THE HOUR IS NIGH

The hearing before the South Carolina Supreme Court is finally near at hand. It will be on Wednesday, the Eighth of December, at 9:30 a.m. EST, in the courtroom of the SCSC, in Columbia.

Following COVID-19 protocols, the only outsiders allowed in the courtroom will be the two attorneys named by each party. The rest may watch on the court's live-stream.

The two attorneys representing the Episcopal diocese will be Thomas Tisdale, chancellor of the diocese, and Bert G. (Skip) Utsey III. The national Episcopal Church will be represented by attorney Mary Kostel. The Anglican Diocese of South Carolina will be represented by C. Alan Runyan and C. Mitchell Brown.

The courtroom of the South Carolina Supreme Court. The seal of the court reads, "Nil ultra," nothing beyond (actually an issue in the case at hand).

Click HERE for the SCSC live-stream.

The question now is, For what should we look in the hearing?

First, let us consider what not to look for. The arguments of the lawyers on both sides are already well known and laid out in detail in the written briefs. No doubt, they will spend as much time as they can to press their main points. Each side has only 25 minutes, Episcopal side first, then Anglicans. Finally, the Episcopal lawyers have 10 minutes for rebuttal. The whole hearing is one hour.

For the written briefs of all parties, see the SC courts website:  sccourts.org/ACMS/. The Appellate Case Number is  2020-000986. This will give one all of the papers that have been filed in this appeal.

In a nutshell, the Episcopal side will probably argue that the SCSC has already settled the issues of the case in the three majority decisions of their August 2, 2017 opinion. Denial of rehearing and of cert in SCOTUS rendered the decision final. The SCSC remitted their opinion to the circuit court for implementation. Instead, the lower court improperly religitated the case and issued an Order in contradiction of the SCSC opinion. Thus, SCSC should vacate the lower court's action and restore the remittitur to the circuit court to enact the three majority decisions (actually two---one was implemented by the circuit court).

Click HERE for an impartial summary and full text of the SCSC Aug. 2, 2071 decision.

The Anglican side will argue that the SCSC decision was not definitive, but was fractured into five different opinions with no coherent majority. It did not give clear direction to the circuit court. The lower court had every right to interpret the meaning of the SCSC decision by considering its totality. Following this, the circuit court was right to find that no parish had acceded to the Dennis Canon and the local entities had properly followed state law to separate from the Episcopal Church. Thus, the SCSC should affirm the circuit court's finding and leave Dickson's Order of 2020 standing.

Click HERE for Judge Edgar Dickson's Order of June 19, 2020.

To get right down to basics, the argument is over who owns the properties of the 29 parishes and Camp St. Christopher. The Episcopal side claims it owns them essentially because of the Dennis Canon. The Anglican side asserts it owns them because the Dennis Canon had no effect under state law and the parishes (and diocese) legally and legitimately seceded from the Episcopal Church.

The matter at hand in the SCSC is the Episcopal side's appeal of Judge Dickson's 2020 Order which purported to reverse the 2017 SCSC decision and award all properties in question to the secessionist side. 

So, we know what the lawyers are going to say on Wednesday. The real question now is what the five justices are going to say. Their questions, comments, and discussions will give us hints as to their thinking, what they consider important, and the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments before them. After all, the justices will decide this case, not the lawyers. As an example of how important a hearing can be, the SCOTUS hearing last week on abortion told us very clearly where that court is going on Roe v. Wade (It is substantially dead). We got that simply by listening to what the nine justices said.

Justice John Kittredge is one to watch carefully on Wednesday.

Kittredge was a part of the 2017 decision when he and Chief Justice Jean Toal dissented from the majority. They concluded that the parishes owned their properties, but for different reasons. Kittredge argued that the Episcopal Church did create a trust under the "minimal burden" concept. He agreed that 29 of the 36 parishes in question had in fact acceded to the Dennis Canon. However, he went on that the parishes had legally and properly seceded from the Episcopal Church under state law and by doing so negated the trust. This left them with their local properties. (Toal argued that the Episcopal Church never imposed a trust and the parishes were always the owners of the properties without trust restriction.)

Thus, while Kittredge wound up favoring the secessionist side, and dissenting from the majority, most importantly, he declared that the 29 parishes had acceded to the Dennis Canon. Judge Dickson, in contradiction, held that not one of the parishes had ever acceded to the Canon. Dickson wrote:

This court finds that no parish acceded to the 1979 Dennis Canon (p.1 of 47).

So, the point to watch is how Kittredge reacts to the ADSC lawyers' assertions that he was wrong in his 2017 opinion concerning the parishes' accession to the Dennis Canon.

