***
1
Last November I wrote about the historical meaning of the words "liberal" and "conservative." Today, despite some apparent confusion, these meanings still seem relevant.
I wrote then:
The word "liberal" ... comes from the Latin word meaning "free," just as the word "liberty" comes from the Latin for "freedom." ...[The word] "conservative" comes from the Latin, meaning "to keep intact" or "to guard."
"Liberalism" means a belief in the paramount value of freedom.
...A "Conservative" person ... wants to keep social order, to maintain or restore traditions, and to protect established customs and practices.
And, in November, I added this comment:
...We struggle to find the right balance between the value of the individual's freedom and the value of the social order. ...Liberals tend to value individual freedom more than Conservatives, and Conservatives tend to place a higher value than Liberals do on maintaining traditional standards and social order.
However, both Liberals and Conservatives ... agree that in certain instances, the good of society should be emphasized over the freedom of the individual. ... Both Conservatives and Liberals also agree that individuals have civil rights, protected by the supreme law of the land, the U. S. Constitution. Where is the proper balance between the needs of the social order and the rights of the individual? A Conservative would generally place the balance point closer to the side of tradition and social order, while the Liberal would tend to place the balance point closer to the side of the individual and free choice.
How are the root meanings of these terms, which after all refer to the basic political division dividing our culture at the present time, still relevant?
2
The contrast between Conservatives and Liberals today tends to highlight Conservatives' inclination to focus on our need to pursue economic prosperity, while Liberals are inclined to emphasize our desire for social justice. Here again, of course, this contrast is not absolute. Conservatives may well value social justice to a degree, and Liberals certainly value economic prosperity as well.
Both groups value both goals to varying degrees; but while Liberals would sacrifice a degree of personal prosperity in order to achieve a higher degree of social justice, Conservatives would sacrifice a certain degree of social justice - as in the distribution of wealth, for example - in order to achieve a higher degree of what they perceive as economic prosperity or the pathway to it.
To apply the original meanings of "Conservative" coming from "guardian" and "Liberal" coming from "liberty," it is convenient to focus first on their contrasting approaches to social or moral questions, reserving discussing of financial and political issues for later.
3
Conservatives tend to see themselves as the guardians of traditional practices and values. Established religion, for instance, is seen as the source of the highest wisdom regarding personal choice and behavior. Those whom we call "Fundamentalist Christians," who regard the Bible as the literal truth and as the only reliable guidance to morality, can also be called "Conservatives." It is the duty of Conservatives not only to determine their own actions by means of tried and true religious teachings but also to work toward moral order in society by requiring all people - even those of different faiths, or no religious belief at all - to behave as their established or conservative religious teachings require.
For instance, it is not only necessary for such Conservatives to control their own personal behavior by refusing to abort even an unexpected or unhealthy fetus; it also seems their responsibility to prevent others from doing so. If the law of the land does not conform with their religious customs in this and other ways, then Conservatives - in order to preserve tradition and establish the social and moral order which they seek - see it as their responsibility to change the law.
Same-sex relations are likewise not only to be avoided, but to be positively prohibited for everyone.
Liberals, on the other hand, stress the need for all individuals to be free to make their own decisions, even on such deeply significant matters as birth and sex. Social or moral order, for Liberals, is less significant than individuals' liberty to choose for themselves.
Note: it is an anomaly of our time that "Libertarians," who value individual choice (i. e. freedom) to an extreme, should tend to align themselves with Conservatives.
Of course, even Liberals recognize the need for society to protect itself from foreign aggression, from theft, from assault and other threats to security, restraining the freedom of would-be criminals and aggressors. Conservatives in turn recognize that all individuals have the capacity to violate traditional religious taboos and must be held individually responsible for their immoral actions.
The balance between the pursuit of individual liberty and the need for social and moral order is in a different place for Conservatives and for Liberals.
4
The contrast between Conservative and Liberal values on political and economic concerns is less evident and more complex than the contrast between them on social and moral issues. But this contrast too reveals that the difference between the two groups lies in where each finds the proper balance between contrasting goals both of whose value is acknowledged by everyone in each group.
