Monday, May 31, 2021

NYT’S CHARLES BLOW STIRS RACIAL DISCORD

 THE NYT CHARLES BLOW’S  RACIST RANT STIRS HATRED

The New York Times, May 30, 2021.  Opinion, Charles M. Blow, “Is America’s Democracy Slipping Away?” 


In his opinion piece on how American democracy is weakened by alleged white racism Mr Blow uses the term “whites or white  people” nine times, always in a derogatory way. All the ills of the nation are settled on just one race.  Blow, painting with a very broad brush incriminates all “whites”  as the root cause of the ills of our Black citizenry.  One just has to substitute “Jewish” for “white” in Mr. Blow’s article  to take us back to `1933 in the waning days of the Weimar Republic of Germany to get the sense of how insidious and corrupting this kind of “racial blaming” is.    


Perhaps Mr. Blow should direct his superior skills as a journalist and writer to remembrance—not of past injuries—but of the common, heart felt, passionate and often self-sacrificing efforts of millions upon millions of Mr low’s  “co-humans” who inhabit this nation, but happen to have a pale complexion —‘the whites” who, on the behalf of those of his complexion—sacrificed their lives to end slavery in the Civil War.  And more recently for those “whites” who ignored  their well-being  and positions to pursue unpopular efforts  in uncountable  social, and political ways to make this nation a more equitable place for all to live.   He ignores those millions of white voters who elected our first Black President, He forgets the many laws passed by whites to advance and protect our Black citizens.  He pointedly overlooks affirmative action and all the set-aside seats at elite universities, and opportunities opened for Blacks  `in government, industry, academia and journalism—and yes even for an illustrious  column-space on the the Great Gray Lady of Times Square where one can pontificate writing on presumed racial injustice. 


And in answer to the title question: Yes,  Mr. Blow. dmocracy can slip away, too easily, and writing hate-filled opinion pieces to stir racial animosity and discord can only increase that awful likelihood.

Sunday, May 23, 2021

DUMBING DOWN OF AMERICA: ASK NO QUESTIONS ACCEPT STUPIDITY SILENTLY


The questioning mind has carried us so very far from the invention of the  wheel to the iPhone.   

But change is always resisted and there has always been those who resist any threat to authority and to the status quo. 

Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) the “father of observational astronomy”.built and improved the first practical telescope,  and then used it to observe the Sun and its sunspots, the phases of the planet Venus, the satellites of Jupiter, and Saturn’s rings. His observations of the Sun and  planets led him to champion the idea that the Sun, not the Earth, was at the center of the solar system. In 1615 Galileo’s  writings were examined by the Roman Inquisition and found to be “foolish, absurd and heretical” since it contradicted holy scripture and orthodoxy of the establishment.  In 1632 to  defend his ideas,  Galileo  published a treatise entitled:  “Dialog Concerning The Two Chief World Systems” which presented his astronomical observations and conclusions based on the scientific method.  This document supported the idea that the Earth is only one of the smaller planets which revolve around the much larger Sun.  For this he was tried by the Inquisition and found to be an heretic and condemned  to imprisonment, (later commuted to isolation, and house arrest) where he spent the rest of his life incommunicado and isolation. 

Does this historic reprise sound familiar? Do you get a  sense of “deja vu”?   Because in our most recent times the USA seems to have regressed back into the days of the Roman Inquisition when any individual  with a questioning mind may be pilloried and castigated for simply questioning orthodoxy. The madding crowd only wants to listen in to its own echo chamber. The phenomenon is so commonplace today we seem to have forgotten how sinister and evil it is.  We have so many “no. no, you can’t say or even think that” interventions  today  it seems (sadly) almost acceptable. 


Today, to question the idea that China may have precipitated the Covid pandemic (with USA complicity) as a result of an horrific accident in the Wuhan Virology Institute, where the escape of a genetically modified virus led to the deaths of millions the world over.  It is a query that can not be asked,  and if asked precipitates a Roman-style inquisition.


Or if one has the temerity to question how fragile our election system is, and how slim a majority President Biden’s Electoral College win vote was;  or  to suggest that it is possible that our 2020 election may have been  fraught with shady practices and illegalities,  one is tagged as a moron, racist, or “flat Earther, or worse.


Those who question orthodoxy in our times are immediately targeted as “absurd, foolish, heretical” or worse.  Where and why have we abandoned  the value of inquiry and the concept that to question authority and the establishment is our God given right as Americans?  And what about the scientists among you? Where are you in these dangerous times? 


Are you “scientists” intellectually allied with Galileo or with the Roman Inquisition? 



Saturday, May 15, 2021

FAUCI WHY DID HE SUPPORT FUNDING OF WUHAN LAB?

 The SARS Covid 2 pandemic has been and continues as the most serious threat to this nation since WWII.  The virus pandemic has killed 500,000 of our US citizens, created a social and cultural nightmare of fear and isolation, upended our economy, had disturbing effects on our 2020 elections and killed almost three million others ( and counting)  around the world. Yet there seems little appetite in the US politicized press and media to address the cause of this political, cultural, economic and social catastrophe. One wonders why?