Another one to watch carefully is the present Chief Justice Donald Beatty:

He and Kittredge are the only ones of the five justices in the hearing who were parts of the 2017 decision. In the hearings before Judge Dickson, the ADSC lawyers made much of Beatty's opinion in the 2017 decision. Although Beatty wound up squarely on the side of the Church in his opinion, he said along the way that state law, as seen in the All Saints decision, required the parishes to set up trusts (could not be imposed from outside). He judged that the 29 parishes had acceded to the Dennis Canon, in effect setting up trusts. Beatty wrote:

their express accession to the Dennis Canon was sufficient to create an irrevocable trust (p. 38 of 77).

As I saw it, the ADSC lawyers interpreted Beatty's words as denying that TEC in fact had trust interest over the parishes. In other words, it seemed to me the lawyers charged that Beatty contradicted himself, or at least really meant to oppose the validity of the Dennis Canon in SC. So, it will be fascinating to hear how the ADSC lawyers explain Beatty's opinion to the Chief Justice's face.

The next justice to watch will be the Acting Justice. We know he or she will be a state judge prominent in the court system; and we will know his or her identity when the camera turns on. The court record of this case over nearly nine years runs to 9,000 plus pages. One has to admire any judge who would take on such a monumental challenge. Every justice has clerks, lawyers who do the leg work, but in the end the justice alone gives the judgment. I will be listening carefully to every word from the AJ. (I plan to post an announcement here of the AJ as soon as we all know the identity.)

Two more dark horses are the justices new to the court since the 2017 decision, Justice John C. Few:

and Justice George C. James, Jr.:

I, for one, have no idea of how to "read" these two since I know nothing about their past published opinions. So, as with the AJ, we will be listening carefully to their questions to get some sense of what their attitudes might be.

The hearing on Wednesday will be just that, a "hearing" of the lawyers' arguments and responses to the justices' questions, which are bound to be many. Then, we will have to wait for the written decision. We all know not to hold out breaths. The last time the hearing was in September of 2015 and the written decision appeared in August of 2017. Let us hope this time will be more expeditious.

The justices' decision(s) will be by majority vote. This hearing is an appeal of Judge Dickson's Order of June 19, 2020. To affirm or vacate the order will require a majority vote. However, if for some (highly unlikely) reason one justice abstains, a 2-2 tie would leave Dickson in place.

In my opinion, the justices should deny Dickson's Order and issue a new, clear, strong directive to the circuit court to implement all three of the majority decisions of the 2017 paper. The integrity of the South Carolina court system is at stake. A majority opinion of the state supreme court must be enforced. A lower court must not be allowed to defy such a decision, and a remittitur order to boot. If a lower court is permitted to "interpret" a high court opinion to the point of reversing it, chaos will result in the whole judicial system of the state. No decision of the SCSC would ever be final.

Thus, on one level, the issue before the court on Wednesday is really simple, whether to defend and enforce a state supreme court decision or to allow a circuit court to replace such. I, for one, do not see how such a choice could be controversial. It is cut and dried. The supreme court has to be that, supreme.

The other aspect that I think is cut and dried is the application of the First Amendment to this case. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits the state from interfering in the internal affairs of a religious body. No civic court has a right to tell a church, particularly an hierarchical one (practically everyone except Judge Diane Goodstein agrees TEC is hierarchical), what it can and cannot do in its own affairs. Respect for the First Amendment alone should close this case in the interest of the Episcopal Church.

Finally, moving to the bigger picture, in my opinion, there is a right side and wrong side at odds beyond the particular issues of jurisprudence and Constitution. The larger issue at hand is one of human rights. The Episcopal Church is a champion of people who have been powerless, marginalized, ignored, discriminated against, even demonized for ages past. For seventy years, the Church has fought to make right historic moral wrongs, to bring equality and inclusion to all of God's children, most notably African Americans, women, and homosexuals. This is the right side of morality because it is the loving care of all of God's creation. Unfortunately, the leadership of the old diocese resolved to reject the Church's efforts for human rights. They led the majority of the diocese out of the Episcopal Church and adopted an explicit stand against equality and inclusion of gays and women. This is the wrong side of morality, and of history. 

And so, I hope and pray that the five justices considering this case see it as more than just a matter of human law. It is a matter of human rights for all of the citizens of South Carolina. It is a matter of the faithful promotion of the goodness of divine creation. If the justices understand this case on every level, justice will prevail.

Finally, dear reader, I expect to return on Wednesday. Then, I will post on this blog a report of the hearing as soon as I can organize my thoughts. I would like to have your thoughts too. I encourage you to share with all of us your impressions of the hearing and/or views of the case. Send to the email address above and, if you wish, I will share with readers. Until then, peace.

   

ONE WEEK TO GO

Greetings, blog reader. Today is Wednesday, the First day of December 2021. One week from today, on Wednesday, December 8, 2021, the South Carolina Supreme Court is scheduled to hold a hearing on the church case. The five justices will "hear" the arguments of the lawyers on both sides. Since time is limited, one hour, much of it will be taken up by questions from the justices. According to the Court's posted rules, each party may have two lawyers in the courtroom. The Episcopal side has listed three lawyers since there are two parties on that side, the national church and the local diocese. The public will not be allowed in the courtroom. There will be a live-stream of the hearing for all to watch. I expect to watch and post a report here as soon as possible after the hearing.