Conservatives highlight what they call "the free market" because such an economic system allows - or even promotes - the generation of wealth and prosperity. The fact that the wealth generated may become concentrated among a relative few is not particularly troubling. Also of little concern is the fact that one result of "the free market" tends to be cycles of "boom" and "bust," huge swings from high employment and rising mean incomes for the many, to widespread low employment rates and falling wages.
Such would be of more concern to Liberals, who stress the value of social justice where all individuals have a real opportunity to prosper based on their personal abilities and ambitions and on their having the freedom to pursue their own interests.
In a time of financial downturn, the Liberal most regrets the greater number's loss of freedom to pursue their own interests. In such a time, on the other hand, the Conservative most regrets the loss by those in economic power of their ability to continue increasing their fortunes.
Conservatives might even be ready to believe that such a concentrated accumulation of wealth benefits society generally, as in the saying "A rising tide lifts all boats," even if experience continues to show this is not true. Liberals, on the other hand, may be tempted to intervene in "the free market" to such an extreme that everyone's opportunity to pursue their own interests is hampered by stifled ambition.
5
Ironically, extremist alternatives, whether Liberal or Conservative, have proven to limit progress toward the very goal being pursued.
For instance, an extreme degree of control over the economy in order to free individuals from financial constraints can in fact lead to individuals' loss of freedom to perform in the economy as one would wish, limiting individual initiatives; thus, a Liberal temptation to pursue freedom can cause its very loss.
On the other hand, an extreme absence of control over the economy tends to lead to the growth of huge corporations with enough power to limit or even eliminate competition from other firms. This result of such "free market" activity can thus lead to the economic system's losing the capacity to respond to new opportunities "freely" and therefore to weaken.
In both instances, extremism leads to self-defeat.
6
When the Conservative says he values freedom, it may seem to Liberals that he is lying, because concentration of wealth in the hands of the few constrains the potential freedom of most individuals. But this Liberal reaction would indicate a misunderstanding of the Conservative's intent.
Two things are worth pointing out here about the sort of freedom the Conservative pursues most aggressively. (1) The "freedom" the Conservative seeks lies exclusively in the economic realm, not in the moral realm, where restraints of individual freedom are in fact the goal. (2) And within the economic realm for the Conservative, the "freedom" he values is, in particular, freedom from control over financial dealings and economic initiatives, which control he would call "government interference."
While the Liberal would seek to manage the economy in order to preserve the economic opportunities of the most people possible, the Conservative would seek to free those established in economic power from public restraint in order to generate as much new wealth as possible.
In this realm too, however, all but extremists - whether Liberal or Conservative - recognize the value of both opposing goals. The sensible Liberal understands the need for the economy to operate with enough freedom from interference to insure continuing prosperity. The Conservative - except for extremists - understands how economic opportunity must be distributed widely enough to maximize creativity and innovation which are necessary for the economy to grow as efficiently as possible.
Once again, the difference between these two groups lies more in where they find the right balance between opposing values than in single-minded pursuit of one goal or the other.
7
I have referred to the apparent anomaly of today's Libertarians' tending to align themselves with Conservatives, rather than with Liberals who - like them - value freedom above other social ideals. This often does seem contradictory.
Like the Liberal, the Libertarian wishes to preserve the individual's ability to choose his or her own actions. Like the Conservative, the Libertarian opposes the Liberal's initiatives to control or manage the actions of the few, in order to maintain a relative amount of economic opportunity among the many. Such management, according to the Libertarian, would constrain some individuals' ability to do as they please. This should not be done, even if some individuals choose to consolidate their individual economic power, which may constrain the economic opportunity of many, or to pursue economic behaviors that may put the whole economy at risk.
Within the economic realm, maximum freedom for the "superior" individual - i.e. the more powerful individual - is the Libertarian's goal. As in the other groups, of course, there are some extremists among Liberetarians who do not seem to value at all the freedom of most individuals - including the less powerful and the powerless - from the bondage of ignorance, poor health, and poverty.
Seeking to free some individuals from economic restraint, even at the risk of reducing the freedom of most people, is more important to Libertarians than other economic considerations.
8
Although it is complex, we can see that this political and economic position of the Libertarian does have a certrain logic. It does not seem to make sense, however, for Libertarians to align themselves with Conservatives on social and moral issues.