The recent dust up in the US Senate between Dr. Anthony Fauci and Senator Rand Paul, MD regarding the origins of the virus revealed the existence of  documents which EXPOSE a financial  connection between the Wuhan Virology Lab in Wuhan China and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease  ( NIAID) which is headed by  Dr Fauci


There are two theories for the origin of the virus. The government (and Dr Fauci) have supported the hypothesis that the source of the virus was the Wuhan “wet market” where caged animals are kept for slaughter and sale as food.  This theory attempts to posit a complex route of transit over great distances and through several animal species from bats in caves in distant south China’s Yunnan Province ( over @900 miles distant )  to Wuhan where the outbreak first occurred.


We now know that Wuhan Virology Lab has been collecting bat viruses from bat-dung in far away Yunnan for years. And these collected samples remain stored in the Wuhan lab ( just where the outbreak occurred) and where “gain of function research” (GOF) has been carried on from at least 2014.  These GOF experiments actually attempt to genetically modify viruses to make them more infectious to humans.  It is clear that if these “super viruses” ever escaped,they would  cause a  world embracing pandemic, (just as we have experienced in 2019). It is apparent to many scientists and others that the potential threats of such GOF research clearly outweighs the vague possible benefits.   


And if the 2019 pandemic occured as a result of a lab accident we must change such practices and limit GOF experiments. 


But what we did not know is that Dr Fauci and his NIAID organization supported the dangerous —irresponsible —research in Wuhan prior to 2014. But even more egregious, after  the Obama Administration withdrew funding based on the potential dangers of such research and the poor reputation of this lab for safety, Dr Fauci continued his support and relationship with the director of that lab.  Documents from the lab and from the NIAID now clearly indicate that in 2019 it was Dr Fauci —who restored financial aid to this lab—though indirectly— and with no assurances that the WIV would not continue on its dangerous “gain of function”research. 


Can we trust this eminent doctor who refuses to explain why he continued funding Chinese research?   Can Dr Fauci compromised as he is by his support of dangerous foreign research, be trusted to give sound advise concerning the critical question of  the origins of the virus and  how the “spill over” from a bat virus to a human virus occurred?  

We deserve to know why US tax payers are funding virus research in China ? .. 


We must insist that Fauci come clean and answer honestly. “Why did you fund the research at the Wuhan lab?



Sunday, May 9, 2021

NJ STAR LEDGER’S BIG LIE

 The NJ Star Ledger’s far left editorial board simply ignores our nation’s Constitution and lies to its readership in its attempt to control their minds—not inform them. Its a sad day for journalism.   In an editorial entitled: “The Republican strategy: Cling to another Trump lie”  the supposedly erudite editors of the NJSL claim that the Republican’s “litmus test for loyalty” is that party officials must agree that Donald Trump was the real winner of the 2020 election.“Which he lost by 7 million votes.”  

It is not Trump but the NJSL that practices intentional deception.  For Donald Trump or any other US President was NOT elected by popular vote. That tabulation means absolutely nothing.  

Could it be that the Editors of the NJ SL are perhaps unaware that Mr. Biden won by the slimmest of Electoral College votes. That is where and how we elect Presidents in this nation.  Biden won about 40,000 more votes in four different tightly contested states. Not 7,000,000 votes! 

It is easy for any unbiased observer to imagine how a few dead people, a few illegal aliens, a few Trump  mail in ballots gone astray and a glitch or two in a few precincts in these states  could make the difference between winning and losing a very tight contest.. 

But the Editors of th NJSL would like their readership to think President Biden’s win was a substantial one.  It was not!  He has no mandate to govern, winning as he did by about 40 thousand votes out of well over 140 million votes cast ( or 0.00003%)

As I recall, Democrat candidate Gore lost to Republican Bush under very similar circumstances and the Democrats had no compunction about questioning that election. 

So the NJSL is the big liar here....not the Republican Party!     

The greatest threat to this nation today is the sad fact that our once robust and relatively fair-minded media and cadre of journalists have cast off their journalist’s cloak to become fervent  propagandists for only one Party..They have forgotten the elements of Journalism 101, “question everything!”  Instead of humility and an open mind they bring to their work absolute certainty of their correctness.  They question nothing—and posit everything that  fits into the establishment narrative that they are driven by near religious fervor to present.  

A little vignette by the German Prime Minister, Angela Merkel,  keeps coming to.my mind.  Merkel  often recalls that when a young student in Communist East Berlin, the only “news” available was in the strictly controlled Communist Party newspapers. So as a curious and intelligent youngster  she realized  that to get to the truth she had to learn to read “between the lines”.  The Communist propaganda rags that were published in that part of divided Germany only published  propaganda designed to control the mind of its readership—only what fit into their narrative

Sadly this is what New Jersey readers are facing today—propagandists attempting to control the minds  of its readership—these ‘journos’ do not belong in a Democracy. .  


History will treat these propagandists all very unkindly. .I’m waiting.  

Saturday, May 8, 2021

BIDEN ENDS PATENT PROTECTION FOR VACCINES :A FOOLISH IDEA

HEALTH THREAT TO US ALL: BIDEN’S PLAN TO REMOVE VAC PATENT PROTECTION


All those suburban moms who voted for President Biden, must now be wondering: Did I make a mistake? 


If they are truly concerned about their families’health and welfare , they should be concerned about President Biden’s latest faux pas.  ( He has already made a mess of the the southern border, by inhumanely encouraging an unprecedented surge of young immigrants to make a dangerous,  harrowing and costly dessert passage to illegally enter our nation and become unsuspecting, poorly-cared for wards of the State. He has stupidly created a human crisis there.)  


