Alvin Woolcott, who announces in the September 4 issue that he will take his pay in linen rags at the store of Moses Woolcott in Lanesborough. Via the barter system, the publisher could get these rags converted to printing paper.

Cash was obviously still in short supply, and the paper did a brisk trade publishing notices from tradesmen and storekeepers requesting customers to settle accounts, including this creative gem published August 26, 1790: “The subscriber begs leave to inform the Public, that he has a small Book, and in that book there are some small Accounts, – and likewise, that he has a small Drawer, and in the Drawer are some small Notes – which must be immediately settled, in order to save some small cost, in a very small time. This from yours to serve, Nathaniel B. Torrey, Lanesborough.”

An early member of our Monday Evening Club, Thaddeus Clapp, collected early newspapers and contributed information on them to Russell’s 1855 history. Besides The Centinel, The Chronicle and The Western Star, only two other pre-1800 Berkshire newspapers are believed to have existed. Clapp described these other two as follows: “We have a traditionary account of a paper started by Mr. Spooner, about 1790, and soon afterward removed to Windsor, Vermont, and another by Merrill and Smith, between 1790 and 1800.” There are no surviving issues of either of these papers, and even the names have been lost. But the vigorous political thinking in our young nation, and the guarantees of the First Amendment, ensured that these early papers would have many successors during the 19th century. (It seems quite possible, by the way, that members of our club perused now-lost copies of the Centinel at an early meeting of our club, at his home on Wendell Avenue, recently converted to a bed-and-breakfast.)

The available issues of The Chronicle mention various mileposts in the adoption of the Constitution, and the seating of the first Congress. It did not take long for some signs of dissatisfaction to crop up in contrast to the earlier cheerleading by Russell and Storrs. A letter signed "Junius" appears in the issue of July 29, 1790, expressing impatience at the lack of substantive action by Congress after being in session four or five months. (Junius apparently was a popular pen name for anonymous political critics during this era – in this instance it is again possibly the voice of Parson Allen.) The most important decision made by Congress in five months, writes Junius, had been to decide on the location of a temporary capital. “It is hoped,” he continues, “that another election will introduce such characters, as will attend the great business of government, to the exclusion of local interest and detestable party combinations.”

The great business of government did get started, but neither local interest nor detestable party combinations have been eliminated to this day.

Illustration: Pittsfield in 1807, from Bay State Monthly, 1885.

Monday, May 4, 2009

Out of print: The future of news, newspapers and journalism


Presented to the Club on April 25, 2009 by Martin C. Langeveld

The topic I’m presenting tonight will be familiar to most of you, even if you have not been a regular visitor to my blog. Not a week has gone by in the last six months without news of a threatened or actual closing of a major newspaper, the bankruptcy of a major newspaper publisher, layoffs, buyouts or mandatory furloughs imposed on newspaper employees, and other symptoms of the travails of a once-powerful and monopolistically rich industry. This month [April, 2009], readers of the Boston Globe were shocked to find a front-page headline and story disclosing that its owner, the New York Times Company, was threatening to stop publishing the paper on May 1 unless it got major concessions from its unions.

It’s not surprising the New York Times Company would make this threat, since the Globe is reported to be losing well over a million dollars a week. The Times company has run out of credit lines, has sold and leased back a chunk of its recently completed Times Square headquarters building, is peddling its stake in the Boston Red Sox, and has borrowed $250 million from a Mexican tycoon the flagship paper had earlier called a robber baron. Clearly the Times is not in a position to subsidize the red ink at the Globe, for which it paid $1.1 billion in the mid 1990s.

And among newspaper owners, the Times company is relatively well off. Among the publicly-owned US newspaper firms, several are bankrupt, and most have credit ratings at or near junk-bond status. Their collective market value has fallen by more than 90 percent in the past few years. Collectively, the industry has laid off more than 10 percent of its workforce since the start of 2008. The combined paid circulation of American daily newspapers has fallen from more than 63 million in 1984 to less than 50 million today — a drop of 21 percent during a time when the number of households grew by about 40 percent. U.S. Daily newspapers today have less than 14 percent of total U.S. advertising expenditures. In 1989 it was 28 percent — so they’ve lost half their market share in 20 years. These are long-term trends that predate the arrival of the World Wide Web, and they have continued unabated through economic expansions as well as recessions.

For people with an appreciation for the importance of good journalism to the maintenance of a free and democratic society, and for the historical role of newspapers in providing what is often considered the best, broadest and deepest journalism available, the industry’s decline is a concern. What went wrong? What can be done? Will there be newspapers a few years from now? Where will essential journalism happen if newspapers depart the stage?

The origins of the present crisis in newspapers, as I’ve indicated, go back many years. The question is, what’s driving the trend away from newspaper reading?

Back in the 1970s and early 1980s, newspapers noticed that younger people weren't reading newspapers as much as their elders. The industry responded with youth-oriented features and a Newspapers-in-Education program, hoping to inculcate the daily newspaper habit. And, the philosophers among us said, "Look, when these kids grow up, get married, buy houses, have kids in school, and pay taxes, they'll read newspapers because they need to know what's going on." And indeed, some of them did. But the experience since the 1970s is that each succeeding age cohort reads newspapers less than the prior cohort. Moreover, as each cohort ages, it tends to reduce its newspaper readership. This is true even of the oldest age groups. Nothing the industry has done has made the slightest dent in these inexorable trends.

The industry now tends to point to the internet and suggest that it is both the problem and the opportunity — younger people read newspapers less because they get their news online, but the industry can benefit from rapid growth in online readership and revenue.

But, hold on: the age-cohort readership trends started in the 1960s, not in 1995 or so when the online readership started to make an impact. This problem has been a long time coming. The readership figures show that around 1970, the nation was still fairly monolithic in its readership habits — all age groups were heavy newspaper readers with rates ranging from 70 to 76 percent, but then all age groups started reducing their newspaper reading.

Why? What happened to that solid franchise? I think it relates to the gradual proliferation of concerns and interests in our society. Go back to the Great Depression of the 1930s: Everyone was in the same boat; the country was unified in its interests and concerns; everyone read newspapers and listened to radio to know what was going on. This continued through World War II, the Korean War, the early stages of the Cold War, and the Vietnam War. But the Baby Boom generation changed the game. With greater prosperity and less international turbulence to worry about, interests began to diversify enormously from the 1970s right through the current decade. It was a luxury we could afford — more cable channels, more movie screens, more books and magazines focused on more niche interests, more sports franchises, more highways to go to more malls, more resorts and more entertainment venues, more exotic foods on supermarket shelves, more cheeses from more countries served at dinners like this, more recreational drugs, more diversity in every possible direction.

Daily newspapers can no longer reflect all this diversity in their pages. The idea of a single mass medium that everyone in a community or metropolis would want to read is no longer logical, any more than we are all likely to watch the same television programs log in to the same website or tune to the same radio station.

The World Wide Web, of course, has only accelerated this trend of diversification; it is tailor made to cater to an unlimited number of niche interests.

The demographic trends clearly show that within a few years, the average newspaper reader will be of retirement age, and only the 65-and-up age cohort will still have a majority (but barely) that reads a daily newspaper. That's not a sustainable business model.

Now, you might think that newspapers could simply shrink into being a smaller, but still substantial piece of the media landscape. Thirteen percent of the advertising market is still real money, after all — almost $38 billion, to be precise. But other factors layer onto the demographic trends to make this a perfect storm. For many decades, newspapers enjoyed monopoly power in the pricing of advertising: there was generally one newspaper in town, and if you wanted an ad, you paid the price. Starting even a weekly newspaper to compete with the daily was a costly proposition — so the dailies were protected by high barriers to entry. This pricing power was particularly true in the classified pages, to which the principal media competitors, radio, TV and billboards, could offer no alternative.

The usual financial formula at newspapers into the 1970s looked like this: the circulation revenue — what customers paid to subscribe or to buy single copies — covered the cost of printing and distributing the paper, and for the cost of the circulation department itself. Display advertising and preprinted inserts paid for all the other expenses: the newsroom, the ad department, the building, the business office, and so on. This meant that the income from classified advertising was pure profit, and as a result, newspapers were able to earn operating profits of 20 to 30 percent from the 1920s right through the Depression and World War II and into the 1990s, despite losing audience and overall ad market share.