In the moral realm one would think they would share with Liberals the greater emphasis on maintaining the individual's ability to choose freely than on safeguarding traditional moral restraints, even when the free choice does not threaten harm to others (as in gay marriage, for instance). Since Libertarians claim to value individual liberty above all, it would seem consistent for them to align themselves with the Liberals.
9
Now more than ever, it seems, we must beware of political, economic, and even religious leaders who seek to confuse us about their priorities among values or who are themselves confused about what their values actually are or about the consequences of the actions they desire.
One might even say that it sometimes seems that we have Conservative leaders "pretending" to uphold liberal values or Liberals "pretending" to uphold conservative values.
The debate over budget deficits may provide some examples of this appearance of hypocrisy. Liberal leaders maintain that they are committed to reducing the now-habitual custom of the federal government's spending more than it takes in. Such an effort would be to pursue a conservative goal.
Liberals, however, would point out that reducing the annual and the accumulated deficit is of high importance right now because of our unusual current circumstances. And they would further point out that even today, for them reducing the debt is still not more important than establishing and maintaining as equal as possible a degree opportunity for all to be economically independent. They would go so far as to say that, in order to provide for the greatest degree of freedom from want and from restraint of the majority's pursuing their own economic interests, the deficit should be reduced by somewhat increasing the taxes paid by the richest few. Their pursuit of budget balance and reduction of a smaller debt is not inconsistent with their core economic values.
Conservative leaders, on the other hand, maintain that they are committed to reducing the level of unemployment in order to serve the economic interests of the many. Such an effort would be to pursue a liberal goal.
10
Observers of Conservatives, however, would point out that they are vehemently opposed to allowing to expire the recently-established tax reductions on the richest few, even though to renew them will make it much harder to achieve the goal of budget balance. They are of course also willing to sacrifice some supports of the majority in making progress toward balancing the budget. Protecting the interests of the most economically powerful at the sacrifice of the lesser economic power of the many is consistent with the Conservative value of freeing the wealthy from government restraint so that the fast accumulation of wealth may continue as much as possible.
Balancing the budget is important for Conservatives and Liberals alike - in itself a conservative goal - but Conservatives place even more importance on protecting the interests of the rich just as Liberals place even more importance on sharing economic independence as broadly as possible.
Both groups are behaving consistently with the core values that distinguish them from each other.
***
Saturday, April 30, 2011
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Dad Learns About His Father
***
1
The hotel room's telephone rang after he'd returned from dinner.
"Hello?"
"Is this Dr. Derrick?"
"Yes!"
"The same Dr. Derrick giving a speech at the University tomorrow, who was mentioned in the newspaper today?"
"The very same."
"I think your father was Warren N. Derrick. Is that true?"
"Well, yes, that was his name. The 'N' was for Nathaniel."
"My name is Phyllis Anderson Derrick. Your father was my second husband. I was his third wife. He died here in 1950. We were married in 1941."
"Oh. Yes?"
"I just thought you would want to know. He is buried in the Pinewoods Cemetery here. He talked about you, and your brother. I don't know how but he knew that you were at the University in Austin... And he talked about you with pride and hoped your mother and his two boys had gotten along all right."
"Actually, she died when I was thirteen years old. My brother Warren Nolan Derrick was fifteen. We were orphans at that point."
"Ah, he didn't say anything about that."
"I'm afraid I will be leaving right after my talk tomorrow..."
"I just thought you ought to know. So, now I have told you... So, goodbye then."
She hung up while he was still saying, "And goodbye to you too."
2
Dad told me about this conversation from 1965 or so several months afterwards, when I was home on a two-week vacation a year or so after I'd graduated from college. Although I have made up the words, the gist of it was just what he reported it to me.
He'd never seemed comfortable talking about his father, and he didn't now either.
"You never met him, did you, your father?"
"Just the one time, when I was six. Haven't I told you about that?"
"No."
"He showed up one day in 1910 before our mother had gotten us off to school and before she'd left for work. He wanted to take us with him for that morning, before his trade conference was going to start in the city adjacent to ours. By that time, he was some kind of officer in the professional organization having the conference."
"Did you go with him?"