Now he is about creating a new crisis that will impact the health of every one of us.  His inane plan is to remove the patent protection for producers of the Covid vaccines.  In his simplistic reasoning his motives are to help the rest of the world access vaccines.  First of all this is a “very bad solution” to a problem that does not exist.  There is no shortage of vaccines.  We have many good ones.  The problem is related to the production and distribution of vaccines. 


Better, smarter and younger minds around the world do not agree with Biden on this issue.  I read in the German,  ‘Der Spiegel’ (on line news magazine) , that German Chancellor Merkel does not agree with Biden and considers such a plan “too risky” and “warns of quality defects if such a plan were instituted”. (Der Spiegel. down loaded. May 6, 2021)


First of all, we would not even have .these vaccines if it were not for the incentives of a profit motive and fair pay back for the enormous investment in money and time that the patent laws provide.  One of the elements the our new “Socialist” Democrats too often ignore is that progress and medical advances require  an enormous amount of commitment, energy, financial investment, time and expertise to produce such marvels of medicine.  The only reason our health care is the very best and the envy of the world is that we protect the rights of those with new ideas and those who create new products.  With no incentive for profit we would not have the marvels of medicine we have today.  


Removing those incentives, would not only impact the stability and well being of the companies that have produced these recent marvels of medicine —vaccines.  Yes these companies would suffer financially and have already an impact (even as a result of Biden’s recent announcement) with a steep drop in their stock prices. 


But we must not look at this as if the profits go only to a few. We all benefit from the discoveries of these medical organizations.  In regard to the next immediate threat to our nation’s health—the manifest rise of more life threatening variants of this virus in Brazil and India; What incentives would these pharmaceutical companies  have for any further investment in new and modified vaccines or booster shots? The companies have just been ravaged by Biden by being denied their fair claim to a profit. What incentive would they have for continued production of the vaccine or for further research to produce new vaccines to control the rise  of variants?  None.  


There is no free lunch.  We do not have a perfect system.  But our lives are far better than they would be in a Communist or Socialist system.   Yes some corporate owners will make a profit...but as they do—we all profit too, from better health and millions of us actually survive the disease.  


Some would say that—when we eliminate private investors— government must step up and pay for the process of creating and producing these needed medicines.  But it is painfully clear that government can not replace the private sector.  


China and the USSR are and were perfect examples of failed states.  China has only reached the pinnacle of economic and military status as a result of purloining every idea from the west and forcing our companies to divulge their proprietary rights to China in return for access to their 1.4 billion person market.  Sinovac the Chinese vaccine which was produced by government intervention is a ne ar total failure....Tested by the west and reported by the ‘Lancet’ it has a reported  efficacy of less than 50%  against Covid.  The vaccines of the west almost off of which were effective to the 70-80% level , while the American Pfizer was effective to well over 90%. 


But the sensible patent protections, protect the rights of creators and provide the incentive for them to continue to create.  They guarantee that new vaccines, will be developed to meet the threat of the new variants   These virus variants are now evolving in places like India and Brazil and will soon be infecting you! The pharma patents protect you too. 


Go with Biden and risk your and your families health and safety.   

Tuesday, April 27, 2021

CRITICAL RACE THEORY—BOGUS

HOW CRITICAL RACE THEORY DISCRIMINATES 

Reverse Discrimination Is Discrimination 

Last year Sept 7, 2020, the NY Times ran an opinion piece entitled: The Tax Cut for the Rich That Democrats Love,  by Richard V Reeves and Christopher Pullman.  the authors argued why the SALT tax recall was a mistake.  They underscored the fact that then candidate, Joe Biden claimed that he was “working for the workers....not the privileged few at the top”.  But yet he promised to repeal a SALT cap of $10,0000.  The authors  go on to explain why the repeal of the cap on those paying state and local taxes was a giveaway to the very rich.  Down in the middle of the article they claim that one of the “failures” of this proposed recall is that:  Almost 60% of the benefits will go to only 1 percent of households (of which 90% are white).”  


Where I come from, that statement  is an example of  blatant racism.  Pullman and  Reeves are arguing that one of the underlying reasons Congress should not repeal the SALT cap on income is that it will unfairly benefit a group of people—and their reason that this is “unfair”—in their biased thinking— Is based on that the benefits will accrue to a group defined only by race!!!   Thankfully our supreme Court and our Constitution as well as the laws  of this nation protect us all—black white and brown—against such forms of blatant  discrimination and from such arguments. But the First Amendment permits  the press to foster racist statements.  


Suppose we were to turn that ugly argument of Reeves and Pullman  around and state.that the white majority should  not support the laws which established “affirmative action”—because such legislation benefits only black people?  Or that we should not pay certain State  taxes such as “benefits to dependent children” because that law benefits mostly black kids!  


Does the New York Times really want us to go in that ugly direction of racial divide, reverse discrimination, social dysfunction and chaos? 


No one would even think of such an argument when I worked (briefly) in the N Y Times in the 1960s.  What has happened to the air and water in Times Square?  Has some insidious miasma of stupidity, racism and malice seeped into the bowels of the edifice of the once great Gray Lady?  