The promise of that kind of profit margin kept the market value of newspaper properties high, encouraged the creation of newspaper chains fueled by leverage, and created a corporate culture that discouraged innovation and strategic planning. But along the way, personal computers, Moore’s Law, Metcalfe’s Law and other technological trends eliminated most barriers to entry — newspaper competitors in the form of alternative weeklies and more recently hyperlocal web sites could be started from proverbial kitchen tables to erode the monopolies of the dailies.

And then in 1999 along came Craigslist, another kind of kitchen-table startup with a classic piece of disruptive innovation for which newspapers were totally unprepared — free classified ads. Craigslist now offers classifieds online free, nationwide, in almost any category. It charges only for a few categories in a few markets, which is all it needs to cover costs and make a profit. With just 28 employees, operating out of a San Francisco storefront, Craigslist’s impact has been to cut in half the classified advertising volume of the entire daily newspaper business in the last 10 years, an impact of about $9 billion. And Craigslist’s web traffic as measured in pageviews is now six times as much as that of the entire daily newspaper industry.

The only further impact that stems from the current recession is that all the downward trends have accelerated, and now the loss of market valuation and credit standing means that the industry, which has never been big on R&D anyway, has no resources it can apply to innovation, at least not to innovation that requires upfront investment.

Consequently, when the current recession ends, there will be no bounceback for newspapers. Estimates are that nearly all of the top 100 newspapers by circulation are operating in the red. Results for the most recent quarter show revenue declines larger than those in any quarter of 2008. It seems very likely that many of these newspapers will be closed, merged, or very substantially restructured in the next 12 months.

Out here in the hinterlands, the picture is better. Most of the newspapers in small towns and small cities, with circulations under 50,000, continue to be profitable at least on an operating basis, before debt service. This group contains about 1100 of the roughly 1430 newspapers in the country. And in the so-called community newspaper category, weeklies and very small-dailies, some reports indicate that they have lost very little revenue over the past few years — and a majority of them are still privately owned without much leverage. So outside the metro markets, newspapers can survive, though not necessarily thrive. And to get the small-town dailies owned by big chains, including papers like the Berkshire Eagle [in Pittsfield, Massachusetts], out from under highly-leveraged ownership, there is going to have to be some restructuring pain — read: fire sales during bankruptcy proceedings.

Still, the future of print is bleak, considering the loss of pricing power and the continued migration of eyeballs to online news sources. Look at it this way: if journalism had just been invented, would you invest in a startup that proposed going to Canada, cutting down trees, putting them through an enormous machine to make newsprint, trucking that paper halfway across the continent, putting it through another enormous machine to print newspapers, and finally driving down every back alley and dirt road to deliver those papers, every single night? Besides not passing environmental muster, you would not get a call back from any venture capitalist with that concept on your executive summary. The future is online, the investor would say, and correctly so. During 2008, for the first time the percentage of Americans who report getting most of their national and international news online exceeds the percentage who still get most of their news from newspapers – the ratio is that about 40 percent go online, versus 35 percent who go to newspapers. The ratio for local news still favors print, but not by much.

So you would think that with all these trends and factors, online news ventures, designed to step into the breach and provide the journalism so necessary to our democracy, would be easy to get financed and would be popping up all over. And to some extent they are, but what makes it difficult to get new online news sites started is that there is no clear business model. The sites of newspapers themselves are not even profitable, because the audience migration from printed newspapers to the web has mostly bypassed newspaper web sites, which get only about one percent of all U.S. web traffic. MSNBC.com and CNN.com together get more unique visitors than the entire newspaper industry.

The snag with coming up with a business model to sustain online journalism is this: they don’t actually sell journalism in print. For the last 100 years, good journalism at newspapers has, in effect, been a charitable endeavor engaged in by publishers earning monopolistic profit margins. The business of newspapers is to sell eyeballs to advertisers — news content is simply a convenient lure to get the public to buy and read newspapers. Publishers, to their credit, often took pride in their newsrooms, competed for Pulitzers and other honors, and generally spent more than strictly necessary to fill the paper with news. Society benefitted from this largesse. But this doesn’t work very well anymore in print, and it won’t translate online at all, since there is no monopolistic pricing there. So what are the options for business models that can deliver the fruits of journalism via the Web?

I could discuss a variety of options, each of which could turn into a Monday Evening Club paper of its own, each of which has its pros and cons, but in the end, none of which will work as a ubiquitous model. Among the proposals floating around are these (and notice that we have a tendency to dissect the potential models in traditional terms):

  • Pay-for-content models supported by readers who buy subscriptions, just like printed newspapers or magazines
  • Pay-for-content in which readers purchase individual news items through a micropayment system, just like downloading songs from iTunes
  • Non-profit models, similar to public radio or public television, supported by public contributions
  • Models supported by advertising, also just like print
  • Publicly supported models, such as the BBC
  • And of course hybrids of two or more of these, as well as print/online hybrids like the current newspaper model, are possible.
As I said, each of these defines a model in traditional terms by analogy to an existing legacy media (even iTunes is in a sense a reversion to the old way of selling songs singly on vinyl). But if we know anything about the Web, it’s that things will not be the same tomorrow as they are today. Witness the speed with which the general public has adopted social networking — Facebook was founded at Harvard in 2003 as a network limited to college students. Within 3 years, 85 percent of U.S. students had signed up, or about 4 million members. In September 2006, less than three years ago, Facebook opened membership to the general public; today it has 200 million active users worldwide. And it is just one of many social networks. Social networking is an aspect of what is being called Web 2.0. Web 1.0 was driven by the hyperlink. It simply connected pages and sites to each other. (Incidentally, one of the failures of newspapers is that most of their stories published online are still devoid of that very basic ingredient.) Web 2.0, into which we are now shifting, is driven by connections between people, through social networks. Newspapers and news sites in general are still trying to discover how to operate in the 2.0 environment and to incorporate social networking in their business models. Web 3.0, also called the semantic web, is the next big step being envisioned. Going beyond connecting pages (1.0) and people (2.0), it entails the connection of facts, ideas, and concepts – something very relevant to the world of journalism. In the semantic web, search (a 1.0 concept) and personal recommendations (a 2.0 concept) will be augmented by tools that can more or less automatically deliver content strongly relevant to a user’s instantaneous needs, interests, concerns, questions and interactions. It may entail intelligent personal agents that can recommend content, answer questions, make simple online arrangements and purchases, and otherwise help organize your life. And all of this will be ever more mobile on pocket-sized devices that will only incidentally make phone calls, serve as your wallet, your set of keys and your GPS navigator, and verify your identity. To conceive of enterprises that can create and deliver journalistic content in that environment is not easy, but today’s news enterprises need to be thinking in that direction. What I can suggest is that they ponder the following.

Hanging on to bricks, mortars, machinery and other legacy concepts including ink on paper is not realistic. All of that is baggage that will hinder, not help, in a truly digital enterprise.

There will be open source networks creating journalistic content, not newsrooms with four walls. Collaboration and flexibility will be key. In these networks, individuals can have as much credibility and influence as organizations (a point proved by Anton Kutcher last week when he beat CNN in the race to have one million Twitter followers).

News is a process, not a product. The basic unit of news, the story, will be part of a continuous flow of content through blogs, microblogs, wikis, discussions and links. News publishers will do what they do best, and link to the rest. Readers will not come to content; content must find readers.

Free is a business model. Monetization will come from creating conversations between people and brands, not from traditional advertising.


Photo: the "newsboy statue" in Great Barrington, Massachusetts, by Mary F. Lutz, used under Creative Commons license.

Thursday, March 19, 2009

Confidence: A natural history of the con man

Wheatleigh, Lenox, Massachusetts
Presented to the Club in April, 2007 by Martin C. Langeveld

NOTE: New information has been added to the original post from time to time in Epilogues I-IV, as various bits and pieces came to light. The author would like to hear from anyone else who may have additional information about Thilo Rethmann — please contact Martin Langeveld by email at newsafternewspapers@gmail.com.

