OatesJW

ON THE ROAD TO MORE ROAD

Jeff Elliott Leave a comment

It’s election day, 1910: Will you vote for California to create a state highway system? It’s not an easy decision.

Another use for the modern automobile: Dressing it up as a parade float. Florence Edwards, wife of Santa Rosa mayor James Edwards, and her sister Katherine Rockwell driving their entry in the 1910 Santa Rosa Rose Carnival. Underneath all those blossoms was a 1909 or 1910 model Buick Model 10 Runabout, which was a 22.5 horsepower three-seater (there was a “mother-in-law” seat in the rear not visible in this image). The local Buick dealer was Santa Rosa Garage at 216 B Street. Photo courtesy Rockwell family archives 

There were now three auto dealerships in downtown Santa Rosa and judging by the large, expensive ads crowding the pages of both local papers in 1910, the town was more car crazy than ever. Buying a car was usually no longer a newsworthy item, but the gossip columns kept track of whom was driving where for whatever. The first auto fatality was also recorded that year; a nine-year old boy was killed by an auto at the corner of Third and B. The coroner’s jury found the driver blameless – the child simply dashed in front of the car without looking.

But the most significant event of the year was the upcoming vote on the State Highways Act. California voters were being asked to approve a state bond for a jaw-dropping $18 million that would last until the futuristic year of 1961. The bond would pay for the construction of two highways running north-south. One would follow the the Central Valley through Sacramento, becoming more-or-less the route of today’s I-5; the other highway route would be “along the Pacific coast,” although it was left undetermined if that would be a true coastal road such as modern highway 1 or follow the trail of El Camino Real, becoming highway 101. “Several county seats lying east and west” of each highway were promised connections via new branch roads.

At this point, Gentle Reader’s mouse finger is probably getting twitchy; reading about old state bond measures sounds just about as boring as, well, reading about old state bond measures. But there is a point to be made and hopefully you’ll stick around for a few more paragraphs.

James Wyatt Oates, president of the Sonoma County Automobile Association, wrote a lengthy defense of the Act in the Santa Rosa Republican. He argued the new system would probably be more cost-effective (while admitting he didn’t know how much was currently being spent on county roads) and that the system would end the haphazard local maintenance (while overlooking it would be up to the same locals to maintain any new state road construction, and doing so without state financial help).

There were loopholes and other unsavory details in the Act that Oates neglected to mention but were being hotly debated in newspapers around the state. Warnings were sounded over the politically-appointed advisory board that determined the exact locations of the new roads; they would be wielding enormous political power – a sensitive issue in California, which was still trying to wriggle out from under the cloven hoof of the Southern Pacific Railroad.

There was particular concern over the repayment demands. Whenever any bond money was spent in a county, it was required to pay four percent back to the state (the amount of interest paid on the bonds). That sounds fair on paper, but consider that neither highway would cross through bridge-less San Francisco County – the wealthiest part of California – so the region most likely to profit from the new intrastate road system would pay little or nothing. Counties in the path of the highways might gain an income windfall for turning county roads over to state ownership, but that would create holy hell in Los Angeles County, which had recently sold $3.5 million in road bonds; paying the state its four percent for roadwork plus the interest due from those earlier bonds meant that Los Angelenos would be double-taxed. There were many poor, eastern counties such as Amador complaining they would see no benefit at all because they were too far away from the action. For these reasons and more, opposition was stiff. The popular California Good Roads Association and the Automobile club of Southern California campaigned against approval.

With all that it mind, let’s pretend it’s the morning of November 8, 1910, and you are an average Santa Rosa voter (meaning, you are male and have a receipt showing you’ve paid the poll tax). How will you vote?