"I remember that he took your uncle Warren and me to a big barber shop in the next city. He bought each of us a manicure. The only one I ever had. That's all I remember."
"And he had left your family just after you were born?"
"Yes. We never heard from him except that one time... And he evidently ended up in this big city way up in the Northwest."
That was the end of that conversation.
3
Four or five years later, Dad retired from his University job. I had gotten married, and was living near the coast in the mid-Atlantic region. Dad wrote us that he and Mom were planning a trip to the city on the Atlantic coast 600 miles to the south of us, where his mother had told him he was born, just a few months before she and the two sons moved out to Texas about 1905 where his father had found a good job.
As far as I knew, for the first time in his life, after retiring Dad had become interested in learning about his origins. He well remembered his grandmother, who'd lived with the family all during his childhood until she died a year before his Mom. And from her he knew the name of his grandfather. But that was just about all.
Dad wrote to ask us to join Mom and him in his birth city. We worked out the dates when we could join them.
When we arrived, Mom and Dad had already spent a couple of days looking for records. One thing Dad had tried was to just look up "Derrick" in the phone book. He called the first five or six listed there (there were at least a dozen). Dad had a Texas accent, but it was certainly that of a white Texan. Everyone on the phone said right away there was no chance they were related. Dad figured they just didn't want to be bothered by a distant cousin whom they had never heard of.
His last call was different. The woman who answered seemed very pleasant - keep in mind this was deep in the Old South - so he was able to pose a question, when she positively said, like all the rest, that he and she were not related.
"You know, ma'am," he said, "I've called a lot of folks here in town with my last name and everyone seems to know without even thinking that we're not related. I'm wondering why that is."
"Honey," she said with a good humor, "we is all colored folks!"
Dad and she had a good laugh together, and he stopped making those calls.
4
They'd had some success looking through the records in the local historical society. He found his parents' 1900 marriage listed in an index of marriages in the state, and there was even a clue where the wedding had taken place.
While Mom and my wife went back to the historical society to look through other records, Dad and I went to the church downtown, where his parents had apparently gotten married. That seemed to be the most likely place to find a formal record.
And sure enough, after we'd hung around in this church by ourselves for a while, a member of the staff asked if he could help... and they did have records from 1900. We looked together. Yes, there was the record in a large old book. Dad arranged to have what he called a "photostatic" copy made and sent to him at home.
Flushed with this success, we went to join the others at the historical society, where they were looking through some old city directories, which list the names of current residents, their home addresses, and their occupations. With help from the staff, they'd found a listing from 1900. Dad's mother and father were living with his grandmother on Henry Street. Dad's grandfather had been a "ship's carpenter." Dad's father was described as a "ruler" at a bookbindery, and his mother was said to be a "seamstress."
This kind of directory lists names alphabetically, but you can then look up the address to learn what other streets are nearby and whether or not there were other residents in the same building, as in a boarding house, for instance. Grandma had apparently owned a single-family home, which was at the corner of their street and another, which was also named - Montgomery. (Before my wife and I left to return home, we all drove by this location.)
Dad's grandfather was not listed in the 1901 city directory, though the others were, at the same address. He seemed to have died by then.
There was an old cemetery right downtown, not far from the wedding church, so we all tramped around there too, looking at grave markers. It turned out those buried there were all from the 18th century! But back at the historical society, there were indexes of those buried in the other various old cemeteries.
We had to leave Mom and Dad at that point. Their own plan was to go down to the Florida coast to see if they could find traces of Dad's father's family. He vaguely remembered his mother saying that his father had been living there before moving a little to the north.
5
Six or eight months later, Dad had gotten me an invitation to give a talk to a professional organization there in my hometown. Just by coincidence, I suppose, while I was there a small package came in the mail.
Mom had written after they'd returned from their family history tour that while in northern Florida, somebody at the historical society there had put Dad in touch with a woman named Derrick about their age. She turned out to be the widow of one of Dad's relatives...
Not from his father's parents, but from his father's second marriage.
Kellie Cochran Derrick had married Dad's half-brother, who after a brief career in vaudeville in the 1920s had settled down in Florida. By the way, her husband's name was Warren Robert Derrick. Mom had written about how pleasant Kellie was and how graciously she had treated them at her little home. She was a little deaf, if I remember correctly.