Where was the editor on this piece?  Does he or she really agree that one of the reasons we should NOT support the repeal of SALT (or any other policy) is the color of the skin of the recipient? Or is this kind of “yellow journalism” the result of Critical Race Theory?  (An “ahistorical” and  radical concept that claims that “racism” was the paradigm which guided our forefathers in giving birth to this nation—and not the passion for freedom from oppression and for economic and personal liberty.)   


The weak Democrat Party of today has embraced this decades old radical, reviled and rejected agenda called “Critical Race Theory” which the Party  and their propaganda arm in the media have all taken up.  But it fosters  a dangerous policy of racial division which tramples on the American ideal of fair play and justice and the goal of treating all people equally,  regardless of race or gender—and it actually embraces and fosters ugly discrimination.  


The Democrats,  a party which long ago abandoned the working classes, farmers and and the middle road, have been driven by political weakness  to cobble together a coalition of radicals, minorities and far left fringe elements, to enable  them to cling to political power, but by a very very slim thread.  One of their fears is that Black Americans who are a critical component of. their coalition must and vote in very high percentages for Democrats to succeed in any national election.  Too many voted otherwise in 2020.  Their fear is that this trend of a weak Black vote will dash future hopes of political success.  Thus they have opted for a dangerous strategy to anneal  these voters to their banner by fostering  the idea of America as a nation of “systematic racism” and to promote Critical Race Theory.  These policies  patronize, weakens and encourages the victimization of the Blacks of this nation, and unearths a reverse form of discrimination which makes victims of whites and asians, males and Christians. Such racist polices to garner political power on the left  can never succeed in the USA. 


The weak , fractious fringe-coalition of socialist extremists of the Democrat Party are  “led” by a frail, figurehead President who is easily controlled.  Biden,  a bumbling old man whose infamous physical inability to even climb the stairs of  Air Force One without stumbling  is a metaphor of his weakness and failure to meet the exigencies and requirements of the Oval Office.  This President,  controlled and  programmed by his racist handlers who whisper “Iago like” into Biden’s “hearing aid”and control. his utterances like  a Manchurian candidate — is a  puppet who  repeats the lie that this country is “systematically racist”.  


Those who smear our nation as “systematically racist” and embrace the rejected concepts of Critical Race theory or phony revisionist history such as the debunked “1619 Project” of the New York Times are the only and actual   “systemic racists” we have in this nation.    


The  American people have always embraced the gold standard of race relations-the colorblind rule and the policy of treating everyone equality. The rebirth of ugly racism on the left to patch up a weak political coalition by the Democrats is dangerous, counterproductive and as un-American as the use of the infamous “N” word itself. 

Saturday, April 24, 2021

ANDREW MILLER FOUNDER OF MILLER PLACE

 HISTORY OF MILLER PLACE

An Account of An Early Seeker of Economic Freedom  


Andrew Miller a 17th Century cooper (cask and barrel maker) left East Hampton,  a township, where land ownership  was restricted by a closed economy and where he was employed building barrels for the whale oil industry.  Miller sought his fortunes in free and unfettered Miller Place on Long Island Sound where he found economic freedom to ply his trade and make his fortune. His new location gave him access to the expanding economy,  across the Sound,  in the rapidly growing English colonies of Connecticut.  


Miller Place is a hamlet in north-central Suffolk County, New York, located just east of Mount Sinai Harbor, a navigable bay and tidal inlet on Long Island’s north shore.  


The first known dwelling in the area, was constructed by a shadowy, little known, Captain  John Scott.  In the 1660s  Scott, a British “land agent” was actually operating in what was Dutch territory. As a result,  he may have had to keep his identity and agency activities “sub rosa” or secret. Perhaps for that reason, he was known only as “the old man”.  The land sales activities of the  “old man” of  the eponymous  “Old Man’s” harbor remained an “under the table” affair until 1664. when the British took over all of Long Island.  Perhaps it was through the agency of Captain Scott that Andrew Miller eventually purchased his 30 acre tract in Old Mans in 1670 or 1671. 


The Harbor is a shallow, marshy bay, separated from Long Island Sound by a bay-mouth-bar, a sandy spit of land originally arising on the west side and which partially closed the small, half-square-mile-in-area bay from the waters of Long Island Sound.  


In its early years, the eastern  inlet permitted coastal vessels access from the Sound.  A navigable channel into the interior permitted small boats to enter most of the bay, especially on flood tides.  The Harbor, with its potential for maritime travel and trade must have been an attractive asset to Andrew Miller who may have planned to exploit the surrounding area for its forest products.  The Harbor itself was an asset to other settlers for  its shallows teeming with shellfish, its salt meadows which provided cattle fodder and bedding, its salt hay was valuable roof thatching and its access to the deep waters of the Sound permitted use of trade routes to Connecticut, and other English colonies on the coast. 


Although there may have been several houses on or near the harbor at Old Man’s (Mount Sinai) legal title of these lands in central Long Island was not secure.  Prior to 1664 the Dutch,  barely 80 miles to the west in New Amsterdam (later New York) claimed this part of Long Island.  While the English colonists of Connecticut, had made inroads onto that claim in the 1620s by establishing colonies on the extreme east ends of the Island, in Southampton and East Hampton, the central part of the Island was too close to Dutch settlements on the Island’s west end to attract settlers. These vacant central Long Island territories  of rich woodlands and potential farm lands remained unsettled and unclaimed due to fear of  potential legal disputes, outright eviction,  and uncertain ownership. And without a prospect for a secure title to the land,  investors and settlers were hesitant to immigrate or invest.  