Before marking the ballot yes or no, further consider this: You and yours can’t expect to personally ever enjoy the new road system. The average household income in 1910 Santa Rosa was around $600, which meant that a car big enough to seat your family would cost around two full years’ pay. Even the tiny Buick runabout shown in the picture above was out of reach (it sold for $900). Yes, the situation would change in the near future, thanks to Henry Ford; five years later, a new Ford would cost as low as $360, making autos affordable to nearly everyone – but 1910 voters couldn’t see into the future. So while the new highways might offer local advantages in trucking crops to market and such, cruising around the Golden State on those endless miles of beautiful fresh pavement was a pleasure reserved for the wealthy. People like James Wyatt Oates, relentless crusader for more roads.

Come election day, Los Angeles voted against it 3 to 1. It won 55 percent approval in Sonoma County and passed statewide.

Passage of the State Highways Act bond was a turning point in California’s history; it’s impossible to imagine the state would have experienced its later decades of explosive growth and agricultural development without those major north-south arteries. Sure, had it failed to pass, the WPA might well have built similar highways 25 years later – or just maybe we would have been stuck with a fractious system of county toll roads that evolved in its absence.

Yet it’s also hard to see California voters approving something like the State Highways Act today. That $18 million might not sound like much to our ears, but it was an enormous sum at the time; with inflation it works out to $8.6 billion in modern dollars, equal to about three-fourths of all California state bonds sold last year. Every special interest in the state would now fiercely lobby against such a proposition simply because it would suck all the air out of the investor’s bank vaults.

Still believe the Act would be approved by modern-day voters? Compare criticism against it in 1910 to recent arguments against funding the SMART trains. Just as then, SMART opponents charged the project is a boondoggle, that it will benefit only a privileged few, that the choices for the route (train stops) will be decided on political favoritism, that it can’t be completed as promised without additional rounds of future funding. It took two attempts to gain voter approval for SMART and it nearly faced a recall. Think back over all those years of heated struggle on SMART funding, then realize that cockfight was squabbling about two percent the relative size of the State Highways Act bond.

The 1910 Act passed because it won approval in counties that expected to gain state highway status – Los Angeles excepted – with a big boost from San Francisco, which at the time had a quarter of the state population. It should be noted, too, that 1910 was near the peak of the Progressive Era, when many people eyed civic betterment as more important than “what was in it for them.”

Skeptics were right, however, in predicting the State Highways Act bond would fall short on money. Additional bonds were passed in 1915 and 1919 to complete the work. Over the course of that decade Sonoma County built roads in a frenzy; by 1913, Santa Rosa was spending over $28,000 a year for highways – among the highest of California cities of its size – and the county was spending almost as much on new roads as larger Alameda County and far more than Marin. For better or ill, Sonoma County was among the vanguard in subsidizing the car culture using public funds.

GOOD NEWS FOR AUTOMOBILE MEN
Roads in Marin County From San Rafael to Sausalito Are to be Improved Soon

Santa Rosa autoists as well as those on all sides of the bay will be glad to know that through the efforts of the automobile owners of San Francisco and Marin county, aided by the proper authorities, steps are to be taken very soon to improve the roads in Marin county, particularly from San  Rafael to Sausalito, a road much used but in a very bad condition.

The Sonoma County Automobile Association, of which Colonel James W. Oates is president, will shortly take up some active work for the improvement of certain roads in the county. The Ukiah Good Roads Association, as has been stated heretofore, is doing fine work on the roads from the Sonoma county line northward to Ukiah. Already they have held two “good roads” days, and the members of the club have turned out in full force to help in the repair work on the roads.

– Press Democrat, April 29, 1910
AUTO BREAKFAST A GREAT EVENT TODAY
Splendid Time in Prospect–Anyone Favoring Good Roads Can Join the Association

Today the much anticipated outing, annual meeting and bull’s head breakfast under the auspices of the Sonoma County Automobile Association of which Colonel Jas. W. Oates is president, occurs in Bosworth’s Grove at Geyserville.