We know there will be an Acting Justice to take the place of recused Justice Kaye Hearn. However, the court will not post the name of the AJ before the hearing. As soon as the camera turns on, we will all know the identity of the AJ. I will relay it on this blog as soon as the hearing begins.

The matter before the court is simple: whether to affirm or reverse Judge Edgar Dickson's Order of 2019 which awarded all local properties in question to the secessionist side. The Episcopal side is appealing Dickson's Order. Dickson reversed most of the South Carolina Supreme Court decision of August 2, 2017, which had awarded 29 of the 36 parishes in question, plus Camp St. Christopher, to the Episcopal side (he recognized and enacted one of the three majority decisions in the SCSC opinion---the one giving seven parishes the properties). So, the question boils down to whose decision should stand as final, the state supreme court's or the circuit court's. This should be a no-brainer.

After nearly nine years (since Jan. 4, 2013) in court, we are nearing the expected end of the litigation. In effect, the SCSC is about to decide at long last who gets the bulk of the local properties and the Camp, the secessionist diocese or the Episcopal Church. The federal court has already decided that the Episcopal Church is hierarchical and the Episcopal diocese is the one and only true heir of the pre-schism diocese (this is now on appeal but not on stay). The fed court even issued an Injunction forbidding the schismatics from claiming in any way to be the historic diocese, something the Episcopal side had to enforce twice following the breakaways' intransigence. To say all of this twisted litigation has been contentious would be an understatement. 

My advice to all of us, on the cusp of what will probably be the deciding judgment of the court on the property, is to listen carefully to the questions the justices ask next Wednesday. They will indicate the thinking and direction of the justices as they contemplate this appeal.

I have laid out the issues as I understand them as well as I can in earlier blog posts. I am repeating two that may be helpful to review, the first from September 24, 2021, and the other from May 13, 2021.

Originally posted on September 24, 2021:

BEFORE THE SOUTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT, AGAIN

The Episcopal Church case is back before the South Carolina Supreme Court. The justices have scheduled a hearing at 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, 8 December 2021, in the courtroom of the Supreme Court building, in Columbia. I assume it will be livestreamed. I plan to be in the courtroom in person if at all possible.

The issue before the SCSC now is the appeal brought by the Episcopal Church side of Judge Edgar Dickson's order of 19 June 2020. Dickson ruled that the 29 parishes in question, not the Episcopal Church, own their own property, and the Anglican diocese owns Camp St. Christopher, not the Episcopal diocese. On these essential points, Dickson reversed the SC Supreme Court decision of August 2, 2017. The SCSC had ruled that the Episcopal Church owned the local properties and the Episcopal diocese owned the Camp.

The crux of the matter was the Dennis Canon. The SCSC ruled that the 29 had acceded to the Canon. Judge Dickson ruled that the 29 had not acceded to the Canon. 

The hearing will allow the justices to hear the presentations of both sides and to ask questions of the lawyers. One may assume that Alan Runyan will lead the team for the secessionist side as he has done from day one. However, the lawyer who made the case for the Episcopal Church side in the hearing of 2015 will not do the same. Blake Hewitt is now a justice on the SC Court of Appeals. To my knowledge, the Church side has not announced the lawyers who will speak in the hearing.

The long legal war of the schism is now in the ninth inning. It is approaching the end. What the SCSC rules on TEC's appeal of Dickson's order will almost certainly be the end of the game. If they uphold the Dickson order, the breakaways keep the parish properties and the Camp. If they uphold the SCSC decision of 2017 and deny Dickson, the Episcopal Church diocese gets the 29 parishes and the Camp. It is as simple, and important, as that. It will be one or the other, for keeps.

The losing side could appeal the SCSC decision to the U.S. Supreme Court but the chance they would take it is between nil and none. So, whatever the SCSC decides next will close the book. This is what makes this hearing so important. It is the last chance both sides have to make their best cases. They had better be well prepared.

I do not know how to give my thoughts on the situation before the SCSC now any better than I did in the blog piece below that I originally posted on May 13, 2021. It think it is worthwhile to repeat:

THE CRISIS BEFORE

THE SOUTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT

The crisis of the hour is in the hands of the justices of the South Carolina Supreme Court. What they decide will seal the fate of the schism in South Carolina. After eight and a half years of bruising legal warfare, the judicial settlement is approaching. Which side will finally take possession of the 29 parishes and the Camp? While we wait, we have a good opportunity to review the state of the litigation between the old Church diocese (EDSC) and the new breakaway diocese (ADSC).

The South Carolina Supreme Court, Columbia.

