The SOUTH ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT —
"[The] blog he developed was something that made the district better." - Tim Jemal, SOCCCD BoT President, 7/24/23
I hand you my ball and chain You just hand me that same old refrain I'm walking on a wire, I'm walking on a wire And I'm falling I wish I could please you tonight But my medicine just won't come right I'm walking on a wire, I'm walking on a wire And I'm falling Too many steps to take Too many spells to break Too many nights awake And no one else This grindstone's wearing me Your claws are tearing me Don't use me endlessly It's too long, too long to myself Where's the justice and where's the sense? When all the pain is on my side of the fence I'm walking on a wire, I'm walking on a wire And I'm falling Too many steps to take Too many spells to break Too many nights awake And no one else This grindstone's wearing me Your claws are tearing me Don't use me endlessly It's too long, it's too long to myself It scares you when you don't know Whichever way the wind might blow I'm walking on a wire, I'm walking on a wire And I'm falling I'm walking on a wire, I'm walking on a wire And I'm falling I'm walking on a wire, I'm walking on a wire And I'm falling
When I was a kid, Feliciano lived up the street. But I never saw him, and I'm sure he never saw me.
Anyone who skims or peruses old Central Montanan newspapers from around the turn of the (19th) century cannot avoid noticing that the denizens of that region were (they still are!) mighty conservative—as in "classical liberal" or "libertarian." True, the conservative and dominant Fergus County Argus had competition, for a time, from the Fergus County Democrat, but these Democrats were not socialists. But, as its turns out, socialism did emerge—and soon fade—in Montana during the first two or three decades of the Twentieth Century, and it turns out that Lewistown, of all places, was the locus of the state's first socialist newspaper!.... READ MORE
The Supreme Court’s decision upholding President Trump’s travel ban on Tuesday came with a number of interesting wrinkles. It contained an implicit rebuke of Trump’s motives in signing the order, even though it let the order stand. And it repudiated Korematsu vs. United States, a discredited 1944 decision that allowed the U.S. to send Japanese-American citizens to internment camps during wartime, even as it upheld a policy with a discriminatory motive on grounds similar to that 70-year-old ruling….
. . .
… Sometimes the Court is willing to deem a government action constitutional by pretending that the government’s underlying purpose was something acceptable, rather than something forbidden. And sometimes the Court decides that even if a governmental action is or might be fully unconstitutional, there's simply nothing to be done about it by the justice system. In other words, the Court sometimes lets unconstitutional behavior stand. If Tuesday’s decision is read closely, it is possible to see both of those limits at work. Indeed, it is reasonable to read the opinions to mean that at least five Justices, not just the dissenting four, believe the President acted unconstitutionally in proclaiming his travel ban. But just because something is unconstitutional doesn’t mean that the Court will strike it down.
Consider first the majority opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts, which found a way to acknowledge the President’s unconstitutional motivations without concluding that the policy itself was unconstitutional. Roberts’s opinion spent no less than a page and a half chronicling some of Trump’s statements, as a candidate and as President, suggesting that the travel ban is motivated by anti-Muslim animus. (The ban, which restricts travel from Iran, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, Venezuela and North Korea, is the third version of an order that originally applied only to a group of Muslim countries.) An anti-Muslim motive would make the ban unconstitutional under the First Amendment, which forbids the government to disfavor particular religions. But that’s not what Roberts ruled. In the end, the Chief Justice decided for the President on the theory that the policy “can reasonably be understood to result from a justification independent of unconstitutional grounds.” This is what constitutional lawyers call the “rational-basis test”: even if the actual reason the ban exists is rooted in an unconstitutional motive like religious bigotry, the Court will let the ban stand if the judges can imagine some legitimate interest that could have motivated the order….
"I'm Jimmy Carl Black and I'm the Indian of the group."
Some of you might remember the issue, several years ago, concerning a tenured IVC Librarian, Carol Wassman, whose conduct became a problem for the college. Ultimately, she was fired. Her firing led to a lawsuit, which Wassman lost in 2016. She appealed. She lost that too. The opinion was filed two weeks ago (it became available for publication on the 21st).
I know about the latter filing because, tonight, I somehow happened upon the recent opinion on a site called “Justia.” Not sure how that happened.