In the summer of 1982, a young man arrived in Berkshire County [Massachusetts] from California and began a lengthy sojourn as a guest of one of our quiet local celebrities. He was a native of Germany, but while in California, he had done quite well for himself as a screen writer, and had gotten a start in the movie production field. He had written the script for a film to be called “Taipei”, and found financing for it. John Huston and Poncho Kohner were to co-produce the film; Charles Bronson was signed for the starring role. Our young guest had come to find some peace and quiet, and to work on his next script, a film called “Project Mankind.”

As his hostess and her friends soon learned, the young visitor’s family back in Germany was wealthy, and he was about to come into an inheritance of several million dollars. After a few months, he let it be known that he was interested in settling in the Berkshires, and he looked at a number of large estates with a real estate broker. The one that struck his fancy was Wheatleigh, the upscale hostelry [in Lenox], then being leased by Mr. and Mrs. Linfield Simon. The Simons had an option to buy the place for $500,000, and our young screenwriter offered them $2 million. They hadn’t planned on flipping the place, but accepted, amazed at their good fortune. The preparation of contracts began, and dragged on for some time, but meanwhile the Simons began shopping for another home.

By this time, it was December. Our visitor made the rounds of holiday parties in fashionable circles, impressing everyone. He dropped by for a drink at the Fitzpatricks [owners of the Red Lion Inn and Country Curtains in Stockbridge]; afterward Jack said that his guest didn’t brag about his past accomplishments, and all in all he found him to be an “attractive young fellow.” Stockbridge musician Ed Flower ran into the new Berkshire luminary at various gatherings and gushed, “The charm beamed on to me.” When the young man’s hostess found herself stranded at JFK airport after returning from a tour of Europe because her connecting flight to Albany had been cancelled, he gallantly chartered a small plane and flew down from Pittsfield to pick her up, along with her friend, [author] William Shirer, who also admired the younger writer. The Reverend Carl Stevens of Bible Speaks had him as a guest on his radio show, where he professed to be a born-again Christian and discussed the spiritual climate of Hollywood. He engaged a Berkshire Community College professor, Jurgen Thomas, to assist him in the development of his screenplay. He asked his real estate agent to look into the purchase of properties abutting Wheatleigh.

Meanwhile, the young man visited Henry Williams, the president of the Berkshire Bank – the original one -- whom he had met at the Fitzpatricks’ Christmas soiree, to ask about bridge financing so that he could acquire Wheatleigh before his own funds would become available. Henry took down the particulars and said he’d get back to the young man, shortly. Something didn’t seem quite right to Henry, and he decided to order a background check. “Finally we came up with a tilt,” is how he described it later.

Thilo Rethmann. Photo by Joel Librizzi
of The Berkshire Eagle
The screenwriter’s name was Thilo Rethmann. As it turned out, he been convicted in Germany on 57 counts of fraud, mainly writing bad checks for things like a sports car, cameras and other goods. He skipped probation and came to the U.S. In California, he met Blake Champion, the son of dancer Marge Champion of Stockbridge, and also, apparently, Val Bronson, son of Charles Bronson, and Carroll O’Connor’s son Hugh. Along with two accomplices, he swindled his landlady out of $40,000 with the story of the movie to be produced by John Huston. When his friends were arrested, he called the police to say he was coming to turn himself in, but instead he came to Massachusetts and looked up his friend Blake. As a long-term houseguest, he began to borrow money, mentioning the trust fund, from Marge Champion’s secretary, Helen Goff. Helen was flattered by the attention and by Rethmann’s promise to employ her at Wheatleigh. She wrote larger and larger checks to cover Rethmann’s expenses, including funds drawn from her employer’s household account, eventually totaling $20,000.

Our man Rethmann was, of course, what has long been known as a confidence man, a resonant tradition in American history.

The term itself originates in a story published in The New York Herald on July 8, 1849, called “Arrest of the Confidence man”, which describes the arrest of one William Thompson. I quote: “For the last few months a man has been traveling about the city, known as the “Confidence Man,” that is, he would go up to a perfect stranger in the street, and being a man of genteel appearance, would easily command an interview. Upon this interview he would say after some little conversation, “have you confidence in me to trust me with your watch until to-morrow;” the stranger at this novel request, supposing him to be some old acquaintance not at that moment recollected, allows him to take the watch, thus placing “confidence” in the honesty of the stranger, who walks off laughing and the other supposing it to be a joke allows him so to do. In this way many have been duped.” The story goes on to mention that Mr. Thompson was a graduate of the college at Sing Sing, and he would no doubt shortly return to his studies there.

The neologism confidence man caught on, and by 1855, when Wilson was again released from prison, it was fully part of the lexicon. Wilson headed north to try his luck in Albany, where the Albany Evening Journal reported on April 28, under the title “The Original Confidence Man in Town – A Short Chapter on Misplaced Confidence”, that he was up to his old tricks (quoting):

“He called into a jewelry store on Broadway and said to the proprietor, “How do you do, Mr. Myers?” Receiving no reply, he added “Don’t you know me?” to which Mr. Myers. replied that he did not. “My name is Samuel Willis. You are mistaken, for I have met you three or four times.” . . . “I guess you are a Mason,” – to which Myers replied that he was – when Willis asked him if he would not give a brother a shilling if he needed it. By some shrewd management, Myers was induced to give him six or seven dollars.”

The new story made the rounds, and the Evening Journal followed up with “A brief history of the Original Confidence Man”, which included an identification by a New York detective: “Here is No. 1, the Original Confidence Man. I arrested him the first time in New York, and afterward in New Orleans.” This line was enough to inspire Herman Melville to pen the last novel he published during his lifetime, The Confidence Man, which came out in 1857. The real No. 1, original Confidence Man, was of course Satan tempting Eve in the Garden of Evil – Melville drew heavily on Milton’s Satan. And the reference to New Orleans suggested to Melville his setting – a Mississippi riverboat as a ship of fools.

A confidence man can be defined as one who swindles another by persuading his victim first to place confidence in him, and then induces the victim to part with goods or money while still trusting the swindler. It is the manipulation of a sucker by non-violent methods. The thief, as we have seen in the case of Mr. Rethmann, must be an excellent actor skilled in improvisation. In Melville’s novel, the protagonist is engaged in a continual masquerade, deceiving a series of fellow passengers during the course of a single day, April 1st – shifting shape all the while like Milton’s Satan. The book's cons are an encyclopaedia of the cons being perpetrated on trusting citizens around the country: a deaf-mute who pleads for donations by means of a slate quoting St. Paul on charity; a black man without legs begging for coins; a merchant with a story of hard times; a representative of the Seminole Widow and Orphan Society operating a bogus charity scam; a man selling stock in a non-existent firm, the Black Rapids Mining Company; a purveyor of a patent medicine called Omni-Balsamic Reinvigorator; a procurer of young boys into indentured labor; and a cosmopolitan named Frank Goodman, who simply wishes his fellow passengers to place their trust and confidence in all of humanity. The real mark of Melville’s confidence game, however, is the reader, who is constantly pulled in one direction and another, never sure where Melville is taking him, and discovering, each time a truth seems to be presented, that it is in fact another mask in the masquerade. The novel, itself – perhaps every novel – is a con of the reader who places his trust in the author hoping to be rewarded.

While Melville’s novel received little notice on publication, sold poorly and received virtually no critical attention until a century later, the confidence man motif became a standard in American literature, and later film – and the confidence scheme would return again and again to lighten the wallets of Americans in real life – not surprisingly, because in some ways, the qualities that made a good 19th Century American confidence man – gumption, originality, smoothness, entrepreneurship – were the qualities that won the West and built America. Moreover, antebellum American society provided a rich substrate for the con game – teeming, growing cities, easy anonymity, confusion, portable wealth in the form of paper money. New York police in the 1860s estimated that one out of every 10 criminals was a con man.

The professional con men of the era developed a repertoire with colorful names such as the gold brick, the green-goods scam, the sick engineer, the glim-dropper, the fiddle game, the two red aces, the badger game, the match box, the pigeon drop, the Iron Hat, the Puff Racket, the Tat, the Silver Fox Fur—and its variant, the Cat-and-Rat Farm.