First, the salient facts on how we reached this point:

---2017, Aug. 2.  The South Carolina Supreme Court issued a decision on the Church diocese's appeal of Judge Diane Goodstein's Order of Feb. 3, 2017. The SCSC ruling listed three majority decisions: 1) 8 (7) parishes own their own property, 2) the Episcopal Church owns 28 (29) of the 36 parishes in question, and 3)the Episcopal diocese owns Camp St. Christopher.

The SCSC majority decisions are enumerated 1, 2, 3. Click on for enlargement.

---Nov. 17.  SCSC denied ADSC's request for a rehearing (on vote of 2-2).

---Nov. 17.  SCSC issued a Remittitur to the Circuit Court for the implementation of its Aug. 2 decision.

---2018, June 11.  The U.S. Supreme Court denied ADSC's petition for review of the SCSC Aug. 2 2017 decision (denial of cert).

---2019, Sept. 19.  U.S. District Court judge in Charleston, Richard Gergel, issued an Order recognizing the Episcopal Church as an hierarchical institution and the Church diocese as the only legal heir of the old diocese. He also issued an injunction banning the breakaway faction from claiming in any way to be the historic diocese. This was the first federal court decision on the question of the hierarchical nature of the Episcopal Church. 

On Dec. 18, 2019, Gergel denied ADSC's request for a stay of his Order. On Jan. 14, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals denied ADSC's request for a stay of the Order. Thus, Gergel's Order remains in effect.

---2020, June 19.  Circuit Court Edgar Dickson issued an Order reversing the SCSC decision on the 29 parishes and the Camp. He declared the Episcopal Church had no interest in the parishes on the grounds they had not acceded to the Dennis Canon. The majority of justices of SCSC had ruled that the 29 had in fact acceded to the Dennis Canon.

---Aug. 8.  The SCSC agreed to take EDSC's appeal of Dickson's Order. 

---Oct. 29.  The U.S. Court of Appeals agreed to stay ADSC's appeal of Gergel's decision pending a ruling from the SCSC.

---Nov. 12, 2020 to Mar. 4, 2021, the EDSC and ADSC filed briefs with the SCSC. EDSC argued to overturn Dickson in favor of the SCSC decision. ADSC argued to sustain Dickson's Order.

The basic question is, Which side is entitled to the ownership of the 29 parishes and the Camp? The opposing views are the SCSC decision of Aug. 2, 2017 favoring the TEC side, and the Circuit Court Order of June 19, 2020 favoring the breakaway faction.

The SC Supreme Court of today taking up this matter is not the same as the court that handed down the decision of 2017. Two justices who participated in 2017 have retired (Toal and Pleicones). Another justice from 2017 has recused herself from the case (Hearn). This leaves four active justices today. It is possible the court could bring in an "Acting Justice" to fill out the five seats, but there has been no word about this.

The two justices who sat on the 2017 bench still there are Chief Justice Donald Beatty and Justice John Kittredge. 

Chief Justice Donald Beatty.

Beatty voted for the Church side while Kittredge voted against the Church. Both men agreed that the parishes had acceded to the Dennis Canon (four of the five justices agreed) but while Beatty said the parishes could not revoke their accessions, Kittredge held they could, and did, repeal their accessions to the Canon. Thus, while Beatty concluded that the Episcopal Church owned the 29 parishes and the Camp, Kittredge maintained the Church did not own them. Beatty joined with Pleicones and Hearn to form the majority on the court to rule in favor of the Episcopal Church. Kittredge and Toal formed the minority and issued dissenting opinions.

The two new justices who replaced Toal and Pleicones on the court are George C. James, Jr. and John Cannon Few. 

Justice George C. James, Jr.

James lives in Sumter where he is a lay leader in the Trinity United Methodist Church and active in numerous other local organizations. Find the SCSC blurb about him here .

Justice John Cannon Few.

Find the SCSC bio on Few here . One interesting point about Few is that he married Stephanie Yarborough in St. Philip's Church, in Charleston, in 2019. Since this was a remarriage on both parts, they had to go through a process to get permission of Bishop Lawrence for the marriage to take place in the church.

How these two new justices will interface with the whole matter before them now is something that cannot be known, at least not to a layperson as myself. I suppose it would take an expert in the state courts of SC to tell us how their past opinions might foreshadow their leanings on the question of the ownership of the church properties.

A highly important factor that must be considered here is the voting. Unless the court brings in a temporary "Acting Justice," to raise the number to five, there will be four justices to decide this appeal. A two-to-two tie would leave Dickson's Order in place (a majority has to vote to overturn). Since the matter before the SCSC is the appeal of Dickson's ruling, the vote will be whether to sustain his Order or to overturn it. To sustain it, the court must vote two or more of the four. To overturn it, the court must vote three or more of the four. Thus, the Church side has the harder challenge here. If we assume Beatty will vote for the Church and Kittredge will vote for the breakaways (as they did in 2017), the whole matter is in the hands of the two new, and unknown, justices. Everything rests on their opinions. The Church needs both of them. The breakaways need only one of them.