You can find it here:
The South Orange County Community College District (the District) dismissed Carol Wassmann from employment as a tenured librarian at Irvine Valley College (IVC) in April 2011. Several years later, Wassmann obtained a right to sue notice from the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) and brought this lawsuit against the District, Karima Feldhus, Robert Brumucci [sic], Glenn Roquemore, Lewis Long, and Katherine Schmeidler. Wassmann, who is African-American, alleged causes of action for racial discrimination, age discrimination, and harassment in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), intentional infliction of emotional distress, and two other causes of action (not relevant here). The trial court granted two motions for summary judgment: one brought by the District Defendants and the other brought by Long and Schmeidler, on the ground the FEHA claims were barred by res judicata, collateral estoppel, or failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and the intentional infliction of emotional distress cause of action was barred by res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the statute of limitations. Wassmann appealed, but finding no reversible error in the grant of summary judgment, the Court of Appeal affirmed.
I looked over the opinion, filed 6-12-18. Here’s some info based on that reading:
Back in 2010, Wassman’s dean (Feldus) tried to deal with what she judged to be Wassman’s unprofessional conduct. Here’s the beginning of the section of the opinion that discusses that alleged conduct:
(The section describing the struggle to curb W’s [alleged] excesses is long and remarkable. I won’t go through all of that here. See the above link.)
During this period, Wassman, as a member of the Faculty Association (union), was represented by two union officers: L Long and K Schmeidler.
I was a friend of Carol’s, having gotten to know her on the Senate. At some point, I met with her and urged her to accommodate the dean to keep her job. I gently suggested that, if she lost her job and sued, she would not likely prevail. (I felt strongly that she didn't have a leg to stand on. Her conduct, what I knew of it, struck me as very unprofessional.)
She was not disposed to take such advice. "You can't afford to lose this job," I told her. (I knew something about her circumstances.) But she was unmoved.
Ultimately, Wassman was dismissed as a tenured librarian. That was on April 2011.
Wassman filed her lawsuit Dec 2013.
District defendants: [Dean] Feldus, [Vice Chancellor] Bramacci, [IVC President] Roquemore
FA defendants (!): Long and Schmeidler.
Ultimately, Wassman offered six causes of action. (1) age discrimination, (2) racial discrimination—disparate treatment, (3) harassment (hostile environment), (4) wrongful termination, (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (6) unfair business practices.
1, 2, 4, and 6 were applied to district defendants (i.e., Feldus, Bramucci, Roquemore).
3 and 5 were applied to all defendants (i.e., union officers Long and Schmeidler too).
Next: unsurprisingly, district defendants (Feldus, et al.) filed a motion for summary judgment. Long and Schmeidler also filed such a motion. This is a request that the court summarily deal with the case instead of going through all the trouble of a long trial. (I—i.e., my lawyer—made the same move in my 1st Amendment suit against the district in 1998.)
The trial court granted both motions.
That was a victory for defendants, a major loss for Wassman.
With regard to the district defendants: causes 1, 2, 3 were barred for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and “res judicata,” which, according to my Mac’s dictionary, is “a matter that has been adjudicated by a competent court and may not be pursued further by the same parties.”
Cause 5 failed because it was derivative of the above 3 causes, and because of the statute of limitations.
For L and S:
Cause 3 was barred for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
Cause 5 failed because it was derived from the first three and because of the statute of limitations. Also, for technical reasons (incompetence of filing), Wassman had not actually managed to oppose L and S’s motion.
Wassman appealed.
At the end of the appeals process, the original judgment was affirmed.
Well, again, if you're interested in the details, go here: Justia Opinion
Situations like this cause administrators to adopt a slew of unfortunate CYA behaviors.
Can't really blame 'em, I guess. Litigation is hell. People start saying amazing things at you. It's hard to process that. You kinda get used to it, I guess, but still....
George Will, a longtime political commentator and staunch defender of the conservative movement, chided the Republican Party, citing the party’s support for Donald Trump in the upcoming 2020 presidential election.
On Friday, Will published a column in the Washington Post explaining his view, using the kind of excoriating language his columns are known for. The column, titled “Vote against the GOP this November,” argued that the number of Republicans in Congress “must be substantially reduced.”….
The never-Trumpers are having an interesting debate over the question, Is it time to leave the Republican Party? George Will and Steve Schmidt say yes: The Trumpian rot is all the way down. Bill Kristol says not so fast: Once Donald Trump falls, the party could be brought back to health, and the fight has to be within the party as well as without it.