The letter with the package started out something like this: "I appreciated getting your Thank You note a while back. I enjoyed our visit too, very much. I should have given you these things then, but I wanted to think about it first."
6
Inside the little box were various items from Dad's father, which his son - Kellie's husband, the other Warren "junior" - had saved.
Among the items were two photographs of a very young Warren Nathaniel in an army uniform from about 1898. On the back, apparently in Dad's father's handwriting, his unit was identified as a Florida volunteer regiment.
Most items were related to the guy's career, including a photograph on a campaign flyer of him as candidate in 1920-something for the presidency of his "international" union. Another was a photo of him in a hotel lobby next to a palm tree dated the same (on the back). There was also a nice pocket watch engraved, "Warren N. Derrick, President, International Brotherhood of Bookbinders, 1919 to 1925."
Finally, there was a gold-plated cane handle, also inscribed as a gift of the union.
Mother gave me these things after Dad's death in 1980. She indicated that Dad had not seemed very interested in this memorabilia, although she'd had the handle mounted on a plain wooden cane.
7
One other thing: at some point (I don't remember when), Dad told me that, even before the encounter with Kellie, he had known that his half-brother Warren had been in vaudeville, with his older sister, in a song-and-dance act. He had the impression they'd been successful enough to travel around performing for several years.
They must have started young, because their mother had traveled with them. Dad's father and she had divorced in the early '20s.
While in college in central Texas in 1923 or '24, Dad had somehow seen a notice of a vaudeville show scheduled for a few days in the big city of San Antonio. Among the performers listed were "Bob and Betty Derrick." It;s not a common name, of course, and Dad knew nothing of any relatives, so...
He took a bus to San Antonio and managed to make contact with these other Derricks. Yes, their father was Warren Nathaniel Derrick. Their mother, his second wife, was with them. Dad went to their performances that afternoon and evening and spent the time in-between with them. He had an old photograph of him, "Bob and Betty," and their mother Mary crowded around a park bench near the Alamo.
It had apparently been a pleasant interaction, but they did not communicate again.
8
My mother absolutely believed in Heaven, where loved ones are reunited for all time. Dad understood that such a belief brought strength to many in times of trouble as well as motivating many toward good values including social and moral responsibility, self-discipline, hard work, and - above all - kindness to others.
In my mother's Heaven, Mother and Dad are together again now and forever, along with her parents "Dad" and "Muddy" (Ben and Myrtle), and Dad's mother, grandmother, and brother.
Warren Nathaniel Derrick, his father, is not with them.
***
1
The hotel room's telephone rang after he'd returned from dinner.
"Hello?"
"Is this Dr. Derrick?"
"Yes!"
"The same Dr. Derrick giving a speech at the University tomorrow, who was mentioned in the newspaper today?"
"The very same."
"I think your father was Warren N. Derrick. Is that true?"
"Well, yes, that was his name. The 'N' was for Nathaniel."
"My name is Phyllis Anderson Derrick. Your father was my second husband. I was his third wife. He died here in 1950. We were married in 1941."
"Oh. Yes?"
"I just thought you would want to know. He is buried in the Pinewoods Cemetery here. He talked about you, and your brother. I don't know how but he knew that you were at the University in Austin... And he talked about you with pride and hoped your mother and his two boys had gotten along all right."
"Actually, she died when I was thirteen years old. My brother Warren Nolan Derrick was fifteen. We were orphans at that point."
"Ah, he didn't say anything about that."
"I'm afraid I will be leaving right after my talk tomorrow..."
"I just thought you ought to know. So, now I have told you... So, goodbye then."
She hung up while he was still saying, "And goodbye to you too."
2
Dad told me about this conversation from 1965 or so several months afterwards, when I was home on a two-week vacation a year or so after I'd graduated from college. Although I have made up the words, the gist of it was just what he reported it to me.
He'd never seemed comfortable talking about his father, and he didn't now either.
"You never met him, did you, your father?"
"Just the one time, when I was six. Haven't I told you about that?"
"No."