In my opinion, there are two ways of approaching the matter at hand, as a cultural issue and as a judicial issue. I think the settlement will depend on where the justices place the fundamental importance of this case. 

As everyone knows (at least those who have read my history), the direct cause of the schism was the blessing of same-sex unions. When the Episcopal Church moved to this in 2012, the clerical leadership of the old diocese took the opportunity to lead the majority of the laity out of the diocese and the Episcopal Church. In short, the Episcopal Church championed equality for and inclusion of homosexuals persons in the life of the church. The reactionaries in the diocese of South Carolina opposed any acceptance of homosexuality and created the schism to prevent these reforms from applying to the majority of the old diocese. This was a part of a culture war that has been waging in America for the past seventy or so years. To be simplistic, the basic cultural issue is stark: for or against inclusion of non-celibate homosexuals in the life of the church. Since the issue of homosexuality sparked the schism with its ensuing litigation, the justices may choose to see the whole litigation as fundamental to the culture war. If so, their attitudes toward homosexuality will skew their opinions. 

On the other hand, there is a very great issue here of jurisprudence. Under the long-established order of the court system, there is a hierarchy in the state courts topped by the supreme court. A ruling by the state supreme court is just that, supreme in the state. The 2017 opinion of the SCSC became the law of the land when the court denied a rehearing and the U.S. Supreme Court denied cert thus ending any possible appeal. Since it is the law of the land, it cannot be changed or re-litigated. 

In my view the circuit court made two violations of the state judicial system. In one, it refused the Remittitur from the SCSC. I do not see how a lower court has the right to refuse an order from a higher court. In another, the circuit judge re-litigated the case and substituted his own finding that the 29 parishes had not acceded to the Dennis Canon in place of the state supreme court's finding that the 29 had acceded to the Dennis Canon. He directly contradicted the majority of the SCSC on the question of accession to the Dennis Canon. What right does a circuit judge have to replace a judgment of a higher court?

Thus, if the SCSC now upholds the Dickson Order, it will establish two landmark and severely dangerous precedents, that a lower court can refuse to accept a remit order from a higher court, and a lower judge can reject and replace a majority decision of a higher court.

If the SCSC allows Dickson's Order to stand, this will upend the entire state court system in South Carolina. Higher courts will no longer have superiority over the lower courts. No order of the state supreme court would have to be accepted and implemented. There would be never ending litigation thus destroying the entire concept of jurisprudence in the state. In short, no decision of a state court would ever be final. If so, what would be the purpose of having courts at all? No law could ever really be enforced.

Before they vote on the Dickson Order, the justices of the South Carolina Supreme Court ought to consider long and hard what the effects of their decision will be. In my view, upholding Dickson will be catastrophic to jurisprudence. It would establish an unbelievably dangerous precedent that could not be erased. 

Let us bear in mind too that the United States was the first country in the world established on the principle that the civic state must be entirely separate from religious institutions. This concept of the separation of church and state was enshrined in the First Amendment of the Constitution. Over the years, it has served us Americans phenomenally well. Now, it is part and parcel of our American character. 

No court has the right to interfere in the affairs of a religious institution. Moreover, the federal court has declared the Episcopal Church to be hierarchical. A court in South Carolina should not decide what the Episcopal Church can and cannot do in terms of its own internal structure. The Church has the right to decide its own rules. As an hierarchical body, the Episcopal Church has the right to enforce its own law, as the Dennis Canon. The civic state must respect this if it is to abide by the First Amendment. 

The fundamental judicial issue here is freedom of religion. Every religious institution in America ought to be concerned about the possible infringement of the state on their rights. The Episcopal Church certainly is. The Diocese of South Carolina certainly is. Finally, the justices of the South Carolina Supreme Court ought to be equally concerned. We must maintain the separation of church and state. It is crucial to the future of freedom in America. This is the real crisis looming in the South Carolina Supreme Court.

_____________________________

My usual disclaimer. I am neither a lawyer nor a legal expert. What I offer here is only opinion.

GIVING THANKS

Happy Thanksgiving, blog reader. It is Thanksgiving Day, November 25, 2021. We have much for which to give thanks on this special day and we should remember this as we gather with family, friends, and community and celebrate life.

For starters, I think we should take Mr. Rogers's advice and close our eyes and give thanks for all the people in our lives who made us who we are. None of us is alone. None of us got to this place alone. We are where we are because of the people who helped us along the way. I am sure each of us has a long list. At the top of my list right now is my major professor from Florida State U. who recently died. While I grieve, I give thanks for his life.

I give thanks too for family and friends. My local parish, St. Luke's, of Jacksonville AL, is providing a free Thanksgiving meal for the whole community. This started some twenty-five years ago as a small event and has gained scope every year. This year, the Methodists are helping because the task has grown beyond St. Luke's capacity. Right now, cooks are at the church preparing 750 meals for pick-up and home delivery. This is an amazing feat for a small church in a small town.