However, all these concerns  ended abruptly when an English squadron under Colonel Richard Nicholls sailed into New Amsterdam Harbor in 1664 and took that colony from the Dutch governor. Nichols renamed the colony “New York”. That event spurred an early L.I. land boom,  in the formerly disputed and vacant central parts of Long Island.  


These events did not go unnoticed in the minds of more recent immigrants in East Hampton.  That colony, settled in 1640 by a Puritan band of investors or “proprietors” from Lynn, or Salem Massachusetts , comprised a colony which occupied much of the extreme eastern half of the South Fork, as well as Gardiner's Island.


These early colonists were not simple subsistence farmers, but like many immigrants —they were entrepreneurs— eager to exploit the resources of the new world and improve their economic status. And once achieved, perhaps they would return to the mother country as an affluent former colonial.  In East Hampton  the “proprietors” were in fact invested in an early form  of “corporation”, in which each member owned shares in the enterprise.  Their formal contract or agreement provided all original investors and shareholders  a modest land plot in the center of town, where they built their homes, but they also owned “shares” in all of the rest of the township’s acreage, which was designated as “commons”. These commons were owned jointly  by all the original “proprietors” and were available to the shareholders to graze their  cattle, and to exploit the woodlands for their fuel and timber needs. 


 As a consequence of this system, the growth of the colony was limited by the closed nature of land ownership and restricted access to the commons.  


In this early East Hampton which was in one economic sense a form of “feudal manor” there was little opportunity for new families seeking their fortunes to expand and prosper.  


As the Town grew, the apparent weaknes of this  closed form of economy became apparent.  For soon the desperate need arose in the Town for essential artisans, craftsmen, and professionals,  such as blacksmiths, coopers, apothecaries, physicians and others, but the closed economy limited immigration of these craftsmen and professionals. To remedy this problem and assure the Town’s survival,  the proprietors were forced to offer  “allotments” of several acres each to those whose services were needed,  such as a blacksmith, carpenter, farm worker, cooper, shipwright or other craftsman. 


The offer required them to work in the township, and provide their services to the town for a contracted  period of years, at the end of which the allottee  would then own the small plot of land offered to him or her.  But this ownership was limited to the formal allotment. For these individuals opportunities for expansion or entrepreneurship was strictly limited. 


It was into this Puritan dominated, closed economy that the Miller family migrated  in mid 17th Century.  The first member of that family, John Miller,  probably originally from Sussex in England, settled first in Lynn or Salem, Massachusetts.  But Miller found opportunities for economic advantages there limited. So seeking “fresh pastures” he moved on with his family to Southampton in 1643,  and then finding similar restrictions continued on to East Hampton, where he arrived about 1649.  


A year earlier in 1648, the East Hampton proprietors had purchased additional acreage to the east of Town from the Montauk Indians, giving them vast new meadows for grazing their cattle.  It may have been on part of this new purchase that the recent immigrant Miller family settled. after applying for and gaining an allotment from the Town proprietors. 


John’s occupation is not stated, but he may have been a farmer.  His son Andrew Miller, who was born in 1634, probably in Lynn Massachusetts, arrived in East Hampton in 1649 with his father,  and brothers, John, and George.   


With these new east-end lands the East Hampton proprietors were able to expand one of their main enterprises and sources of income: the raising of cattle, sheep and beef on the grazing lands of the township for profitable sale to other English colonies.  The Miller family may have been employed in this town enterprise. 


And  just as importantly, to the proprietors’ income was the new stretches of beach which were part of their new acquisition which extended to Montauk Point in the east. Along these beaches they could increase the exploitation of the pods of migrating Right Whales passing just offshore.  Catching and killing whales for their valuable whale oil (and an even more rare and valuable fluid known as spermaceti) was the town’s main and hugely profitable commercial enterprise.


  The Miller family were permitted allotments by the proprietors becaue they had skills needed by the town for these enterprises. In time the Millers were  to eventually become involved in both of these profitable town enterprises. 


Whales —Right Whales, (Eubalena glacialis)—were common visitors to Long Island waters in the !7th Century, as they migrated along the Atlantic Coast seasonally.   Stranded whales or beached whales were also regular  occurrences along the sandy shores of the South Fork, and initiated the process of hunting the slow swimming beasts in small boats launched from the beach.  In earlier days these strandings even provided a large portion of the food of the Montauk Indians. (The choice portions were the fins and tails of the giant mammals).


The distinctive “V” shaped spouts of these huge fifty-ton,  slow swimming creatures were spotted by (often young) whale watchers on the south shore beaches of East Hampton who would alert their elders at home often by lighting a smokey signal fire.  Small boats were launched from the beach to row up close to the slowly swimming fifty foot long whales.  The whales were harpooned and then killed just offshore.  The floating carcasses were then towed back to the beach, where the body was cut up. The skin, with the valuable blubber which comprised about 40% of the animal’s weight was cut into blocks and rendered into oil by firing in huge vats.  The oil—used as a lubricant—but most importantly for oil lamps—was stored and  transported for sale in 42 gallon wooden barrels.   