. . .
Burke
Conservatism, as Roger Scruton reminds us, was founded during the 18th-century Enlightenment. In France, Britain and the American colonies, Enlightenment thinkers were throwing off monarchic power and seeking to build an order based on reason and consent of the governed. Society is best seen as a social contract, these Enlightenment thinkers said. Free individuals get together and contract with one another to create order.
Conservatives said we agree with the general effort but think you’ve got human nature wrong. There never was such a thing as an autonomous, free individual who could gather with others to create order. Rather, individuals emerge out of families, communities, faiths, neighborhoods and nations. The order comes first. Individual freedom is an artifact of that order [that sacred space].
. . .
Locke
Conservatives fought big government not because they hated the state, per se, but because they loved the sacred space. The last attempts to build a conservatism around the sacred space were George W. Bush’s “compassionate conservatism” and, in Britain, David Cameron’s Big Society conservatism.
They both fizzled because over the last 30 years the parties of the right drifted from conservatism. The Republican Party became the party of market fundamentalism.
Market fundamentalism is an inhumane philosophy that makes economic growth society’s prime value and leaves people atomized and unattached. Republican voters eventually rejected market fundamentalism and went for the tribalism of Donald Trump because at least he gave them a sense of social belonging….
. . .
Mill
Today you can be a conservative or a Republican, but you can’t be both.
The new threats to the sacred space demand a fundamental rethinking for conservatives. You can’t do that rethinking if you are imprisoned in a partisan mind-set or if you dismiss half of Americans because they are on the “other team.”….
TRUMPISM AS A FAILURE OF AMERICAN EDUCATION. In my recent Philosophy 2 courses, I (briefly) focused on this conservatism, on Liberalism, and the relationship of these philosophies to Trumpism.
Among other things, Trumpism is a massive failure of our educational system. Most Americans don't know the first thing about political philosophy. One who understands and has some fidelity to either conservatism or Lockean liberalism (and its descendants: classical and social liberalism) (or both) will utterly reject Mr. Trump and his politics.
VARIOUS CONSERVATIVE VOICES—ON TRUMP:
Charles Krauthammer:
"I used to think Trump was an 11-year-old, an undeveloped schoolyard bully. I was off by about 10 years. His needs are more primitive, an infantile hunger for approval and praise, a craving that can never be satisfied. He lives in a cocoon of solipsism where the world outside himself has value — indeed exists — only insofar as it sustains and inflates him."
David Frum:
Let Trump be Trump.
Let decent people be decent.
Trust your country—not all of it, sadly, but enough of it—to notice and appreciate the difference.
Bill Kristol:
“I’m a little surprised by my own reactions over the last two or three months.... One really is conflicted. I really could make a case that the country would be better off with the Democrats running the House, because, if the Republicans aren’t willing to check Trump, someone has to.”
Jonah Goldberg:
"Off the record, Republicans often say they’re afraid Trump responds to being told not to do something by doing it out of spite. That’s a real concern. But it’s not an excuse [for not telling him to stop doing something].
If Trump does fire Mueller and a constitutional crisis ensues, the previously silent, suddenly angry Republicans will be asked why they’re speaking up now. That is, if they speak up at all."
* * * * *
My latest post about life in central Montana a century ago: Freezing to death
Montana isn't the coldest state. Still, brrr-wise, it's pretty chill. The names people choose to use about things and places tell us much about them and about their relationship to those things. Montanans have creeks named "Froze to Death" and "Starve to Death"....
If anyone is interested, here are some recent posts on my Jenni Family blog. It concerns a famous hanging that occurred, in Lewistown, Montana, in 1900, over a double murder, occurring in a remote area to the east, to acquire 700 or so sheep, by three young men.
The Musselshell River
A hanging in Lewistown, Part 1: double murder at the Musselshell - 1898: evidently, two men are murdered, in a desolate region near Musselshell River, 70 miles to the east, over sheep. There's a bloody trail, no bodies. Eventually, remnants of bodies are found, mostly burned.
A hanging in Lewistown, Part 2: Billy Calder convicted of murder - Three men are arrested: Billy Calder (26), Jimmy Calder (18), and Eli Fisher (21). Billy bullied the others into participating, it seems. Billy defiantly blames others, including his hated stepfather, for the killings.