"He showed up one day in 1910 before our mother had gotten us off to school and before she'd left for work. He wanted to take us with him for that morning, before his trade conference was going to start in the city adjacent to ours. By that time, he was some kind of officer in the professional organization having the conference."
"Did you go with him?"
"I remember that he took your uncle Warren and me to a big barber shop in the next city. He bought each of us a manicure. The only one I ever had. That's all I remember."
"And he had left your family just after you were born?"
"Yes. We never heard from him except that one time... And he evidently ended up in this big city way up in the Northwest."
That was the end of that conversation.
3
Four or five years later, Dad retired from his University job. I had gotten married, and was living near the coast in the mid-Atlantic region. Dad wrote us that he and Mom were planning a trip to the city on the Atlantic coast 600 miles to the south of us, where his mother had told him he was born, just a few months before she and the two sons moved out to Texas about 1905 where his father had found a good job.
As far as I knew, for the first time in his life, after retiring Dad had become interested in learning about his origins. He well remembered his grandmother, who'd lived with the family all during his childhood until she died a year before his Mom. And from her he knew the name of his grandfather. But that was just about all.
Dad wrote to ask us to join Mom and him in his birth city. We worked out the dates when we could join them.
When we arrived, Mom and Dad had already spent a couple of days looking for records. One thing Dad had tried was to just look up "Derrick" in the phone book. He called the first five or six listed there (there were at least a dozen). Dad had a Texas accent, but it was certainly that of a white Texan. Everyone on the phone said right away there was no chance they were related. Dad figured they just didn't want to be bothered by a distant cousin whom they had never heard of.
His last call was different. The woman who answered seemed very pleasant - keep in mind this was deep in the Old South - so he was able to pose a question, when she positively said, like all the rest, that he and she were not related.
"You know, ma'am," he said, "I've called a lot of folks here in town with my last name and everyone seems to know without even thinking that we're not related. I'm wondering why that is."
"Honey," she said with a good humor, "we is all colored folks!"
Dad and she had a good laugh together, and he stopped making those calls.
4
They'd had some success looking through the records in the local historical society. He found his parents' 1900 marriage listed in an index of marriages in the state, and there was even a clue where the wedding had taken place.
While Mom and my wife went back to the historical society to look through other records, Dad and I went to the church downtown, where his parents had apparently gotten married. That seemed to be the most likely place to find a formal record.
And sure enough, after we'd hung around in this church by ourselves for a while, a member of the staff asked if he could help... and they did have records from 1900. We looked together. Yes, there was the record in a large old book. Dad arranged to have what he called a "photostatic" copy made and sent to him at home.
Flushed with this success, we went to join the others at the historical society, where they were looking through some old city directories, which list the names of current residents, their home addresses, and their occupations. With help from the staff, they'd found a listing from 1900. Dad's mother and father were living with his grandmother on Henry Street. Dad's grandfather had been a "ship's carpenter." Dad's father was described as a "ruler" at a bookbindery, and his mother was said to be a "seamstress."
This kind of directory lists names alphabetically, but you can then look up the address to learn what other streets are nearby and whether or not there were other residents in the same building, as in a boarding house, for instance. Grandma had apparently owned a single-family home, which was at the corner of their street and another, which was also named - Montgomery. (Before my wife and I left to return home, we all drove by this location.)
Dad's grandfather was not listed in the 1901 city directory, though the others were, at the same address. He seemed to have died by then.
There was an old cemetery right downtown, not far from the wedding church, so we all tramped around there too, looking at grave markers. It turned out those buried there were all from the 18th century! But back at the historical society, there were indexes of those buried in the other various old cemeteries.
We had to leave Mom and Dad at that point. Their own plan was to go down to the Florida coast to see if they could find traces of Dad's father's family. He vaguely remembered his mother saying that his father had been living there before moving a little to the north.
5
Six or eight months later, Dad had gotten me an invitation to give a talk to a professional organization there in my hometown. Just by coincidence, I suppose, while I was there a small package came in the mail.
Mom had written after they'd returned from their family history tour that while in northern Florida, somebody at the historical society there had put Dad in touch with a woman named Derrick about their age. She turned out to be the widow of one of Dad's relatives...
Not from his father's parents, but from his father's second marriage.