Exploiting migrating Right Whales for oil along the south shore beaches, and the production and sale of beef cattle on the east-end meadows and grasslands were the two most important sources of income for the East Hampton proprietors and their most protected and favored enterprises.  


It was into this economic and social environment that Andrew Miller arrived in East Hampton in 1649  as a 15 year old youngster.  


As a young boy, he must have been apprenticed to the town cooper, where after serving a seven year apprenticeship  he would have mastered the essentials of the  craft and  the intricacies of the trade of making casks, buckets, barrels and “pipes” of oak wood.  In 1656 after completing his apprenticeship,  and at the age of 22 years, he was then a journeyman cooper,  and would have been able to leave his master and start a business  of his own. 


In the 17th and 18th Centuries being a cooper insured one of a well paying job and financial security. Coopers were the 16th century equivalent of  “engineers”, or “web developers”,  of the 21 century.  In those early times, wood was used as we use plastic and cardboard today.  The cooper made the casks in which  all products were preserved, stored, or sold.  Every house had its well-water bucket, its milk pails and water troughs, its butter churns, and barrels to store preserved salted meat, barrels for dry storage,  for flour,  seeds, etcetera, etcetera. 


Barrels (42 gallon capacity) and larger containers called “pipes’ (126 gallons) were in great demand as the essential container of almost all trade.  Whale oil, salted meats, fish, shellfish, grains, flour, gunpowder, etc.,  were all stored and shipped in barrels. While wine and beer were brewed and shipped in barrels too.  


Great numbers of these casks were needed for the whale oil industry.  A cooper was THE essential craft in a  time when practically the entire economy rested on exploiting local products, packing them in wood barrels and casks and then shipping them off to other colonies or overseas to the mother county.  As a result, a cooper was guaranteed a high demand for his labor, respect for his craft, and a substantial and stable income.  


In the 17th and 18th centuries an age of extensive maritime trade all carried out in wooden sailing ships, each ship’s hold was filled with products stored in wood casks.  With this great demand for wood  forest products to build the ships and the casks were in great demand.  


Wood was the “petroleum” of those centuries.  It was the main fuel of that age. And like the plastics of today was a building material too. Oak was  needed for the frames and ribs of ships, pine and cedar for their hulls. Oak and hickory were the materials that the cooper used for his craft, especially the white oak wood for the staves and barrel “heads”, and the hickory wood for  the barrel hoops. These wood species were consequently in great demand.  

 

The British, as islanders, became a powerful maritime economy early in their history.  The need for ships and barrels for that economy put great demand on their native forests.  The great oak trees of that well wooded island were cut down early on for fuel, for the pottery and iron smelting industry, and for shipbuilding, and even more wood was needed for the barrels in which the products and supplies the British produced.  


By the 15th Century most of British forests had been cleared.  Britain, needed a secure source of wood for domestic fuel, for ship building and for the barrels in which all of its products were shipped.  

In the 16th and early 17th centuries that nation had to turn to the Baltic states (Latvia, Estonia)  for the oak lumber it so desperately needed. But these nations were poor and could not buy British agricultural or manufactured products. Thus a “balance of trade” problem developed, whereby the British began to run a dreaded “trade deficit” with the Baltic states. This required the government  to  continually pay cash for their desperately needed forest products. In those days cash was the gold bullion held in the Royal mint.  These withdrawals removed visible  “wealth” from the nation and transferred it to the Baltic states.  Such circumstances were a very much undesirable drain on the royal treasury.  This economic situation and high demand  for forest products may have contributed in large measure to what happened far across the Atlantic in the latter 17th Century. 


In 1664 a British squadron under the command of Colonel Richard Nicholls entered New York Harbor (then known as New Amsterdam).  The British took over the Dutch colony without firing a shot.  The acquisition of all of New England from the Dutch in 1664, changed the economic situation for England.  For by taking of New Amsterdam from the Dutch they opened up the vast forests of New York and New England to the British, and their wood-starved shipping industry. 


New England’s pristine forests were the answer to the desperate need for tall spruce and pine trees for the ships’ masts and pine and cedar wood for hulls and oak for the frames of British ships.  But as important, the vast oak forests also provided for the many many  more white and red oak wood trees needed for the innumerable barrels required  to store and ship British  products and fill the holds of British ships.   


After 1664 these resources in New York were all there for the taking by enterprising and ambitious colonials.  And many British colonists already situated in New England and on Long Island were well prepared and placed to take advantage of this opportunity.  We will see that one of these entrepreneurs was Andrew Miller. 


By 1656 East Hampton Town records state that “John Miller, Andrew Miller and George Miller are added to our combination.”  The “combination” was an early association of town residents—often ones who had been allotted parcels within the town.  Andrew who had arrived in the town as a 15 year old youngster, and had served out a seven year apprentice as a cooper,  was at this time, a man of twenty-two years and an established journeyman cooper. It was at this young age and time that he becomes a member of the “combination” in the Town of East Hampton.


Eight years, later in 1664, Town records indicate that Andrew Miller had apparently been living for much of the preceding years on Gardiners Island, located about ten miles northeast of East Hampton town in Gardiners Bay.  There  Andrew was presumably employed at his trade as barrel maker.  At that time Gardiners Island was a semi-independent colony of East Hampton owned and controlled by the Gardiner family, as East Hampton was owned by the “proprietors”. 