And I followed her to the station With a suitcase in my hand And I followed her to the station With a suitcase in my hand Well, it's hard to tell, it's hard to tell When all your love's in vain All my love's in vain When the train rolled up to the station I looked her in the eye When the train rolled up to the station And I looked her in the eye Well, I was lonesome, I felt so lonesome And I could not help but cry All my love's in vain When the train, it left the station With two lights on behind When the train, it left the station With two lights on behind Well, the blue light was my blues And the red light was my mind All my love's in vain
Let me ride on the Wall Of Death one more time Let me ride on the Wall Of Death one more time You can waste your time on the other rides This is the nearest to being alive Oh let me take my chances on the Wall Of Death You can go with the crazy people in the Crooked House You can fly away on the Rocket or spin in the Mouse The Tunnel Of Love might amuse you Noah's Ark might confuse you But let me take my chances on the Wall Of Death On the Wall Of Death all the world is far from me On the Wall Of Death it's the nearest to being free Well you're going nowhere when you ride on the carousel And maybe you're strong but what's the good of ringing a bell The switchback will make you crazy. Beware of the bearded lady Oh let me take my chances on the Wall Of Death Let me ride on the Wall Of Death one more time Oh let me ride on the Wall Of Death one more time You can waste your time on the other rides This is the nearest to being alive Oh let me take my chances on the Wall Of Death Let me take my chances on the Wall Of Death Oh let me take my chances on the Wall Of Death
He's five foot-two and he's six feet-four He fights with missiles and with spears He's all of thirty-one and he's only seventeen He's been a soldier for a thousand years He's a Christian a Hindu an Atheist a Jain A Buddhist and a Muslim and a Jew And he knows he shouldn't kill And he knows he always will Kill you for me my friend and me for you And he's fighting for Palestine He's fighting for Israel He's fighting for the USA And he's fighting for the Russians And he's fighting for Iran And he thinks we'll put an end to war this way And he's fighting for Democracy He's fighting for his soil He says it's for the peace of all He's the one who must decide Who's to live and who's to die And he never sees the writing on the wall But without him how would Hitler have condemned them at ... Without him Caesar would have stood alone He's the one who gives his body as a weapon for war And without him all this killing can't go on No He's the universal soldier and he really is to blame His orders come from far away no more They come from here and there and you and me and brothers can't you see This is not the way we put the end to war No
I knew Virginia once She was a pretty girl She walked in the wild fields And swam the wild streams I took her out one day to the Civil War battlefield Way down in Manassas Where I told her my dreams [Chorus] But now it's Disney's America A long way from anywhere You get what you pay for there Man, you get it in spades Just Disney's America Virginia she chose to stay And we drifted apart like runoff Into the Chesapeake Bay Then I had a family Virginia, I guess she forgot about me She lives near the concrete sea Or so people say I don't remember much About her gentle touch My skin just turned so hard And my feet turned to clay [Chorus]
You can[’t] get too excited
You can[’t] get too enthused
From Dismal Land to the Tragic Mountain
We are not amused I knew Virginia once She was a pretty thing....
Here's another post on the historical blog I'm doing for a friend. You might find it interesting. And scary!
You'll recall that Emma, wife of Fred Jenni (Sr.), died tragically at age 33 in 1906. That left her husband, Fred, a hard-working farmer, to deal also with a house full of children, including an infant [at his isolated farm in Fergus County, Montana].
According to newspaper accounts, Emma's sister, Frieda White (née Flueckinger), then 26 years old, came to the assistance of Fred and his family. I recall reporting previously that, by that time, she had married Charles White—a much older man—and that she had a child with him in 1899. As far as I knew, she was still married to White in 1906.
I am intrigued by Frieda, in part because we have a good photo of her, and, well, there you go. My perusal of Ancestry.com made clear that Frieda married again in 1907 but also that Charles L. White, her husband, was still alive (until 1915).
But I could find no record of a divorce decree.
Frieda's marriage to White was common in the era. She was eighteen years old when she married; White was forty-seven. Pretty creepy, but that's a matter for another day.
I examined Frieda's marriage license/certificate of 1907, when she married Hubby #2, Frederick Huppi, and it appears that she made no secret of her having been married previously, to White.
So did she get a divorce? Wouldn't that have been unusual in 1906 Montana? Just what is the story here?
I took another tack. I searched "Charles White" in local newspapers in the period between 1890 and 1920.
Voila!
It turns out that Charles White had mental health problems that involved violence, or at least threats of violence.