All members of the Association and their families are expected to be present as well as all others who become members of the Association prior to twelve o’clock noon–you can join on the field–when the big feast will commence. Anyone interested in good roads, whether he or she be owner of an automobile or not, may become a member of the Association, a prime move of which is to encourage the building of good roads throughout the state.

There will be all kinds of good things on hand for the breakfast menu. The Bismark Cafe proprietors, Bertolani Brothers, have charge of the feast, and they have secured the services of a special Spanish cook of note who will superintend affairs. Saturday night a staff of seven men left here for Bosworth’s Grove so as to get everything in readiness, for the grand breakfast will be enjoyed under the shade trees. The thoughts of that perfectly good feed should be an inspiration to membership in the Association, let alone the splendid object that is to be the strong feature of the meeting following the breakfast, that of boosting good roads.

– Press Democrat, June 5, 1910

COLONEL OATES EXPLAINS ACT
Synopsis of “State Highway Act” Now Pending

Santa Rosa, Oct. 19, 1910

I have been requested to give a synopsis of the “State Highway Act,” now pending and to be voted on by the people at the November election.

This act, speaking generally, provides:

1–For the issuing by the state of eighteen million dollars of bonds in serials, to fall due in equal amounts each year until 1961.

2–The funds raised from the sale of these bonds are to be for the construction of two main highways, one to run through the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys, and from the Mexican line to the Oregon line; the other to run through the coast counties, both running north and south, and to connect every shire, or country town in the state.

3–These highways are to be constructed under the management and control of a state engineer.

4–The state pays the principal of these bonds by general taxation.

5–These bonds are to bear interest at a rate not over four per cent per annum, and each county in which any part of such highway is constructed is to pay the interest on the bonds represented by the amount of such highway fund expended in constructing such highway in such county.

6–After the construction of any highway inside a county, the management and control of the same is to be turned over by the state to the county in which it lies.

There are other provisions in the act, but they, in the main, deal with mere methods of procedure in putting the act into operation and for paying the bonds.

The way this act would operate in this country would be about this:

The only roads we have that would come under the operation of this act are the present ones from the Marin county line through Petaluma and Santa Rosa to the Mendocino county line, that from Santa Rosa through Sonoma to the Napa county line, and possibly from Cloverdale to the Lake county line.

These roads are now and have been for many years, county highways in more or less good condition, but never, within my knowledge, have they ever been in good condition throughout at the same time.

The construction of the state highway along these routes would be in all probability, by no means the same or as costly as the construction of new roads. In many places they would require much less work than in a new construction so that much of the expense of constructing new roads could be saved. All this, however, would depend upon whether the roads would be entirely reconstructed, and this is a matter of detail to be determined later by the proper authority.

To illustrate, we will say such construction within our county should cost $100,000 of this highway fund. When completed the roads would be turned over to the county government, and the latter would thenceforward have to pay the interest on $100,000 of the bonds, which would not be over $4000 per year at first, and would gradually grow less as the state paid off the principal of the bonds, till in the end the amount would be very small. The county, however, would have to keep up the roads.

From the Marin line to the Mendocino line, and from Santa Rosa by Sonoma to the Napa line is approximately 86 miles of road.

I have tried to find out how much money is spent each year on these roads, but from the present system it is almost impossible to do so. It would not, however, be far from the mark to say that such expenditure is annually not far from $4000 each year, which is the amount we would have to pay at first as interest on the bonds. Under the present system the results are by no means satisfactory. It is not much more than mere patchwork, at best. The system in inefficient and wasteful. Once a good road is constructed, the keeping of it in repair in a good system would not be very costly. Most of the nations of Europe have solved the trouble by letting a good road out to the lowest bidder for a term of years to keep it in good condition, and putting the contractor under bonds. One having a contract say on twelve miles of road, could watch it and by proper care keep it in complete repair at a nominal cost to him and make the upkeep to the county also much less than is expended now in patchwork, with the result of good roads all the time, instead of bad ones most of the time.