 In that year (1664) Andrew  sold his allotment house on Gardiners Island and land to one Jeremiah Conkling and departed the Island.  Andrew, was then 30 years of age, was married to Margaret (—no surname known-) and the records tell us the couple had three children: Andrew, John and Samuel. 


It is unclear where Miller moved his family after leaving Gardiners Island. Perhaps he joined his brother John in Two Mile Hollow in East Hampton. 


John Miller (Andrew’s brother) was a farmer and whaler who lived in east Hampton. close to the  south shore beach, on Two Mile Harbor Road,  just about one mile and a quarter southeast of East Hampton village.  John, was active as a whaler, and probably operated a town sponsored whaling enterprise with the proprietors as major stock owners,  and with their approval. This whaling enterprise was operated from his sea shore property on Two Mile Hollow Road.  It is possible that it was here that Andrew plied his trade of barrel maker,  providing casks for his brother’s (and the 

Town’s) whale oil enterprise. 


Perhaps  the partnership (?) and business (?) flourished.  For four years later, in 1668 the town proprietors allotted Andrew Miller eight (8) acres of woodland next to his brother John’s property on Two Mile Hollow Road.  The allotment agreement with the proprietors stipulated that Andrew would make whale oil casks “for the town use”, but he had to live in East Hampton for three years before the land was his to sell.  


We can assume that Andrew continued his probably well paying, but hard manual labor of building casks for the Town and the whalers until 1671 when he finally owned his allotted acres.  


He was then 37 years of age. He was a successful craftsman.  He had a wife and family. It was a time in life when many see an opportunity and realize that rather than continue to work for others, it is their time to make an opportunity for themselves a reality.  


Miller must have envisioned his economic  opportunity to be in far off Miller Place, then an unsettled land in the wilderness of the north shore of Long Island.  


For at the first opportunity he had for selling his property on Two Mile Hollow Road, he did so.  He left the Puritan sect and the closed economy of the  “proprietors”dominated Town of East Hampton and its economic restrictions on ownership. He chose freedom, entrepreneurship and growth and moved his business and family to far off Miller Place. 


There with his savings and the cash from the sale of his Two Mile Hollow eight acres, he purchased a thirty acre parcel of woodland in “Old Mans”.  But why?


Miller Place did not exist, there was no settlement, no colonists.  It  was vacant woodland with no established customers and no need for whale oil barrels, no settlers in great need of a highly valued, highly paid master cooper.  Miller could have gone anywhere to ply his trade, but he chose heavily wooded, isolated  Miller Place, where huge white oak trees and ancient hickory grew in primeval profusion. 


And as well as this profusion of forest  products, Old Mans was close to a small but navigable harbor which debouched onto Long Island Sound, only twenty four miles (or a four hour sail) across,  to the English colony of New Haven, at that time with a population of about 12,000 citizens.  From there too he had maritime access to all the English colonies..even New York 


  Andrew Miller like his forebears was an entrepreneur who seems to have sought economic freedom and opportunity unfettered by the established religious sect and the closed economy he had experienced in East Hampton.  He sought advancement that was denied him in East Hampton. 


I suggest here that  Miller was attracted to the small north shore harbor of Old Mans because he had a vision of exploiting  the Miller Place forests to cut and prepare  especially valuable four foot white oak wood staves —for barrels called “pipes’ —the larger barrels—which were in great demand in the British colonies of the Barbados and elsewhere in the Caribbean.  


In the British Caribbean colonies  where molasses was produced from sugar cane, oak wood for barrels was scarce.  British colonies needed oak barrels to store, process and ship this product to the rum distillers in New England.  The barrel staves, heads and hoops were sold and shipped in the “broken down” stage. When needed, the staves and barrel heads were put together to form the cask  to be filled. 


Miller may have envisioned an enterprise in which he simply produced barrel staves and their parts, packed them for sale and transit and sold these to various agents in the British colonies. And perhaps too the new rum distilleries and manufacturers which had a burgeoning trade in New England colonies.    


It is very likely that on a warm late spring day in 1671 Andrew Miller and his family, his dogs, livestock, his tools and household, simply boarded a small coastal sailing vessel in Springs or Devon in East Hampton and sailed north through Gardiners Bay, around Orient Point, through the “gut” and there set a course following the curve of the Island’s North Shore bluff to the west 


A southwest sea breeze billowed the ships  oak-tanned sails as they proceeded west southwest along the North Shore of Long Island.  They continued on this course following the steep yellow sand bluffs, topped with greening  forests which here and there extended down to the shore.  A pod of bottle-nosed dolphins, played at the bow of the ship and sea birds flashed white and gray against the deep blue sky. 


Sailing closer to shore. they navigated among clusters of huge boulders washed by the salty waves and draped in sea weed,  where drowsy gray seals stared at them as they passed. 


Finally, a strip of sandy beach and a break in the bluffs signaled they were close to their destination, what was then known as Old Mans harbor.   


Changing course and lowering sail, they proceeded ahead under reduced sail and with the aide of the flood tide glided through a narrow sand choked inlet to enter the small marshy harbor.  The tall mast and fluttering sails  flushed up several pair of geese and ducks as the ship worked its way though a narrow marsh-lined channel where an otter breached to the surface, then 

dived below the hull.  


Ahead, they came to a small sand delta where a fresh water stream entered the Harbor. They nosed the shallow draft boat into the soft fine sand.  Andrew jumped off and taking the bow line tied the craft to a tree stump above the sand bank.   