Kellie Cochran Derrick had married Dad's half-brother, who after a brief career in vaudeville in the 1920s had settled down in Florida. By the way, her husband's name was Warren Robert Derrick. Mom had written about how pleasant Kellie was and how graciously she had treated them at her little home. She was a little deaf, if I remember correctly.
The letter with the package started out something like this: "I appreciated getting your Thank You note a while back. I enjoyed our visit too, very much. I should have given you these things then, but I wanted to think about it first."
6
Inside the little box were various items from Dad's father, which his son - Kellie's husband, the other Warren "junior" - had saved.
Among the items were two photographs of a very young Warren Nathaniel in an army uniform from about 1898. On the back, apparently in Dad's father's handwriting, his unit was identified as a Florida volunteer regiment.
Most items were related to the guy's career, including a photograph on a campaign flyer of him as candidate in 1920-something for the presidency of his "international" union. Another was a photo of him in a hotel lobby next to a palm tree dated the same (on the back). There was also a nice pocket watch engraved, "Warren N. Derrick, President, International Brotherhood of Bookbinders, 1919 to 1925."
Finally, there was a gold-plated cane handle, also inscribed as a gift of the union.
Mother gave me these things after Dad's death in 1980. She indicated that Dad had not seemed very interested in this memorabilia, although she'd had the handle mounted on a plain wooden cane.
7
One other thing: at some point (I don't remember when), Dad told me that, even before the encounter with Kellie, he had known that his half-brother Warren had been in vaudeville, with his older sister, in a song-and-dance act. He had the impression they'd been successful enough to travel around performing for several years.
They must have started young, because their mother had traveled with them. Dad's father and she had divorced in the early '20s.
While in college in central Texas in 1923 or '24, Dad had somehow seen a notice of a vaudeville show scheduled for a few days in the big city of San Antonio. Among the performers listed were "Bob and Betty Derrick." It;s not a common name, of course, and Dad knew nothing of any relatives, so...
He took a bus to San Antonio and managed to make contact with these other Derricks. Yes, their father was Warren Nathaniel Derrick. Their mother, his second wife, was with them. Dad went to their performances that afternoon and evening and spent the time in-between with them. He had an old photograph of him, "Bob and Betty," and their mother Mary crowded around a park bench near the Alamo.
It had apparently been a pleasant interaction, but they did not communicate again.
8
My mother absolutely believed in Heaven, where loved ones are reunited for all time. Dad understood that such a belief brought strength to many in times of trouble as well as motivating many toward good values including social and moral responsibility, self-discipline, hard work, and - above all - kindness to others.
In my mother's Heaven, Mother and Dad are together again now and forever, along with her parents "Dad" and "Muddy" (Ben and Myrtle), and Dad's mother, grandmother, and brother.
Warren Nathaniel Derrick, his father, is not with them.
***
Friday, April 8, 2011
Wise Sayings 4 from Ron Lucius
***
Some say, Through our government, let us spend as little as possible, keeping taxes to a minimum.
Others say, Through our government, let us spend as much as we can afford, long-term, to meet our social needs.
Some say, Let us provide as much as possible for ourselves, keeping our own taxes as low as possible, providing for others as little as we can get away with.
Others say, Let us provide for all of us as much as we can.
Some say, It’s good for all of us to get as much as we can for ourselves, letting others get as much as they can for themselves.
Others say, It’s good for us to be satisfied with having enough for ourselves, trying to make sure that everyone has enough to get along.
Who’s right?
(Who’s left?)
……………………………………………………………………Ron Lucius
***
Some say, Through our government, let us spend as little as possible, keeping taxes to a minimum.
Others say, Through our government, let us spend as much as we can afford, long-term, to meet our social needs.
Some say, Let us provide as much as possible for ourselves, keeping our own taxes as low as possible, providing for others as little as we can get away with.
Others say, Let us provide for all of us as much as we can.
Some say, It’s good for all of us to get as much as we can for ourselves, letting others get as much as they can for themselves.
Others say, It’s good for us to be satisfied with having enough for ourselves, trying to make sure that everyone has enough to get along.
Who’s right?
(Who’s left?)
……………………………………………………………………Ron Lucius
***
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)