The economic advantages of better roads than we have had in America is just now attracting the attention of the people all over the Union; in fact the good roads movement is now on and will continue until a better system of construction and preservation is attained.

Some object to this “State Highway Act” because it is thought it might be better to have such portions of those highways constructed under county control. There are some advantages that might result from county construction, but the disadvantages greatly outweigh them. Inder that idea each county would have its own system of construction, and we would have nearly as many kinds of roads as we have counties. It would result in a huge piece of patchwork, and much of it, no doubt, would be a failure. Constructed under state control we would have at least uniformity of plan, construction and result; and it strikes me we can get that result in no other way. That this is a controlling consideration is obvious.

This plan is intended and will operate as an entering wedge for an improved road system in this state. With such highways through a county lie benefits and economic worth will soon be so manifest as to lead to similar treatment of all other roads in the county, from time to time, as the county can get at them. No one can rationally expect any system of good roads to be adopted and applied to all roads at once. A beginning must be made somewhere on some road, while other roads must wait their turn. In this way those fortunate enough to live on or near the first ones improved would reap an advantage, but under any system such would be the case. Unless some main roads are used for a beginning, all the roads will continue to be as they are.

The people vote in November on this “State Highway Act”; they can vote it up or vote it down; if they vote it up we have taken a long step towards bettering road conditions in the entire state. If they vote it down, we will have to continue to do the best we can with the road system as we have it.

JAMES W. OATES.

– Santa Rosa Republican, October 21, 1910

Read More

A DEATH IN THE FAMILY

Jeff Elliott Leave a comment

Looking back on it, James Wyatt Oates probably recognized the end of his world began that Christmas night in 1909, when his mother-in-law missed a step and fell. She would soon die as a result, and a few months later his beloved brother was gone. Next his wife’s heart began to falter, leaving her a semi-invalid. By the time five Christmases had passed since the accident, Wyatt found himself with no family at all, except for a nephew in Alabama he didn’t much like.

Until the accident, 1909 had been an uneventful year for Wyatt and Mattie Oates, marked only by his boyish enthusiasm for all things related to automobiles. There were no grand parties at the home that would become known as Comstock House, no anticipated trips away to visit friends in San Francisco or Southern California. When they were mentioned in the papers it was for a small dinner party or family outing, and it was almost always noted they were accompanied by her 75 year-old mother, Mrs. M. S. Solomon.

Maria S. Solomon had been a widow for 46 years and apparently had resided always with Mattie, her only living child. No photos survive and nothing personal is known about her except that she was very well liked. Both Santa Rosa newspapers gave her accident, fading condition and death the sort of coverage one would expect for a civic leader. In her honor the Saturday Afternoon Club canceled a meeting even though she was not a member. The Fork Club likewise postponed a get-together and when the card sharks of the Fork Club pass up a chance to win mismatched cutlery, you must be someone really special.

We know more about her husband, who died in 1863 when daughter Mattie was six. Perrin L. Solomon was a soldier at the very end of the Mexican-American War, serving as a Major in the Third Regiment of Tennessee Volunteers. They were in Mexico for six months and saw no combat. After that he joined the multitudes headed for the California Gold Rush, where he found a new career in law enforcement, taking in 1851 the role of marshal in a “people’s court” vigilante murder trial. A couple of years later, he was the sheriff of Tuolumne County.

Perrin was described as “quiet, low-voiced man of easy and even elegant manners, whose coolness, tact, and desperate courage had proved equal to every emergency, and who had made several hairbreadth escapes” in a 1853 account of his capture of a desperado. Solomon and his posse of twenty men brought the man into the town of Sonora, where they were confronted by “…More than a thousand men, many of them drunk or half drunk…yelling like demons, [who] pressed close upon them.” Through his “coolness and courage” Solomon saved the man from being hanged by the mob. In a similar incident, Solomon stopped a lynching by having a young lawyer distract the crowd with a grandiloquent speech as he and his deputies hustled the suspect away. From 1857 he served as the US Marshall or Vice-Marshall for the Northern District of California until he was removed from office in 1861, presumably because he was a Rebel sympathizer; Solomon was active in Tuolumne’s Democratic party and even on the cusp of the Civil War, there was a contingent calling for compromise with the Confederacy and peaceful separation. He died in 1863 in San Francisco, where he was buried.