I'll let the newspaper articles tell the story (though one wonders what they didn't tell).
2-2-98 Fergus Co. Argus
Anything's possible, I suppose, but it's hard not to wonder if Frieda, at age 18, felt tremendous pressures to marry someone, even if he was more than twice her age. Pretty sad.
2-15-05 Fergus Co. Argus
—A week after White's self-surrender:
2-22-05 Fergus Co. Argus
He didn't stay there long, as we'll see. I suspect that Frieda and her son had at some point moved in with Fred Jenni to get away from Charles.
Four months later:
6-21-05 Fergus Co. Argus
Three weeks later:
7-14-05 Fergus Co. Argus
Subsequently, the authorities check in on White, who claims to have taken poison....
7-14-05 Fergus Co. Argus
White requests being sent to the asylum, where he'd been housed months earlier. But he was released.
8-8-05 Fergus Co. Argus
Request granted:
8-29-05 Fergus Co. Argus
I have found nothing else about White's institutionalization and death. The records at Ancestry.com, such as they are, indicate that White died in 1915. I can find no newspaper articles reporting his death.
As I said, Frieda married in 1907, two years after winning a divorce from White. (See below.)
Here's a collection of relevant documents:
1900 Census. Charles White family included. (Frida and son Clarence are part of the household).
Frieda and Charles' wedding papers, 1898
1907 wedding documents
But where did Frieda and her new family go? When did she die?
Prior to 1869, Montana Territory made no special provisions for mental patients, their care generally being left to regular hospitals. The Helena Weekly Herald in a September 19, 1867, article on the county hospital commented on the need for a territorial insane asylum, stating that the county hospital was not the proper place for a "lunatic."
Two years later the 6th Territorial Legislative Assembly passed a law authorizing an official territorial insane asylum to be owned and managed on a contract basis by private parties. A board of commissioners was established with one representative from each judicial district to oversee the asylum, establish rules for its operation, and perform periodic inspections.
Until 1877 St. John's Hospital in Helena served as the territorial asylum. By 1874 it was accepting sufficient numbers of patients committed by Governor Benjamin Potts to require the construction of a separate building behind the main hospital. In 1877 Drs. Armistead H. Mitchell (1831-1898) and Charles F. Mussigbrod (d.1893), owners of a hotel and spa at Warm Springs, Montana, were awarded the contract for the care of the territory's mental patients. By 1886 the partners had expanded their operation from 160 acres to 1640 acres and from two buildings to thirty-two buildings, including a larger hotel, a house for convalescents, a separate building for violent patients, a large plunge pool, a laundry, storehouses, icehouses, and many other outbuildings. From 1891 to 1907 the hospital was run by Dr. O.Y. Warren, who was in turn succeeded by Dr. J.M. Scanland, son-in-law of Dr. Mitchell. Under private operation, the asylum continued to operate the hotel and run a large farm, specializing in pedigreed cattle.
In 1910 a constitutional amendment was passed allowing the state to acquire the asylum. Negotiations were begun and on December 1, 1912, the Warm Springs hospital became a state institution. Dr. Scanland continued as superintendent. In 1917 the governor appointed a special commission to investigate charges of gross mismanagement and corruption at the hospital. The hospital management was exonerated of all charges. Gradually under state operation the emphasis changed from a custodial asylum to a hospital, as more modern procedures were adopted, but efforts were hampered by low funding. Care costs in 1938 of $.60 per day per patient were the lowest in the nation. As concepts of treatment of mental patients changed, the average patient load dropped dramatically from a high of over 1900 in the early 1950s to 1112 in 1972. Numbers of admissions per year were higher, but average length of stay was much shorter. Over the years the hospital operated under a variety of names including Mitchell and Mussigbrod, Insane Asylum of the State of Montana, Montana State Hospital for the Insane, Montana State Insane Asylum, Montana State Hospital, and Warm Springs State Hospital.
In 1924, headlines across the state decried the “butchery of the helpless” at the Montana State Hospital for the Insane at Warm Springs, where eleven inmates were forcibly sterilized. Hospital staff responded that all sterilizations had received the required approval and that eugenics was “necessary to the future welfare of Montana.” Eugenics—the idea that “human perfection could be developed through selective breeding”—grew in popularity in the early twentieth century, including support for forced sterilization. The movement reached its zenith in Montana in the early 1930s, and, despite growing concerns, the practice of forced sterilizations continued into the 1970s.