(The servant church at work. Never let it be said that one person, or a few people, cannot make a difference. A church that started with a single person more than a century and a half ago makes, still, a tremendous difference to the larger community because it never lost its commitment to serve all people. Today I give thanks for the faithful servants of St. Luke's.)

As for South Carolina, I am thankful for the seven thousand Episcopalians who refused to go along with the erring crowd. While the old leadership and majority of the diocese decided they had to stand against freedom, equality, and inclusion of all of God's children in the church, the right-thinking people resolved to stand for the human rights of other people even at cost to themselves. From Georgia to North Carolina, even in small towns and rural countryside, faithful Episcopalians everywhere stood and said "No" to prejudice and discrimination. They met in little groups wherever they could find space. They kept the faith with God and their fellow human beings. 

Today I am lost in thanksgiving for these people who gave of themselves and chose the hard way because it was the right way. I especially give thanks for the people who had to leave their church homes and for those who stayed awaiting the return of the Episcopal bishop. While no one knows the future, I say to you there is a good chance the courts will finally rule on your side. You have come so far down a very long and hard road; do not lose hope. You are my heroes. Two thousand years of history are looking down on you. You are in the very good company of the saints who kept the faith that the Holy Spirit moved through the whole church.

Finally, I am thankful for you, blog reader. You keep me going even on the dark days, especially on the dark days.   

NOTES,  22 NOVEMBER 2021

Greetings, blog reader, on Monday, November 22, 2021. My best wishes to you. It is time to take stock and check in on the issues we have been following for some time now. This is Thanksgiving week, always a busy time; and with Christmas bearing down, it is too easy to get lost in all the hullabaloo of holiday doings. It is good to stop, take a pause, and look at the world around us.

This is a bitter-sweet time. Part of the bitter is that today, November 22, is the anniversary of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, in 1963. All people who were alive on that day will never forget where they were when they learned the news. I was a junior at Florida State U. and was enjoying a beautiful, sunny day as I walked to French class after lunch. In the hallway outside the door I saw a group of students huddled around a small transistor radio. Someone whispered that the President had been shot. What I remember now is the quietness of it all. Everyone was in shock. No one wanted to talk. A few minutes later came the report of the death. We all dispersed in total silence and drifted about that beautiful campus as lost sheep. At 5 o'clock, I went to the Episcopal chapel where a standing room crowd read the Great Litany. Again, the eerie silence of it all stands out in my mind today. It was as if we were all too disoriented by the clashing belief and disbelief that the unthinkable event had actually happened.

Part of our anguish at the time was the incredulity that a lone gunman, a nobody, could possibly have done this most consequential crime. A few years ago, I was on one of my cross-country train rides when the train stopped in Dallas for awhile on its way to Los Angeles. Dealey Plaza, as it turned out, was only a stone's throw from the station; and so I explored the area. I was amazed at how much smaller the plaza was in person than in the pictures and what a perfect spot Oswald had chosen. Any competent marksman could have done the same thing from that window.

COVID. Although in many ways conditions of life are improving, we must not forget we are still very much in a pandemic, the worst in a century. In fact, statistically, in America it has bypassed the last one, the great flu pandemic of 1918-19. In the world, some 5.1 million people have died from COVID-19. The United States continues to have the highest number of cases and of deaths. Nearly 800,000 Americans have died in this plague (600,000 died in the flu pandemic). In South Carolina and Alabama, nearly one in five people have contracted the virus. In SC, 14,096 people have died in this pandemic, in AL, 16,073. While the last surge topped out in September, there are worrying signs that a fourth surge may be starting as winter sets in. Meanwhile, most Americans have been vaccinated and now have access to booster shots. While daily life is gradually moving back to "normal," COVID-19 is still very much with us and we must not let down our guards.

THE ADVENT. Life is gradually moving back to "normal" too at the Cathedral Church of the Advent in Birmingham. The hootenanny band is being moved out of the nave and services are returning to what one would call traditional Episcopal prayer book worship. The parish is continuing the process of finding a new dean to replace the Rev. Pearson, who, incidentally, is busy setting up a new (non-Episcopal) church, now meeting in a synagogue. According to his own word, about 100 people left the Advent to follow him. The Advent claims some 3,000 members.

SCHISM. All attention is now focused on the hearing set for December 8, 2021, in the South Carolina Supreme Court. Although the public will not be allowed in the courtroom, everyone can watch the proceeding on the court's live-stream.

We know that, as per state law, a fifth acting justice has been assigned to take the place of recused Justice Kaye Hearn. However, the court will not put the name of the AJ on its website because the assignment is subject to change. Of course, we will all know the identity of the AJ when the camera turns on for the live-stream, just two weeks from Wednesday. The AJ is certain to be an experienced judge prominent in the state court system.