James Wyatt Oates never met Perrin Solomon, who passed away while he was still a 13 year-old boy in Alabama. But when his long-widowed mother-in-law died in 1910, the old lawman was probably much on his mind. The family owned a burial plot in the Laurel Hill Cemetery in San Francisco, which presumably was by Perrin’s side. Should she join her husband there, or stay in Santa Rosa, where he and Mattie would eventually be laid to rest?

Oates had Maria Solomon’s coffin placed in the temporary receiving vault at the Rural Cemetery, where it would stay for the next six years. Her daughter’s body would be likewise stored in the crypt in 1914 because no grave was supposedly ready, although Oates owned a large and prominent plot at the cemetery.

What he originally planned to do with them is unknown, but after Wyatt himself died the following year, he left instructions that the entire family – including the long-buried remains of Perrin and Mattie’s siblings who had died in childhood – be cremated together and their ashes scattered. It seems to have been an impetuous decision made just a few months before his death, around the time he amended his will to disinherit that unpleasant nephew in Alabama. The man who had been left with no family must have decided to take as many as he could with him into the winds.

MRS. SOLOMON IS INJURED
Fell From Porch and Tore Ligaments Loose

Mrs. M. S. Solomon, mother of Mrs. James W. Oates, met with a bad accident on Christmas night, which will cause her to be confined to her apartments for some time to come. The lady suffered a fall, and struck on her right hip in such a manner as to tear loose many of the ligaments of that member, besides severely bruising and contusing the limb. Mrs. Solomon and Judge and Mrs. James W. Oates were guests at the home of Mr. and Mrs. Blitz W. Paxton at Christmas dinner. During the evening Mrs. Solomon stepped from a slight eminence on the porch of the Paxton home and was precipitated heavily to the ground.

Dr. S. S. Bogle was called and attended to the injuries, and Mrs. Solomon was placed under the care of a trained nurse.

– Santa Rosa Republican, December 27, 1909
MRS. SOLOMON MEETS WITH ACCIDENT

The many friends of Mrs. M. S. Solomon, who sustained a bad fall while leaving the home of Mr. and Mrs. Blitz W. Paxton on Christmas night, will be very glad to know that she is not as seriously hurt as was at first supposed. She was resting nicely on Monday and hopes in a few days to be able to be out again. At the time of the accident it was feared that there might have been a fracture of the hip bone. Dr. S. S. Bogle was summoned and ascertained that there was no fracture. Mrs. Solomon, who has lived for many years with her son-in-law and daughter, Colonel and Mrs. James W. Oates, is one of Santa Rosa’s most highly esteemed women, and at the Oates residence since the accident the home has been besieged with anxious friends and many messages of inquiry have been received. Naturally Mrs. Solomon suffered very much from the shock caused by the fall.

– Press Democrat, December 28, 1909
Mrs. Solomon Better

Mrs. M. S. Solomon continues to improve from the effects of the fall she sustained on Christmas night, and her many friends are delighted to hear of the improvement.

– Press Democrat, December 30, 1909

Mrs. M. S. Solomon has almost entirely recovered from the effects of her bad fall on Christmas night.

– “Society Gossip,” Press Democrat, January 10, 1910

The many friends of Mrs. M. S. Solomon continue solicitous for her welfare. She is still quite ill from her recent fall and a specialist from San Francisco has been required. Hope for speedy recovery is held out for her.

– “Many Social Events in City of Roses,” Santa Rosa Republican, December 30, 1909

MRS. M.S. SOLOMON CONDITION CRITICAL

The many friends of Mrs. M. S. Solomon will learn with much regret that her condition is very critical. A change for the worse occurred yesterday.