Montanans’ support for forced sterilization was part of a national trend. Eugenics proponent Albert E. Wiggam, a national lecturer and trained psychologist, helped spread the eugenics gospel in Montana through a column in the Missoulian. “Already we are taxing ourselves for asylums and hospitals and jails to take care of millions who ought never to have been born,” Wiggam wrote. Many Montanans agreed, including the Helena mother who wrote the state hospital in 1924 in support of sterilization polices. “I am a tax payer. That means I wish there was no insane, no feeble minded, and no criminals to support and to fear. . . . The very fact that these people are inmates of state institutions proves that they are morally or mentally unfit to propagate their kind.”
Montana institutions began sterilizing selected inmates in the 1910s, but it was not until 1923 that the state legislature created the Board of Eugenics to regulate the practice….
Dennis Hof, center, and Heidi Fleiss, right, react after receiving election results June 12 in Pahrump, Nev.
David Montero / Los Angeles Times
If it’s not all juxtaposition, she asked, what is the binding agent? - Forrest Gander
It's beginning to feel like summer. Rebel Girl has begun to read the morning newspapers (two!) and linger over them. She has even begun to write. The time and the newspapers have given her lots to think about. Her goals? A draft of a story or essay or poem - one per week. We'll see if she can keep up the pace and her promise to herself. Still, she already feels mildly successful.
This week she was inspired by election results last week which included the the victory of Dennis Hof, the self-proclaimed "Trump from Pahrump," who may very well be headed to the Nevada statehouse. David Montero's article "Dennis Hof: A pimp, a brothel owner, a businessman and now GOP nominee in Nevada" in the Los Angeles Times tells the story which evoked a great deal in Rebel Girl. She could have gone in the direction of her own time in Pahrump in the 80s and 90s, but instead she went to her childhood and her fascination with the word "brothel."
The moody result was picked by by the Los Angeles Review of Books and published online today. (That's pretty big," remarked her son who is not easily impressed. Most sixteen-year-old are not impressed by their parents.) Check it out below and click to read it in its entirety. It's all of two tight paragraphs. A meditation, an excavation. She hopes LARB might be interested in some of her other work. She's got a few things started: one about the death of Ronald Reagan, the other about an educator who, all in good fun (ha ha ha) disseminates links to photos of a rival college's misbehaving cheerleader squad. We'll see.
Brothel owner and reality TV star Dennis Hof advances in Nevada election. “Call him a pimp. A brothel owner. A businessman. Now call him the Republican nominee for a Nevada State Assembly seat…Hof, who has billed himself as the “Trump from Pahrump,” nabbed the endorsement of Nye County’s Republicans.” –David Montero, Los Angeles Times, June 13, 2018
The “Trump from Pahrump.” A brothel owner.
As a child, “brothel” was one of the words that fascinated me. I found it in the books my mother stuffed under her bed, the ones I was not supposed to read but did anyway when she was at work. She was at work a lot. I found it in the paperback books I bought at the corner liquor stores, the ones I found on the spinning racks by the magazines. (Remember when liquor stores sold books? The corner liquor store was my first bookstore. This was in the early 1970s.) I favored Tudor romances, Henry the VIII and his doomed wives. I especially liked the court intrigue, the young women on the margins, the virtuous servant girls and meek attendants who caught the eyes of courtiers (another romantic word!), the ones who had fine ankles and slim necks and who could, despite their humble origins, sing a light air, play a lute, or embroider a fine stitch.
I’ve been doing lots of research concerning the saga of the Jenni family of Central Montana. Here's a little bit of it. It’s pretty eye-opening.
Feminists will be interested, I think.
From
FIRST, some (brief) background: Fred Jenni (aka Friedrich) immigrated with his family to the US from Switzerland in 1869, when he was 13 years old. The family settled in Amazonia, Missouri, where they farmed.
By 1881, Fred—aged 25—struck out on his own, soon settling in central Montana, where he established his Beaver Creek homestead. His younger brother John (b. 1863) soon joined him. The two “Jenni boys” worked hard and gradually became highly regarded ranchers/farmers in central Montana.
When their father, Samuel Jenni, died of yellow fever in 1884, their mother, Anna Segesseman (b. 1820) came out; they built her a big house (shared with Fred), but she soon died of pneumonia (in 1885 or 1886). Still, the Jenni Bros persevered and prospered, their brother Gottlieb (b. 1859) joining them.