For a con to be successful, it is usually necessary for the victim to be something less than honest. In the words of one professional confidence man, “If there was no larceny in a man, and if he were not trying to get something for nothing and rob a fellow man, it would be impossible to beat him at any real con racket.” And another: “A confidence game will fail absolutely unless the sucker has got larceny in his soul.” In the tale of Thilo Rethmann, the owners of the option on Wheatleigh were lured by the prospect of quadrupling their money in a single transaction; the various lawyers, realtors and engineers involved in the deal all saw a windfall payday ahead as well; and the prospect of a lucrative job running Rethmann’s household motivated Helen Goff to dip into Mrs. Champion’s checkbook.

The typical 19th century and early 20th century con could be elegantly simple. Take for example the glim-dropper, which requires several accomplices, one of whom must be a one-eyed man. He goes into a store and makes believe he has lost his glass eye. Everyone looks around, but the eye can’t be found. He declares that he will pay a thousand-dollar reward for the return of his eye, leaving contact information. The next day, an accomplice enters the store and pretends to find the eye. The storekeeper, thinking of the reward, offers to take it and return it to its owner. The finder insists he will return it himself, and demands the owner’s address. Thinking he will lose all chance of the reward, the storekeeper offers a hundred dollars for the eye. The finder bargains him up to $250, and departs. The one-eyed man, of course, can not be found and does not return.

Similarly, in the fiddle game, one confederate, shabbily dressed, eats a nice meal in a restaurant, finds himself without cash when the check arrives, and leaves a violin as collateral for payment owed. Later, his accomplice comes in, notices the fiddle, declares it to be a rare and valuable instrument, and offers a large sum for it. The restaurant owner then buys the instrument from the first man upon his return, thinking he has an offer on the table from man No. 2, who, of course, never returns.

And the best-known scam of the information age, the Nigerian oil scam, is really a version of an age-old trick called the Spanish prisoner, which dates from the 16th Century. The con man, accompanied by a beautiful young lady, approached British nobles with the story that a fellow noble, the lady’s father, has been imprisoned in Spain. A letter from the prisoner, smuggled back to England, is shown as evidence, but the prisoner’s identity is concealed, allegedly to prevent the Spanish from realizing they have a valuable prisoner. If the noble would pay the ransom, the letter promised, the jailed father would issue a rich reward upon his release, and perhaps even offer the daughter’s hand in marriage. Money in hand, the con man and his lady friend would disappear, never to return.

While there is some amusement in this kind of scheme, in truth, we have more appreciation for the elaborate con jobs pulled off in movies like the Sting and in novels like Tom Sawyer. We require our confidence artists to do some serious work for their money.

A good con man must be a good actor, a good salesman, have good manners and a good appearance. He must also have a yen for the good things in life, but be too lazy to work for them, and he must have a sizeable ego and be able to think on his feet and live by his wits. And, a genuine con man is a habitual liar, addicted to pursuing one con after another, motivated by the challenge of pulling off another one. One con man described it to an interviewer like this: “Half of being a con man is the challenge. When I score, I get more kick out of that than anything. To score is the biggest kick of my whole life.” But of course a con man also needs to have his end game planned out, which is where Rethmann’s plans unraveled. A protracted scam like Rethmann’s usually requires multiple players to be in on the game, to collaborate by lending credence to one another. But Rethmann, who did learn a few things in the course of getting himself arrested for much smaller scams, in the end could not fool all the people all the time all by himself, and so it was the uncorruptable banker, Henry Williams, who smelled a rat and exposed the scam.

After being arrested for his larceny of Helen Goff’s money — he was never charged in connection with the Wheatleigh caper — Rethmann continued to maintain that funds would imminently arrive from his German trust fund, that his mother would pay his lawyers. Several sets of lawyers accepted this story and then saw through it, before Rethmann ended up with a public defender. He was tried, convicted, and sentenced to 18 months in the Berkshire House of Correction. While he was serving that sentence, Berkshire Eagle reporter Stephen Fay, who had covered the affair from beginning to end, got a collect call from one Tony Valano, another guest of the sheriff. It was a credit check. In a jailhouse poker game, Rethmann had ended up owing Valano $10,000, and Rethmann had told Tony to call Fay, who, he had assured Valano, would vouch for him.

Finally Rethmann wrote Fay a 26-page letter from his cell, explaining that he had been framed by the FBI, Secret Service and CIA as a victim of a top-secret government plot, launched by President Nixon in 1969 to prevent the fulfillment of events foretold in the scriptures. The story of the trust fund, he wrote, was something he told in order to conceal the fact that his movie ventures were actually being bankrolled by an Arab sheik named Al-Fassi, whom he had met in Paris in the course of delivering Ferrari sports cars.

The simplest explanations for what motivates con men may be the best. Clifford Irving was the perpetrator of a fraudulent autobiography of Howard Hughes some decades ago. More recently, he cashed in again by writing a book about this affair, called The Hoax, now made into a movie starring Richard Gere. About the first book, Irving told the interviewer: “It wasn’t about the money. I wasn’t broke. I did it for the adventure.” He added that he was just “a forty-year-old guy who loves adventure and doesn’t think too clearly about what he is doing.” Except for the age difference, that probably describes our larcenous Berkshire visitor pretty accurately.

But at this point in the tale of Thilo, unfortunately, we lose track of our talented young screenwriter, because he had served enough of his Berkshire sentence and was whisked away to face his California charges, and thereafter, the U. S. Immigration Service. Stephen Fay never heard from him again, and Google comes up dry, but I somehow doubt that Wheatleigh was the last mansion he schemed to acquire. But in any case, as long as there are victims who think they may get something for nothing, there will be con artists willing to pull the wool over their eyes.


EPILOGUE I:

A few subsequent events in the life of Thilo Rethmann turned up after the original delivery and publication of this paper. About 10 years after the events related above, apparently after dealing with his issues in California and with the Immigration service, in 1994 Rethmann — now using the name Thilo Timothy Newman — was arrested in Nashville, Tennessee on six counts of passing forged prescriptions for the pain killer Percocet. He pled guilty in February, 1995 and was sentenced to two years of probation on the condition that he serve 60 days in jail and obtain full-time employment. He then appealed the jail term and the employment requirement, on the grounds that he was a self-employed. Amazingly, he was able to convince a three-judge panel of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals that he was a screen writer, using many of the same claims that he had previously used to dupe his friends in California and the Berkshires, right down to the title "Project Mankind."