– Press Democrat, January 20, 1910
MRS. M.S. SOLOMON ENTERS INTO REST
Greatly Beloved Woman Passes Away at an Early Hour This Morning–Death Universally Regretted

Shortly after two o’clock this morning death came very peacefully to Mrs. M. S. Solomon at the home of her son-in-law and daughter, Colonel and Mrs. James W. Oates on Mendocino avenue.

The news of the passing of this estimable woman will be received with deepest sorrow by a legion of friends in Santa Rosa. To know Mrs. Solomon was to love her.

The esteem in which she was universally held was shown incessantly during his illness in the inquiries of friends and the great solicitation and hope that her life might be spared.

It will be remembered that on Christmas night Mrs. Solomon sustained a bad fall and injured her hip. At first it was hoped that the injuries were of a slight nature but later it developed that they were very severe. Intense pain manifested itself and it was soon realized that Mrs. Solomon’s condition was serious.

Everything that human skill and loving attention could devise was done for her. Several days ago it was apparent that Mrs. Solomon long life was shortly to close. She relapsed into unconsciousness and the slumber that lengthened on into the final sleep which has its awakening in the brighter and better world and the perfect life for which she was so well prepared.

The death of her mother is a terrible blow to Mrs. Oates and Colonel Oates. The ties that bound them together were most affectionate. For twenty nine years Mrs. Solomon’s home had been with her son-in-law and daughter, her husband having preceded her to the grave many years ago…In the hour of bereavement the family is remembered in tenderest sympathy.

– Press Democrat, January 21, 1910
MRS. M.S. SOLOMON’S FUNERAL ON SUNDAY

The funeral of the late Mrs. M. S. Solomon will take place on Sunday afternoon at 2 o’clock from the residence of Colonel and Mrs. J. W. Oates, on Mendocino Avenue, and it will undoubtedly be very largely attended by her friends.

Temporarily the casket will repose in the vault at the cemetery and there will be no interment on Sunday afternoon.

Seldom has there been a more general expression of regret than that felt at the passing of Mrs. Solomon, and yesterday the Oates residence was besieged by friends desirous of extending their condolence with those bereaved.

– Press Democrat, January 22, 1910

The death of Mrs. M. S. Solomon has cast a gloom over everything of a social nature in this city. She was dearly beloved by all who knew her and there exists a general feeling among her hosts of friends that no pleasure can be experienced close upon her death. Owing to the love the officers and members of the Saturday Afternoon Club hold for her, although not a member herself, that club postponed the meeting it had scheduled for today. Mrs. C. C. Belden, for like reason, postponed entertaining the Fork Club from next week to the week following, and other affairs that were expected for next week, the week but one before the beginning of lent, will not occur. Many friends of the deceased and of Mr. and Mrs. James W. Oates have called at the Oates residence and offered their services in any way they may be used in this hour of bereavement, and they are thoroughly appreciated by Mr. and Mrs. Oates.

– “Many Social Events in City of Roses,” Santa Rosa Republican, January 22, 1910
LOVING TOKENS OF DEEP SYMPATHY
Large Gathering of Friends at the Funeral of the Late Mrs. M. S. Solomon

Scores of magnificent floral tributes, each bearing its message of devotion and loving sympathy, surrounded the casket containing the mortal remains of the late Mrs. M. S. Solomon, as it reposed in the spacious drawing room at the residence of Colonel and Mrs. J. W. Oates on Sunday afternoon, at the time of the impressive funeral services.

There was a very large gathering of old friends of the deceased despite the heavy storm. In the company were those who had known and loved Mrs. Solomon for many years. Then there were those of younger years to whom she had been friend and counselor and always deeply interested in their welfare. It was a very sad afternoon for all.