Of the five justices to decide this case, two were part of the 2015 hearing and 2017 written decision: Donald Beatty (now chief justice) and John Kittredge. Beatty voted with the majority on the Episcopal side while Kittredge voted with the minority on the secessionist side. Three of the five justices had nothing to do with the earlier litigation: John Few, George James, and the AJ. 

This hearing is on the Episcopal appeal of Judge Edgar Dickson's 2020 Order recognizing local ownership of the 29 parishes in question and the Camp. The core of Dickson's opinion was that the parishes had not acceded to the Dennis Canon. This was a reversal of the 2017 SCSC decision when four of the five justices had ruled that the parishes had acceded to the Canon. Beatty and Kittredge were among the four. 

The five justices now will have to decide between the SCSC decision of 2017 and Dickson's Order of 2020. The SCSC  majority ruled that the Dennis Canon was in effect and the Episcopal Church became the owner of the properties. Dickson ruled that the Dennis Canon was ineffective and the local congregations were the owners of the properties. So, the five justices will decide whether the supreme court's decision should stand or the circuit court's order should be final. If they decide for the circuit court, they will be revoking their own decision which became the law. If they allow a lower court to reverse a supreme court decision they will upend the entire judicial system of the state of South Carolina. However much they may dress this up in legalese, this would undermine forever the authority and integrity of the state supreme court. The stakes for jurisprudence in SC could not be higher. 

If I have learned anything keeping this blog, it is not to make predictions. However, I do wonder if the recent election of a bishop coadjutor in the secessionist diocese of SC might hint at the future. If the breakaways were sure they were going to prevail in court, would not they plan for the future as a viable, independent organization? By electing a man from the overlapping and rival diocese in ACNA over two of their own internal candidates, the schismatics of the old diocese may be signaling a merger with their rivals/friends. By joining another reactionary diocese, they would lose their particular identity as the continuing majority of the old Diocese of South Carolina (something they were forced to recant by the federal court in 2019). So, I wonder if the "Anglican" lawyers know something the rest of us do not know, that they have lost this case. If they do lose, they will wind up with six parishes and nothing of the pre-schism diocese. In this case it would make perfect sense to merge with another like-minded group.

It would be foolish at this point to jump to any conclusions. The justices may find some way (although I cannot imagine it) to meld their 2017 decision with Dickson and wind up giving the local properties to the schismatics. If they do, nothing really changes from the present status quo. The local congregations in question will go on as part of an ACNA diocese and the Episcopal diocese will go on as is.

If, however, the justices overrule Dickson and order the enforcement of their court's 2017 decision, a great deal will change. Presumably the SCSC would send down another order of implementation to the circuit court. The actual transfer of the properties back to the Episcopal Church would be under the control of the circuit court. This could be dragged out for a long time. Judge Dickson has shown his true colors. It could be years before the Episcopal bishop could reappear in any one of the 29 parishes. So, even if the SCSC rules in favor of the Episcopal Church, the actual end of the schism may still be a long time off. The breakaways have made it abundantly clear they will pursue deny and delay to the bitter end. They have scornfully rejected every offer of compromise and settlement by mediation.

In my opinion, when all is said and done, the church case is a test of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The first part of this requires the separation of church and state. Throughout all the years, this has become a bedrock principle of American democracy. Under this, the civic state, including its courts, must not intrude on the rights of a religious body to govern itself. In this case, the hierarchical Episcopal Church set its own rules regarding property. No court has the right under the First Amendment to reject this. No court can tell the Episcopal Church that its canon laws on property cannot apply because they violate state law. Church law and state law must remain separate.

It seems to me that the First Amendment was the heart of the SCSC decision of 2017 and that Dickson's order was in direct defiance of it. If the state supreme court said interference in church governance was protected by the First Amendment in 2017, I do not see how they could say it is not protected in 2021. The First Amendment has not changed. The issues in this case have not changed. What has changed is the circuit court's interpretation of the case. This is the matter before the SC Supreme Court now.  

Let us not get overwhelmed by all the natural and man-made woes clouding over us. God created all things and set the universe in order. Seasons come and seasons go, year in and year out, forever, regardless of whatever else may be going on in our lives. The rhythms of nature remind us that there is a much bigger picture to life in a creation much greater than ourselves. 

Autumn is also a bitter-sweet time, especially to gardeners as myself. Sweet because we revel in the brilliant colors of the plants. Bitter because we know the cold winds and long nights of winter are not far behind. Today, let us be positive and revel in the beauty of the day. Go for a ride down a country road, go for a long walk, sit on your porch or balcony, or at least sit at your window and look at the wonders of nature all around us in this glorious autumn season. Breathe in the cool and dry air of the fall and rejoice that summer's heat and humidity have finally gone.

Here are some pictures of my garden in the past few days:            

Although the large, brilliant trees, as the maples, tend to steal the show in autumn, many other trees and shrubs also put on noteworthy displays of color. Here is a common blueberry bush. We think of blueberry giving us countless delicious berries in June, but we should also notice it in November. This bush is full grown at eight feet. I leave the berries for the birds. If their music is any indication, I am sure I have the happiest birds in the county.