The prosecutor and the original trial judge had not fallen for Rethmann/Newman's stories, As the appeals court decision lays out: 
The remainder of the testimony at the hearing [after covering Rethmann's drug dependence] focused on Appellant's occupation. He testified that he had gone to the Munich University Film School in Germany for a masters degree in cinematography and finished film school at UCLA. Appellant told the court that he was a screenwriter and the president of a holding corporation for a film company. He referred to a screenplay he had written called "Project Mankind" and stated he was currently negotiating with Stephen Spielberg to direct the production of the screenplay. On cross-examination, Appellant admitted that no producer had yet agreed to back his screenplay. 
The only witness besides Appellant was William Halbert, a friend and business partner of Appellant. Mr. Halbert corroborated Appellant's testimony about the business they shared and about the screenplay "Project Mankind." He was optimistic about the future of the business and contradicted the State's attorney when he suggested that Appellant was currently experiencing some financial problems. 
The trial court seemed to share in the State's concern that Appellant's business was not legitimate. The trial Judge made the statement that "you can dream about hitting the lottery or making a movie, and you can dream on; but I think it's time to get a job." The trial Judge added that he "want[s Appellant] to have a job. . . . If it's at the carwash or at the Krystal, . . . he needs to put in eight hours a day, forty hours a week awhile, if he's going to be put on probation." In response to the court's skepticism, Appellant introduced a copy of his 1993 tax return showing an adjusted gross income of $106,136 as well as bank statements indicating that an average of $13,000 was deposited in his account each month from July of 1994 through February of 1995, the time the hearing was held. 
At the close of the hearing, the trial Judge made it clear that he did not believe much of Appellant's testimony.
In rejecting the trial judge's findings and overturning the jail term and the employment requirements, the presiding judge wrote:
We also reject any requirement that Appellant obtain full-time salaried employment other than the apparently legitimate business in which he is already engaged. The Appellant asserts in his brief, and we agree, that the trial court "seemed to indicate some disenchantment with the music or video concept in general." Referring to some of Appellant's testimony, the trial Judge expressed his opinion that "having offices in the . . . third biggest studio in the country and being a major player in the world and all this we've been hearing . . . . that's the kind of stuff that these Music City people defraud people with everyday." As stated above, all of the evidence presented at the hearing indicated that Appellant is a successful self-employed business person. We think it unreasonable to require Appellant to leave his successful business in order to secure a job at, as the trial court suggested, the carwash or a fast food restaurant. Furthermore, as this was not a crime born out of Appellant's need for money, but rather a medical condition, we fail to see the relationship between Appellant's rehabilitation and his occupation.
After this, Rethmann's trail truly goes cold. After this story was first posted on the Monday Evening Club blog, one commenter wrote:
When I was in high school, I dated the son of Thilo's neighbor and witnessed much of this first-hand. Unfortunately, I had no clue what was really going on at the time. The last I heard from Alex (the neighbor's son) was that Thilo committed suicide. 
Another wrote:
He ruined my husband's life in Nashville - stole millions of dollars from banks, medical equipment companies and the like - I never liked Thilo and found out through the FBI that he was, indeed, a scoundrel - He and my husband at the time were inseperable, taking painkillers and trying to figure out ways to scam people - Of course, Thilo told everyone that he wrote the script for "Aliens" and many other movies - he brought his script of "Project Mankind" around everywhere to show people that he was legit - He wore makeup, lied about his age and told people that he was dating Ashley Judd - He was the truest form of a sociopath that I have ever known - I divorced Bill [presumably William Halbert, mentioned above by the judge] and wound up with the FBI at my door looking for Bill and Thilo - Thilo was due to show up in court, and fled the country (supposedly) to Germany - He and my husband figured up a crazy plot to fake his death, so Bill  would not have to stand trial in Nashville - I have since moved on, but I still talk to the FBI from time to time - As my mother put it when she met him "He is the Devil"
Somewhere along the way, Rethmann, or an associate, managed to get himself (as Thilo Timothy Newman) listed in various movie databases as one of the screenwriters on the movie Alien, a "fact" that still survives in spinoffs of those databases, apparently by inserting his "Newman" alias as a fake alias for Ronald Shusett, an actual writer on Alien. In fact, Shusett's page on Wikipedia still lists Thilo T. Newman as an alias. A 1997 Google Groups post, possibly by Rethmann himself, turns the tables by suggesting that Ronald Shusett was actually a pen name for Thilo T. Newman.

Finally, "Tim", developer of the movie "Project Mankind", turns up again in 2003 in a book called "I Heard the Sounds of Silence: Are we related?" by Livia Schneider, indicating that Rethmann died of a drug overdose. The book is apparently a family memoir; Livia is actually Olivia Schneider Newman, a Nashville artist. Tim was her son; he had persuaded her to move from Germany to Nashville, but in the end he went back to Hamburg. In her book, she writes, "Pretending was something he was always good at. Make believe was his middle name..." Thilo and/or Timothy Newman, it appears, was Rethmann's real name. In the book, Livia doesn't acknowledge Tim's exploits as Thilo Rethmann — but she had to have known about them, if only because of Stephen Fay's telephone call to her in Germany back in the 1980s.

Still, the feds believe that Rethmann/Newman may still be alive. I received a call a few years ago [2010], after originally posting this story on the Monday Evening Club blog, from an agent in the Fugitive Division of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Service based in Nashville, who was still keeping an eye out for Thilo, inquiring whether I knew anything further.

EPILOGUE, PART II

In February, 2017, I heard from Carlton Drumwright, a lawyer in Nashville. He had reminisced with a friend about his involvement in Rethmann/Newman's Nashville legal troubles, and found this blog post after Googling our friend.

In 1995, Drumwright was working as a Community Corrections Officer in Nashville, and Thilo Timothy Newman's case was assigned to him. (That was the name Thilo was using at the time.) As noted above, Newman had been arrested for passing forged prescriptions for the pain killer Percocet, and appealed his jail sentence to a three-judge panel of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals, which swallowed — hook, line and sinker — his story that he was a hard-working screen writer, and commuted his sentence.

The judge involved in the case was Tom Shriver, described by Drumwright as having been "an old school DA" who "could spot fraud a mile away." In assigning the Newman case to Drumwright, Shriver had said, "watch him like a hawk."

As part of his watch on Newman, Drumwright learned of his German birth, and contacted a local Immigration and Naturalization Service agent he knew, to ask him to check out Newman. The agent got back to him saying, “He does not exist.” That is, there appeared to be no available INS files on Newman.

Drumwright and the INS agent developed a theory about why there were no records: To get out of some other troublesome situation with the law before the Percocet case, Newman had “snookered” his way into the federal witness protection program, which means that all his files at INS (which is now ICE — Immigration and Customs Enforcement) and other federal agencies had been sealed. But then, when Thilo “absconded” from the witness protection program and got into his Nashville legal trouble, the INS failed to unlock the files — so the search on his name came up empty. The witness protection program being what it is, however, they were never able to confirm this for sure.

In any event, eventually the agent did get the files unlocked and learned of Thilo’s California exploits and the 50-odd warrants outstanding against him in Germany. Drumwright doesn’t recall hearing about the Berkshire episode — it’s possible that the INS had not yet connected those dots at the time. Learning about this, Shriver, the judge, decided to nail Newman at his next court date and lined up representatives of the INS, IRS, and Secret Service, all of whom had an interest in Newman, to be present. When the case was called, everyone was in the courtroom, except Newman. Newman’s lawyer, a leading Nashville criminal attorney named Pat McNally, told the judge he had just received a call from Newman saying that he was “on his way,” but had been delayed by having to meet with a “friend in the federal government.” The INS agent rose and told the judge he could “guarantee that Newman has no friends in the federal government.”

Newman never showed up, and was never heard from again. Drumwright said that he also heard the story that Newman had returned to Germany and that he had died by hanging himself. (There are three versions of his death: that he hanged himself; that he died from a drug overdose, as related by his mother in her book; and that he died in a car crash, which is what the ICE agent who contacted me in 2010 had heard. Possibly all three stories emanated from Olivia, Thilo’s mother.)

Drumwright said that eventually, the INS agent was told to leave the case alone. He speculates that Thilo may have talked his way back into witness protection, with the death in Germany story as a cover. But if so, Thilo may have re-absconded, which would explain why ICE was again looking into his case in 2010.

EPILOGUE, PART III:

The tale of Thilo inspired at least one novelist, Andrew Pincus, a longtime editor at The Berkshire Eagle, who published his novel Night Work in 2010. It included a character named Thilo, described as follows in a book review by Leith F. Cohen:
Other characters of some interest include Red's two daughters; her ex-husband, Philip, who is still messing with her life; and a handsome young man named Thilo (as in Tea-low), who appears out of nowhere. 
With a German accent and dreams of bringing the arts and culture back to the city, his plan is to rescue an abandoned movie house and restore it as a year-round performing arts center. 
As an interesting aside Thilo appears to be, at least partly patterned on a real-life Berkshire newsmaker, Thilo Rethman, who came here in 1982 from California, where he was wanted by authorities for grand larceny. 
Over a year's time, he charmed his way into, and lived off of Berkshire society, borrowing money and pretending to be a screenwriter. He was arrested when California authorities caught up with him here in the Berkshires and was ultimately tried, convicted and jailed. 
In the book Thilo makes himself known by attending every venue in town including artist receptions, City Council meetings, the country club, and school pageants. 
He flatters star-struck society women and gains the confidence of high rollers with deep pockets excited about his proposal to bring culture and economic salvation to the city. 
Then there is Miranda, a dated celebrity, who came to the Berkshires as an artist-in-residence at the elite college. Falling under Thilo's cagey spell and totally unaware of his modus operandi, she welcomes him into her home, naively to help defray the cost of Thilo's fund raising efforts. 
Back at the newsroom (one of the highlights of the book is its newspaper jargon, smell of ink and the urgency of the deadlines) Dan and "Chief," the city editor, don't like what they are hearing about Thilo's plans for the city's salvation. 
"I dunno," Dan tells Chief. "I think we should call in the cops, if they're not already there. The guys a three-dollar bill." 
As Dan and Chief suspected Thilo absconded in the middle of the night leaving his supporters with nothing to show for their money spent. 
EPILOGUE, PART IV (Nov. 13, 2017):
We've received the following story about the younger Thilo Rethmann from "GarBen," a correspondent who prefers to remain anonymous:
I met Thilo Rethmann (TR) in my late teens in The Bahamas.  He was on vacation when he befriended me and several friends of mine.  He seemed [then] to be a pleasant, well-mannered, well-educated and well-traveled individual while at the same time cunning and conniving.   I do remember him this way.  In all, he was a very good conversationalist for a teen and impressed many people he met including our parents.  Our first meeting was in a beachfront restaurant called the Café de la Mer and subsequently it led to a friendship and him hanging out with our group.  We were all from middle-upper class families with shared teen interest.  We welcomed TR into our homes introducing him to our parents and that led to sleepovers.  He accompanied us to inner circle gatherings (i.e., parties and dinners) and we never really suspected him or anything about him that would call into question his motives until his vacation kept ‘extending’, per se, and eventually we learned it was for good reason.