“This is the place,” Andrew  called to his family.  He  up the sandy bank and looking inland.


The stream flowed along a glacial drainage channel, marked with a faint foot trail and now known as Pipe Stave Hollow.  Here the family loaded their possessions on an ox cart and following a faint foot trail that paralleled the course of the stream bed, they continued southwestward  along what would later become Pipe Stave Hollow Road. 


 It was here perhaps that Miller took note of the profusion of mature white, black and scarlet oaks growing on the slopes of the glacial hills. It was from these trees he could cut and fashion the valuable  “pipe staves” he planned to sell.


 A half mile upstream, the Millers turned left, East onto a faint ox cart track that followed  the rising course of a dry tributary-stream bed which continued inland for about one mile to a wooded, level upland. 


Here among huge oak and sycamores trees they came to an opening where a small pond surrounded with cypress and tupelo sparkled in the sunlight.  A doe deer it’s muzzle dripping water into the still pond surface stared at them as they approached. then bounded off.  


It was here where their 30 acre parcel was laid out. Miller let his oxen and cattle drink at the pond’s edge,  as he unloaded his wagon.   


Miller’s original 30 acre tract may have been laid out from a “big rock” located at the east edge of the pond, then extending 400 feet west,  along the cart path to be later designated as North Country Road, then south for 3000 feet,  and then east for 400 feet (where it would in later years meet the extension of North Country Road), and thence north 3000 feet to the point of starting at the big rock at the northeast corner of the pond. 


This is a likely discription of the boundaries of the original Miller 30 acre tract,  based only on the size and the most likely landmarks that may have been used at that time. I base this clearly conjectural account on my interviews with early farmers ( J. Davis) in Miller Place and Mount Sinai in which he explained how he and his  ancestors determined their own lot boundaries or marked off parcels of land for sale.  All of which was completed not by formal surveys but by pacing along known boundaries or roads from prominent landmarks. 


In choosing his homesite Miller must have recognized the advantages of a parcel which afforded the owner access to water for his horses and cattle and the possibility of digging a well for domestic water close to the home site.  


The original site of the Miller home must have been very close to the present day MillerPlace Pond. Here Miller would have had access to pond water for his stock.  and with a water table close to the surface, this site also  permitted one to easily dig a shallow but free flowing permanent well.  These attributes of the geology of  this place were a critical attraction encouraging  its settlement. And all subsequent  early settlers took advantage of the pond and the shallow (perched) water table to site their homes. 


The result was eventually a small hamlet with homes clustered over a subterranean aquitard (a layer of clay or sediment of low permeability which impedes the downward flow of surface water ) and which produced this unique access to fresh water. This unique geology was a distinct advantage along the North Shore where the permanent water table is often one hundred or more feet deep.  Too deep for a hand dug well.  But not the case in Miller Place where permanent flow of potable water was often less than ten or twelve feet down  


It is not known where Miller’s original house was located, but Mrs Margaret Gass (nee Davis) the venerable dean of town historians indicated to this author that she considered the house located just west of the pond, (#187 North Country Road) to be the likely candidate.  But she cautioned that the two elderly brothers who owned that house near the pond over much of  her early childhood had so altered the structure that she thought there would be little evidence of it early history.  (Pers comm. @1995)  


Wherever Miller’s original home was located in the hamlet,  (and it was likely closer to the pond) he must have practiced his trade of cooper.  We have no record of Miller making major sales of pipes or barrels to other British colonies. But it remains a possibility.  


Perhaps with the rapid immigration of settlers and growth of Miller Place, Andrew Miller’s business stayed local where he had more than enough work making casks, “pipes”, hogs heads, water buckets, butter churns,  and barrels of wood—and selling them to local homesteaders, fishermen, baymen and others who used them to store and preserve their products of their trade or business .  


The local road  Pipestave Hollow Road,  may have been named by Miller himself as a place to secure, along its wooded slopes,  the red oak or white oak logs he needed to produce the barrel and pipe staves necessary for his trade.   Of particular value were the staves for pipes which had to be over four feet long.  Raw cut and trimmed pipe staves were one of the earliest exports to England from its New York  colonies.  The longer red or white oak wood for pipes was scarce in England and Miller may have when the opportunity arose exploited the virgin woodlands in Miller Place for this valuable product.  


In only a few decades the Miller family had grown and prospered.   Its members soon owned several houses in the hamlet.  Other settlers arrived and purchased plots close to the pond and within the zone where they could dig a shallow well for potable water.  


This author excavated the site of a 19th century blacksmith located just north of the pond.  


The small community was known as “Miller’s Place”, where at the Miller cooperage settlers  could buy either finished casks or the parts to make, pipes and barrels to store or pack for trade their products.  


Among the several Miller homes in Town are the William Miller House,  still standing today, built by Miller’s grandson William Miller in 1720, and added on to over the decades until about 1816.    The Samuel Hopkins House on Pipe Stave Hollow Road near the Harbor was built in 1770, and the lovely Timothy Miller House right on North country Road in the heart of the hamlet was built in 1785.   


The large house across from the pond owned by the Davis/Gass family was once the home of the Mayor of New York City Caleb Smith Woodhull (1792-1866) who served as mayor of the New York City from 1849-1851.