In 1890, John married Swiss immigrant Albertena Dieziger; the two eventually had five children. In 1891, Fred met another Swiss immigrant—Emma, also from a family in Amazonia. They married—Charlie Russell was among their wedding guests—and commenced building a large family.
* * *
Frieda Flueckiger
OK, here’s the thing. Emma’s folks were Fredrich “Fritz” Flueckiger (1845-1924) and Anna Maria Scheidegger (1856–1886). They lived in a small town outside of Bern, Switzerland (about 20 miles from the Jennis' hometown).
They had lots of kids. Friedrich (“Fritz”) came in 1870; Emma: 1873; Bertha: 1875 (she died in ’83); Alfred: 1876; Frieda: 1879; Johannes: 1881 (he died in 1897).
In 1883, the family emigrated. They ended up in Amazonia, Missouri.
In 1885, Carl (aka “Charlie”), child No. 7, arrived. Anna died soon thereafter, in 1886.
She died in Missouri, though she seemed to be buried in Ohio (Navarre, Stark County). There’s a family portrait, c. 1893, evidently taken in Cleveland, Ohio, so maybe their base was Ohio. Not sure.
Near as I can tell, after Anna’s death, the Flueckigers continued to live in Missouri (or Ohio?), but, in 1891, Emma, then 18, traveled to the wilds of central Montana, and soon married 35-year-old Fred(erick) Jenni—most of whose family were also living in Amazonia. I suspect the two families knew each other.
John Jenni (1863-1939)
Meanwhile, in 1890, procreation-wise, Herr Flueckiger wasn’t done yet; he now married Rosina Heck (1846-1940), a German woman who already had at least one child, Louis (b. 1884), from her marriage with Christopher Grossman, who died in 1884. So Fritz Flueckiger added two more to his herd of seven: Rosa (1891) and Walter (1893). That's a total of nine, not even including the step-son, Louis.
Not to be outdone, Emma—and Fred, of course—took up where Anna had left off. They produced Anna Friedalena (’93), Louise Margaret (’94), Maria Emma (’95), Frederick John (’97), Hulda C (’98), Clara Elizabeth (’00), Lena Lillian (’03), and finally Samuel Gottlieb in ’06. That’s eight.
Charlie Russell
Emma died two months after Samuel’s birth—during minor surgery, which was somehow accompanied by an epileptic fit. She was thirty-three years old. Naturally, Fred was overwhelmed. He gave the infant, Samuel, to a local couple (who eventually adopted him). Emma’s younger sister, Frieda (b. 1879; by then married to a Mr. Charles White, b. 1855!), came to help out. All the kids took up the slack created by mom’s death....
Here’s a picture of Fred and Emma's family. Assuming that the young boy is Samuel, and given that he's about ten years old here, I figure the picture was taken in about 1916—ten years after Emma's death.
The Fred Jenni family - 1916?
Here's a contemporary photo of John and Albertena's family:
Here are some other photos, mostly of the Flueckingers.
Friedrich J. Flueckinger (b. 1845), wife Rosina (b. 1846), daughter,
Rosa (b. 1891) on his lap; step-son Louis Grossman standing;
daughter Frieda (b. 1879) standing with arm on Rosina; baby
Walter Eugene Flueckinger (b. 1893) on Rosina's lap. I'm guessing
this photo was taken in 1893 or 1894.
C. 1898: Herr Flueckiger and sons.
Left to right: Fred Jr. (b. 1870), Frederick (b. 1845),
Alfred (b. 1876)—and Charlie (b. 1885) in front.
1918?
Carl (Charlie) Flueckinger, b. 1885 (d. 1956)
I believe Charlie married and became a minister.
Walter Eugene Flueckinger (b. 1893), 10 Sept 1919, Rushville, Nebraska.
Wedding photo of Walter and Esther Marie Jungck (b. 1899)
1929: Alfred Flueckinger (1876-1942), wife Helen Tonn (1880-1966), and Louis Grossman (b. 1884).
Grossman was Frederick Flueckinger's stepson.
Elsie Marie Flueckinger (1916–2011), daughter of Alfred and Helen
1902: Alfred Flueckinger & Helen Tonn, Rushville, Nebraska
I think that's Frederick Flueckinger at right.
Not sure about the cat.