TR was staying at the Emerald Beach Hotel located on the western side of the island of Nassau.  We had become suspicious something was amiss as his time spent with us increased much to the extent of overstaying one’s welcome and that fact he did not always carry a clean or complete change of wear – basically he became un-kept as well as an annoyance.  Then there were excuses and requests to place long distance calls to his home in Neumunster, Germany, to request funds from his parents.  I believe he told us his family were socialites and his father a well-known professor (I believe this was
his story).  
At any rate, we learnt he had an absorbent room bill that he kept charging to but never paying in full.  This finally led to his being locked out of his hotel room, possessions confiscated (held as collateral) and was temporarily jailed by the authorities.  He had no one to turn to for help or money and later bounced between our homes until our parents wised up and things went south for that point forward.

Fortunately, his family did come through and he made good on arrears and was released.  I believe he had been told to leave The Bahamas, and understandably so, and by this time he had become desperate and somewhat destitute and without recourse.  I want to say he moved into a much more moderate inn, The Ocean Spray Hotel, and sadly he resorted to the same tactic of payment (or the lack thereof).  I suppose this was the making of a con-man.  Sad.

As for me (at age 19), I was preparing to go abroad to begin a career.  He left The Bahamas shortly before I did and had written several letters since that were later forwarded to me – two of which I had kept for no particular reason.

But what a coincidence this has been!  For some reason he had suddenly popped into my mind, in turn, I Googled him.  By happenstance I came across this post by the Monday Evening Club was dumbfounded when I read the article.  The similarities were eerily accurate and the rest as they say is history.  One word to describe this is … WOW!!

Well, that’s my story and I hope you found it interesting.

Footnoting, Thilo and I lost contact sometime in the late 70s and I had wondered whatever became of him?  I have never heard from or about him until now.  I was surprised to read in someone’s response in the article above that he had died – but that was quickly debunked.  All said, I do wish him well.
Here is a letter that GarBen sent along, written by Rethmann in 1979, redacted to preserve anonymity:




Monday, March 9, 2009

Missing in Action: Charles W. Whittlesey's farewell


Presented to the Club on May 14, 2001 by Martin C. Langeveld

Late at night on Saturday, November 26, 1921, the SS Toloa, a United Fruit Company liner, steamed south on the Atlantic, a half-day out of New York and bound for Havana. Charles White Whittlesey, a Wall Street lawyer, had spent the evening in the ship’s smoking saloon, conversing with fellow passengers about his wartime experiences. A half-hour before midnight, he abruptly excused himself. In his cabin, he placed on the bedspread nine letters in envelopes, along with a note for the captain. Then he stepped on deck, leaned precariously over the rail, shot himself in the head with an army-issue pistol, and fell into the dark sea.

Whittlesey, 37 years old, was considered one of the greatest American heroes of the First World War. In fact, the press had proclaimed his principal military exploit to be as memorable as Custer’s Last Stand or the defense of the Alamo.

During the Meuse-Argonne offensive in October 1918, he had led a unit of American troops that became known as the “Lost Battalion” when they were marooned for five days without food or water behind German lines, constantly under attack. On the final day of the ordeal, the German commander demanded that Whittlesey and his troops surrender, “as it would be quite useless to resist any more.” The story went out that in response he told them, “Go to hell,” which made him an instant celebrity, but afterward he steadfastly maintained that he had sent no answer. For refusing to retreat or surrender, Whittlesey received decorations ranging from the Congressional Medal of Honor to a citation from the king of Montenegro.

When the news of his disappearance reached New York, it immediately became the top story in every newspaper in the city.

All the recipients of Whittlesey’s final letters maintained he had offered no explanation for his suicide, and none of the letters were released to the press. As a footnote, months later, his estate was appraised at a net value of only $680, including $200 in clothing and a $40 watch. America’s fascination with Whittlesey’s suicide faded quickly, and his motives remain a mystery.

The Whittleseys, a family with colonial Connecticut origins, were keenly aware of their role in history and pursued a mission of leadership that encouraged service to God, country and society. Between 1776 and 1900, the Whittleseys, typically educated at Yale, supplied the nation with one Senator, four Congressmen, dozens of state legislators, and many ministers, lawyers, merchants and military officers.

Charles Whittlesey grew up in Pittsfield, Massachusetts, and chose to attend Williams College. [Incidentally, his family came to Pittsfield because Charles’ uncle William Augustus Whittlesey had moved here. William Augustus was a member of this Club, the first of several connections the story has to us. Also of interest, William Augustus had married Caroline Benton Tilden, the niece of Samuel Tilden, whose story Club member Roger Linscott presented at an earlier meeting this season.] At 6 feet, 2 inches, he towered over his college classmates, but his eyes were poor and he was never seen with a ball in his hands. Quiet, studious, and inclined toward literature and poetry, he preferred, instead of sports, long solitary walks through the Berkshire Hills, studying nature and watching birds. He flirted with socialism and youthful idealism, writing in 1904 that the purpose of a college education is “learning to judge correctly, to think clearly, to see and to know the truth, and to attain the faculty of pure delight in the beautiful.” He earned a law degree from Harvard in 1908, and embarked on a Wall Street law career, soon forming a partnership with a Williams classmate, John Bayard Pruyn.

A month after America entered the war in 1917, Whittlesey took a leave from the partnership and enlisted in the Army. He shipped for France as a captain in the Army’s 77th Division, also known as the “metropolitan division,” because it was made up largely of New York City men, principally from the polyglot lower east side of Manhattan. Its members spoke 42 different languages or dialects.

By September, Whittlesey was commissioned a major. General John J. “Blackjack” Pershing, the commander-in-chief of the American forces, was gambling that he could smash the German lines sufficiently to induce a retreat by committing relatively green troops to battle. The alternative was to have his army suffer attrition by disease during the French winter in order to await a spring offensive. He planned to have the Americans launch a massive attack in the Meuse-Argonne region.

On the morning of October 2, the 77th was ordered to move forward against the heavily fortified German line. Whittlesey’s troops, a mixed battalion of 554 men, advanced through a ravine in the heart of the Argonne forest, an “almost impenetrable jungle of undergrowth.” Because the units on their flanks failed to make headway, Whittlesey’s troops were cut off from their supply lines the next day, pinned down by German fire from the surrounding 200-foot high bluffs. They began to suffer heavy losses.

Some of the men had never thrown a live grenade, but for four days, they resisted waves of Germans attacks. The Americans quickly ran out of rations, and had only the water they could scoop out of puddles.

Based on messages Whittlesey sent by carrier pigeon, his sole means of communications, Allied aircraft tried to drop supplies, but because of the narrowness of the strip held by the battalion, none of the parcels hit their mark. American artillery fire directed at the German positions fell instead on Whittlesey’s troops, and he had to send out his last pigeon with a message demanding, “for heaven’s sake stop it.”