The funeral service was conducted by the Rev. William Martin, and at its conclusion the beautiful casket was conveyed to the cemetery and there placed in the receiving vault. The active pallbearers were…

– Press Democrat, January 25, 1910

Read More

I, OATES

Jeff Elliott Leave a comment

We announce with pleasure that The Collected Works of James Wyatt Oates are now published in the Comstock House digital library.

Oates wrote 20 essays and short stories between 1879 and 1915 that he collected in a 3-ring binder. He apparently kept it close at hand, rereading and editing his works over the years; the cover of the binder is stained with coffee cup and glass rings showing it was used frequently as a coaster. Thankfully it was preserved by the Comstock family and handed down to us, 92 years later, and we are particularly grateful to Martha Comstock Keegan for recognizing its historical merits.

Oates was a very good writer, and apparently considered himself a professional journalist for a few years. He was a part-time editor of a “country newspaper” in Arizona and occasional contributor to The Californian, then the top literary journal in the Western U.S. There Oates rubbed shoulders with literary giants such as Bret Harte, John Muir, Frank Norris and Joaquin Miller.

There are no lost masterpieces to be discovered between those stained covers. But there are several things well worth reading, particularly if you have an interest in the Civil War era as viewed by someone who grew up in the South, living there ten years on either side of the war. Here are summaries and commentary of his most interesting writings:

* WAR AND PREPARATION   (1915)   A  memoir of June, 1861 and the start of the Civil War.

* THE SOUTHERN STATES   (1910)   A remarkable short essay, both profound and personal, touching on the root cause of the Civil War. It wasn’t a struggle over noble principles such as states’ rights or preserving the Union, Oates writes; it was simply about prying slaves away from the clutches of slaveholders. Also, it was the hypocritical way Southerners justified slavery using the Bible that brought Oates to loathe religion at an early age. He writes, “I was raised in Alabama in the midst of slavery and slaves. While a boy of eight to twelve years of age I heard ministers of the Gospel, honest, noble men, many times, from the pulpit announce with absoluteness that slavery was morally right, ordained of God, and cite passages from the Bible to sustain them. Though a child and surrounded by intense pro-slavery influences, deep down in my heart I felt that they were wrong. I could not refute their biblical citations nor explain away any of those proofs, but I felt that in some way they could be answered, and then and there was implanted in my very nature a distrust of religion and the Bible, from which I have never been able to escape.”

* GANDER PULLING   (1878)   This early short story is Oates’ best work, but be forewarned that it contains graphic descriptions of extreme animal cruelty.

* THE “HARDSHELL”   (1889)   An amusing character sketch about a backwoodsman’s relationship with his “Hardshell” church. Oates describes his odd views on children’s names: “The oldest girl was named Martha – plain, Biblical Martha – but he called her ‘Pid.’ The oldest boy was named Mathew – plain and again Biblical – and he called him ‘Bud’. The next boy, named George Washington, he called ‘Coot’. And so on down. How the old chap supposed a man could get on in life with ‘Coot’ for a name has never been explained.”

* A THEOLOGICAL PUZZLE   (1913)   If an all-powerful God exists, there is no such thing as free will because God knows everything that has or will happen. Therefore, God cannot judge us on our actions or morality. “We in fairness should not be punished in any way for doing a thing we can not help doing.” It probably goes without saying that there were no clergy found among Oates’ social circle.

* LINCOLN   (1905)   Here Oates comes out as firmly belonging to “The War of Northern Aggression” camp. While he admired Lincoln, the president didn’t grasp that the South had a right to secede because the whole North-South relationship just wasn’t working out. In particular, Oates writes Lincoln wronged the South in the Gettysburg Address by implying Southerners were less patriotic Americans, pointing to the passage where Lincoln said the dead had not died in vain, but to ensure our government “of the people, for the people, by the people, shall not perish from the earth.” Oates counters: “The South was equally zealous, was as devoted to government of, for and by the people as was any Northern man who fought in that contest…the question in issue was rather whether there should be one government by, of and for the people North and another government by, of and for the people South or one government for both.” In sum: Oates believes the president betrayed the Founding Fathers by keeping the United States united.