On the afternoon of Oct. 7, the Germans pushed a blindfolded American prisoner, Lowell Hollingshead, back across the lines blindfolded to deliver a typewritten message to Whittlesey. In perfect English, it suggested:

The suffering of your wounded men can be heard over here in the German lines, and we are appealing to your humane sentiments to stop. A white flag shown by one of your men will tell us that you agree with these conditions. Please treat Private Lowell R. Hollingshead as an honorable man. He is quite a soldier. We envy you. The German Commanding Officer.
(The writer, it turned out after the war, had lived before the war in Spokane, Washington for four years.)

After the troops were rescued, a war correspondent asked Gen. Robert Alexander of the 77th Division how Whittlesey had answered the German demand. Alexander replied, “What answer could he send them? He told them to go to hell.” That response turned the the “Lost Battalion” into one of the biggest stories of the war, and made Whittlesey one of its most sought-after heroes.

In reality, Whittlesey had simply read the note aloud to his subordinates, smiled, and put it in his pocket. He told Hollingshead, “Go back to your post.” He sent no reply to the Germans, but decided to pull in the white sheets that served as targets for the airplanes, for fear that they would be seen as signals of surrender.

Relief came at last that night, when a fellow regiment of the 77th fought their way to Whittlesey’s position. Of the original 554 troops involved, 107 had been killed, 63 were missing and 190 were wounded. Only 194 were able to walk out of the ravine. Along the entire Meuse-Argonne front, 1,200,000 American troops had taken part, sustaining 117,000 casualties. But the offensive had more than met Pershing’s expectations, inducing the Germans to agree to the Armistice on November 11.

Whittlesey received a battlefield promotion to Lieutenant Colonel, and a few weeks later he was relieved from further combat duty and sent back to America. In New York, reporters besieged him, and he obligingly answered their questions, embellishing his tale with quotable lines like, “hundreds of Germans attacking with hand grenades and howling like 10,000 wild devils all day.” On December 6th, President Wilson announced that of the first three Congressional Medals of Honor to be awarded for valor in the war, one would go Whittlesey and another to his second-in-command George McMurtry.

After telling his war story a few times, Whittlesey accepted speaking invitations, but steadfastly refused to discuss his war experiences, both in public and in private. But he hadn’t lost the idealism that had turned him to socialism before the war. He spoke of pacifism, and in favor of the proposed League of Nations and its promise of a lasting peace. He consistently spotlighted the valor of the American enlisted men, saying “remember that those who have been picked out for special praise are the symbols of the men behind them. No man ever does anything alone. It’s the chaps you don’t hear about that make possible the deed you do hear about.”

He tried to return to his quiet law partnership with Bayard Pruyn, but the nation would not leave him alone. The hero’s role, which Whittlesey played willingly at first, demanded much of his time. He took to visiting the wounded recuperating in hospitals in the New York area, and delivered eulogies at funerals of servicemen he had known. In June 1919, he accepted honorary degrees at both Harvard and Williams. He marched with other servicemen in a July 4 “Welcome Home” parade in his home town, Pittsfield. He attended the first New York State convention of the American Legion in Rochester, and became active in the Roll Call, the annual membership drive supporting the New York City Red Cross.

Behind the public’s admiration for Whittlesey, however, there were disquieting whispers – suggestions that he had led his troops into an avoidable trap; that he had not properly followed orders; that he could have avoided casualties by surrendering or ordering a retreat; that he had given the wrong coordinates in his pigeon message calling for artillery support.

Military historians have exonerated Whittlesey, but whether he blamed himself or not, the level of casualties his unit sustained weighed heavily on his mind. And rather than diminish over time, Whittlesey’s role as a hero seemed to demand more and more. To a friend he complained, “Not a day goes by but I hear from some of my old outfit, usually about some sorrow or misfortune. I cannot bear much more.”

In pursuit of his special interest in banking law, in 1920 Whittlesey joined White & Case, a large firm with many banking clients – but the pace of his public appearances continued unabated. He made whistle-stop speeches favoring America’s entry into the League of Nations on behalf of the losing presidential candidate that year, Ohio governor James M. Cox. He stayed in the army reserves, where he was promoted to Colonel in 1921. He appeared, briefly, in a movie, “The Lost Battalion,” released in 1921, the principal action of which was romantic rather than military. In the fall of 1921, he served as chairman of the Red Cross Roll Call. Finally, on November 11, 1921, Armistice Day, when the nation buried the Unknown Soldier of the World War at Arlington National Cemetery, Whittlesey and McMurtry both participated as pallbearers.

Friends and relatives noticed that in the weeks after that culminating event, he seemed moody and depressed. He was also physically ill with a racking cough that kept him up at night, and was heard by others in his rooming house. To a fellow boarder, but not to anyone else, he casually mentioned the possibility of taking a sea trip to get away from things. After speaking at a Red Cross dinner, he confided to his dinner partner: “Raking over the ashes like this revives all the horrible memories. I’ll hear the wounded screaming again. I have nightmares about them. I can’t remember when I had a good night’s sleep.”

Unknown to all, but with all the thoroughness natural to him as a corporate lawyer, during those same weeks Whittlesey was meticulously preparing for his end, leaving no detail to chance.

At the end of October, he visited his family in Pittsfield for the last time.

On Friday, November 18th, he walked to the American Express office around the corner from his office to book a passage to Havana. From a chart, he selected a starboard cabin from which it was possible to slip easily, and unseen, to the upper promenade deck. To avoid easy recognition he used the name “C. W. Whittlesey.”

His father came to New York to see him that weekend, and later said that his son was in high spirits. On Sunday evening, seated on stage among crippled and wounded war veterans, Whittlesey appeared at a New York gathering honoring Marshall Ferdinand Foch, the Allied Commander-in-Chief.

On Wednesday, the 23rd, he dictated a new will, had it witnessed, and placed it in a bank safe-deposit box. To the stenographer and witnesses, this was normal – lawyers at the firm were always making new wills.

The next day was Thanksgiving. He visited his closest friends, the Pruyns. By all accounts, he was unusually cheerful, and played with their year-old baby during most of the visit.

On Friday, the 25th, before leaving his office for the last time, he wrote out detailed instructions for handling the cases he was working on. He told associates he would be away for the weekend – some thought he would be visiting his parents in Pittsfield, but he told others he planned to attend the Army-Navy football game on Saturday.

Instead, he went to a theater performance Friday evening with a woman friend, and asked Mrs. Gertrude Sullivan, his landlady, to have his breakfast ready at 8 a.m., telling her, “I’m going to be alone for a few days. I am tired.” In the morning he gave her a check for the December rent, urging her to cash it. The Toloa left the dock about noon on Saturday.

Whittlesey made sure the captain and fellow passengers knew who he was, asking whether any wireless messages had been received about the outcome of the Army-Navy game. During dinner at the captain’s table and in the lounge afterward, he spoke freely about the war, something he had avoided for three years. No one saw him leave his cabin or go overboard that night.

At Whittlesey’s home church, First Church of Christ in Pittsfield, the next morning, the congregation dedicated a bronze plaque memorializing the church’s war dead. The pastor [Rev. Hugh Gordon Ross] used as his text a quotation from Acts: “With a great sum obtained I this freedom.”

That day, the Toloa encountered rough seas. Many passengers stayed in their cabins and Whittlesey’s absence at meals prompted no inquiry until Monday, the 28th, when it was found that his cabin had not been used. In the note left for the captain, Whittlesey specified telegrams be sent to his parents, to Pruyn, to his brother Elisha, and to Robert F. Little of White & Case – the latter with the instruction: “Look in upper left hand drawer of my desk for memorandum of law matters I’ve been attending to. I shall not return.”

The New York papers carried lengthy stories for days, with many quotes from friends and relatives. Little was quoted:
He was a victim engulfed in a sea of woe. His last work as chairman of the Red Cross Roll Call this month was all based on the suffering of the wounded. He would go to two or three funerals every week, visit the wounded in hospitals, and try to comfort the relatives of the dead.
Marguerite Babcock, Pruyn’s sister-in-law, said: “The last week his cheerfulness was in great contrast to his usual solemnity. That is what we cannot understand, unless he had made up his mind to take his life, and felt better that he had decided it.”

The four friends who had received letters refused to make them public, but said in a statement: “In the light of our intimate relations with him we are convinced that the theory voiced by the press as to the cause of his death is correct. His was a battle casualty.”

Most eloquent was the eulogy given on December 11 at the memorial service in Pittsfield by Judge Charles L. Hibbard, a friend of the family and Pittsfield’s orator of choice [and also a member of this Club]. After recounting Whittlesey’s career and time of trial in battle, he continued:
Then comes the truce of that November day, the return to the home land, the public recognition, the undying fame and the world’s acclaim. But how hard it is for this self-effacing young man to endure this public praise and recognition. . . . Wherever he turns, he is Col. Whittlesey, not the Charley Whittlesey of old days. Invitations to be honored and to honor pour in upon him. . . . There are funerals and hospital visits and the impact of all such experiences upon his sensitive nature is terrific.
Hibbard continued with a remembrance of a recent encounter with Whittlesey:
He is sitting on the piazza of a cottage by the sea on a glorious late September day but a few weeks ago. . . He is looking straight out to sea, with naught but sea between him and that land where lie so many of his boys. The beating surf is but an echo, the warm, bright sunshine, the blue sky, the dancing waves, all combine to charm. But a single look at his face and one knows he is unconscious of this glory of Nature. Somewhere far down in the depths of his being or in imagination far off across the waters he lives again the days that are past. That unconscious look has all the marks of deep sorrow, brooding tragedy, unbearable memories. Weeks pass. The mainspring of life is wound tighter and tighter and then comes the burial of the Unknown Soldier. This draws the last measure of reserve and with it the realization that life had little now to offer. This quiet, reserved personality drew away as it were from its habitation of flesh, thought out the future, measured the coming years and came to a mature decision. You say, ‘He had so much to live for – family, friends, and all that makes life sweet.’ No, my friends, life’s span for him was measured those days in that distant forest. He had plumbed the depth of tragic suffering; he had heard the world’s applause; he had seen and touched the great realities of life; and what remained was of little consequence. He craved rest, peace and sweet forgetfulness. He thought it out quietly, serenely, confidently, minutely. He came to a decision not lightly or unadvisedly, and in the end did what he thought was best, and in the comfort of that thought we too must rest. ‘Wounded in action,’ aye, sorely wounded in heart and soul and now most truly ‘missing in action.’
Seventeen years later, Whittlesey’s youngest brother, Melzar, said that he never opened the envelope delivered to him from the ship. “If my brother couldn’t tell me why he did it, I don’t want to know,” he told an interviewer. “No, now that you have reminded me of it, I think I’ll destroy it tonight.”

But one letter, at least, survives, though it has never before been published or reported. Reposing in the archive of Williams College, it is the letter he wrote to John Bayard Pruyn:
Dear Bayard:

Just a note to say good by[e]. I’m a misfit by nature and by training, and there’s an end of it.

I’m sorry to wish on you the job of executor, but there is very little to do . . .

I won’t try to say anything personal Bayard, because you and I understand each other. Give my love to Edith.

As ever, Charles Whittlesey.

Retellings of the story have focused on the battlefield, treating the suicide as a footnote, and the sound bite of his friends, “His was a battle casualty,” has been allowed to stand. His nearest relatives today hand down the family’s feeling, that “he wanted to be with his men.”

But these theories explanations don’t fit with the farewell note to Pruyn, and don’t answer the many questions Whittlesey left behind. Why, at age 37, apparently successful as a lawyer, did he live in a rooming house and die virtually penniless?*  Why did he never marry? Was he a homosexual? Was he affected by other family tragedies — the deaths of two siblings during his early childhood, the death of another brother, Russell, in 1911, and the serious illness of his brother Elisha? Did his own physical condition, evidenced by the reported chronic “racking cough,” play a role?

Did he bury himself too deeply in volunteer efforts, speaking engagements and ceremonial appearances that would remind him of the deaths and injuries that had surrounded him on the battlefield? Did his refusal to discuss his war experiences suppress a serious depression related to traumatic stress suffered under fire? Was he bothered by the nagging possibility that different decisions made during the advance might have avoided the trap and the ensuing extraordinary level of casualties? Was he fatally disillusioned in his idealistic hopes, and by the realization that for all its human cost, the Allied victory in the war had accomplished no lasting peace?

And what’s behind his words to Bayard Pruyn, “I’m a misfit by nature and by training”? That he felt out of place in a society that valued masculine heroics and considered him odd for being uncomfortable with the hero’s mantle and for visiting the sick and crippled survivors and the widows and mothers of the dead?

With today’s hindsight, it seems likely that Whittlesey was a victim of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). During and immediately after World War I, this condition was only vaguely understood and referred to as “shell-shock.” Not until after the Vietnam War was PTSD, initially called post-Vietnam syndrome, officially classified as a mental disorder by the American Psychiatric Association.

Ari Solomon, a professor of psychology at Williams, who recently reviewed the case, supports this view. Solomon would only speculate, since true psychological diagnosis of someone long dead is not possible, but he said, “There’s nothing intrinsically mysterious about this suicide to a clinical psychologist. The circumstances that are known – sketchy as they are – seem consistent with post-traumatic stress disorder. Among PTSD’s psychological features are: persistently re-experiencing a horrifying event emotionally (such as in nightmares or flashbacks); avoiding things that are associated with the event (or else tolerating them with great distress, as Whittlesey may have done); feeling detached from humanity or from one’s ‘normal’ life; sleep disturbance; and feeling generally overanxious.”

Whittlesey’s story, Solomon said, appears to match the prototype fairly well. Also typical of PTSD, according to Solomon, is “survivor guilt – the feeling that ‘the wrong person died,’ or an irrational belief that you did something to cause the tragic event. It would be common for a man in Whittlesey’s position to feel that he did not deserve to live while so many others had died.”

The improved, “carefree” mood in his final days, noted by most who encountered him, is not unusual in a suicidal person, often signaling that a final decision has been made, Solomon said.
If I could interview Whittlesey as a psychologist today, I’d especially have in mind … the sharp discrepancy between the public role he was playing and his hidden agony, his constant re-exposure to reminders of the battle, his possible lack of intimate relations, and his felt need to hide his pain even from family and dearest friends.
When an organization of Lost Battalion survivors was formed in 1938, many of the veterans reported still having nightmares and “nervous reverberations.” One, unable to attend in person, wrote, “We just do not have the control we should have. I went through without a visible wound, but have spent many months in hospitals and dollars for medical treatment as a result of those terrible experiences.”

Such repercussions are common to trauma survivors, as are beliefs, according to Solomon, such as “ ‘nobody, not even my family, could accept me if I admitted what terror and shame I’m still experiencing.’ ” A psychotherapist today would seek to modify those beliefs, he said, because “getting to the point of feeling emotionally safe and emotionally supported is a critical aspect of recovering from PTSD.”

The initial, very popular, assessment that the Lost Battalion’s resistance would rank with Custer’s Last Stand and the siege of the Alamo has not held up, although the episode has found its way as a case study into military textbooks. With only a few letters and contemporary recollections surviving, the mysteries will remain. Indeed, “his was a battle casualty.” However, his own tantalizing hint, “I’m a misfit by nature and by training,” also points to unresolvable conflicts between his public persona as a war hero, political speaker, leader and symbol, and the inner Whittlesey, an idealist, man of letters, and lover of nature and quietude.

As a final epilogue, there is the brief life of Whittlesey’s only nephew, Frank Russell Whittlesey, the son of Melzar. He was born just five months before Charles’ death. Just two months after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, at age 20, while enrolled at Yale, he enlisted in the Marine Corps. He was sent into action in the Pacific, taking part in the capture of Tulagi Island and Guadalcanal, where he was killed while assisting a wounded companion. His body was buried during the battle and not recovered until 1989, when a farmer turned up the remains. On Memorial Day, 1992, [in a service conducted by our fellow Club member, Richard L. Floyd] the Whittlesey family gathered, along with St. Paul’s School and Yale classmates, to lay him to rest in the family plot in the Pittsfield Cemetery. Nearby, a few years later, veterans dedicated a stone in memory of the uncle he never knew, whose heroism had been an inspiration to him.


*Addendum, August 23, 2013 regarding the question of why Whittlesey "died virtually penniless": This is according to the probate report on Whittlesey's estate as published in the New York Times. Thanks to James, in the comments below, for the suggestion that perhaps Whittlesey gave away most of his assets in anticipation of his planned suicide.