* THE SOUTHERN CRACKER   (1913)   A character sketch of an old fellow who went off to fight in the Civil War, motivated by rumors and fuzzy ideals.

* THE INDIAN PROBLEM–MR. SCHURZ REVIEWED   (1881)   One of (at least) four essays published in The Californian, Oates is commenting on an article by Carl Schurz, “Present Aspects of the Indian Problem.” Schurz wrote with some authority; he had been Secretary of the Interior in the Hayes administration, which had ended just a few months earlier. Per Indian matters, Schurz had progressive views for his day. He wanted to keep tribes together, opposed permanent reservations, encouraged assimilation through the establishment of Indian schools (particularly education for girls), and wanted Indian families to become farmers by giving them small plots of land that were protected by federal law against theft by whites. Oates offers a far more radical proposal: Ship every Indian in the United States to Indian Territory (which in 1881 might have meant all of modern-day Oklahoma or just the southeast corner) where they would be given plots of land and farm tools and seed. U.S. troops would patrol this mega-reservation. Plus, it would be a very cost-effective solution, Oates argues without a hint of irony, because whites would now be able to obtain valuable mineral rights on their former reservation lands. This was his last essay to appear in the magazine; 1881 was the year he settled in Santa Rosa and perhaps he became too busy to continue writing. Or perhaps there was such outrage over his ridiculous Indian proposal that the editor was forced to drop him as a correspondent.

* THE BOOK OF JOB   (1914)   Oates dismantles the story of Job in an enjoyable essay worthy of Mark Twain. “No God of whom I can conceive would do the petty, mean, onery things that story says he did…This puts both God and the Devil on the same plane as two boys, one with a chip on his shoulder daring the other to knock it off. That was a pretty undignified attitude for the Devil to say nothing of the great Master of the Universe, and also to say nothing of the outrage on Job.” Another favorite passage: “Whatever made man made a botched job. When we consider our limitations, our pains and aches, our blunders, our inherent nonsense, when we see the millions dragging out a few years of sordid and sodden existences, we are forced to admit that. Glory in that? He could just as easily have made man a perfect thing; He might, in a mild sense, have derived satisfaction from so doing, but ‘glory’ never.”

* WHAT OF THE AGES?   (1914)   An odd Malthusian essay on the need for war to keep the world’s population down. Originally written in March, 1914, Oates adds a postscript in December that bemoans the destruction of war and nightmare of combat. Between the time of writing the article and the postscript his wife died and WWI began.

* BRYANISM   (1908)   Oates disliked William Jennings Bryan before he made a third run for the White House in 1908, but here he denounces Bryan as a demagogue and radical determined to destroy what’s left of the Democratic Party. Along the way Oates howls about the demise of states’ rights and the horror that is organized labor. (In short, it reads like most of the commentary found on the Internet today.) What’s interesting is that we can trace Oates’ opinions of Bryan over his entire career. Oates wrote a letter that appeared in the Oct. 23, 1900 San Francisco Call stating he wouldn’t be voting for Bryan because he was too academic and had a wimpy foreign policy. Yet before that, in 1896 Oates was an enthusiastic leader of the “Bryan Free Silver Club” in Santa Rosa. Quite the pendulum swing.

* BURKE, THE COLOR-BEARER   (1914)   Short story about a good-for-nothing who found redemption in the Civil War.

* THE NEGRO AS HE IS   (1915)   Regrettably, Oates’ last work is a racist essay, complete with plantation dialect. If he had written it around the time of the Civil War it wouldn’t have raised eyebrows, but to author such a thing in 1915 is just deplorable. Given the other uncharacteristic acts that Oates did in the last months of his life (see biography linked above), one wonders if he might have been suffering mental problems.

Read More