Forsythia is a favorite shrub in my region, and for good reason. In February these bushes will be covered with tiny bright yellow flowers, even before they put out any leaves. They are beautiful in spring, but look at them in autumn too.  

In planning my garden, I mixed formal and informal. Here is an informal patch with Japanese Silver Grass on right, red Burning Bush (Euonymous alatus) in center, and yellow Grancy Grey Beard (Chionanthus virginicus) bounded by a walkpath in front of a formal row of evergreen hollies and Japanese Cedar trees. 

Camellias are the stars of the winter garden but some actually start blooming in September. This is "Autumn Pink Icicle." It blooms for two months from September to November in a profusion of deep pink flowers.

Governor Mouton is an old favorite camellia. The bush grows to 15 feet and puts out many red flowers in fall and winter.

Alabama Croton (Croton alabamensis) is an endangered species growing in the wild only in a few ever-shrinking spots, mostly in northern Alabama. It is one of my favorite shrubs because it puts out beautiful leaves, green on top and silver on bottom. It is semi-evergreen. In autumn, some leaves turn pumpkin orange.

Persian Ironwood Tree (Parrotia persica) is native of Iran. A good small tree for the home yard/garden, it grows to about 15 feet. In autumn, it turns a lemon yellow. This one is in my back yard, outside my bedroom window. Its beauty greets me every morning when I open the curtains. 

So, life goes on and we must go with it. This is the time that God gave to us for the living of our lives. The present woes and tribulations we did not ask for but they are parts of it all. They were handed to us along with the rest and we must bear them. We wish they would go away and leave us alone but they will not. That is not our choice to make. The choice we have is how to live our lives even in the face of adversity. If we believe in an ordered universe, and I do, we must have confidence everything has a place and a reason even though it may be as indecipherable to us as it was to Job. Peace.

 

AWAITING THE HEARING

OF 8 DECEMBER

The deck is cleared. We have had the bishops' elections and the Diocese of South Carolina's annual convention. Now we can turn all of our attention to the upcoming hearing in the South Carolina Supreme Court, set for 8 December 2021. To use a baseball analogy, this hearing is the bottom of the Ninth Inning. There have been eight very long innings as the lead has swung back and forth. All of us in the bleachers passed exhaustion long ago but even so still hang on tenterhooks for the last out. 

Nine years is a long time indeed to wait for justice to arrive. Nevertheless, after all this time, we are finally approaching the end. What the justices decide after the hearing will end the ball game. They will declare the winner. There will be no appeal or re-take, no re-do game. Either the Episcopal Church or the secessionist contingent will gain the 29 parishes in question and Camp St. Christopher.

As we know, the public will not be allowed in the courtroom of the SCSC, in Columbia. However, there will be a live-stream of the hearing. 

Since state law requires it, we can rest assured there will be an Acting Justice to take the place of recused Justice Kaye Hearn. We will learn the name of the AJ either when it is posted on the SCSC website or when the hearing begins. Having five justices to rule on the case means a tie vote is extremely unlikely. A 2-2 tie could happen if one justice abstains from judgment, something most unlikely in this case. Not having a tie vote works against the breakaways since a tie would uphold the Dickson Order of 2019. That Order gave all in question to the breakaway side. The Dickson Order can be reversed only by majority vote among the justices.

So, the hearing in the SCSC on Dec. 8 is to "hear" arguments against and for Dickson's Order. The Episcopal Church side appealed Dickson's decision to the SCSC which agreed to take it. The Church lawyers will speak first, followed by the breakaway attorneys, then a rebuttal from the Church side. Although this session is called a "hearing" it is likely to be more of a questioning. This is the only chance the justices have to ask questions directly, face-to-face, of the lawyers. In the hearing of 2015, the justices used much of the time asking questions, many lengthy. After the hearing, the justices will take their time before delivering their written opinion. After the last hearing, in 2015, the justices took 22 months to publish their opinion.

The issues facing the court now are simple. The Episcopal Church is asserting that the SCSC ruling of August 2, 2017 was definitive. By majority vote in 2017, the justices ruled that 28 (actually 29) of the 36 parishes in question belonged to the Episcopal Church along with Camp St. Christopher. Therefore, when Judge Dickson ruled that the 28 parishes and the Camp did not belong to the Episcopal Church he was wrong. He had no right, or justifiable reason, to reverse the SCSC decision. The TEC lawyers will argue that the justices should reverse Dickson and order the implementation of its 2017 decision. This would order the return of the 29 and the Camp to the Episcopal Church and its local diocese.

The lawyers of the breakaway side, that now calls itself the Anglican Diocese of South Carolina, will argue that the SCSC decision of 2017 was not definitive and that Dickson had every right to discern the meaning of the decision in its totality. They will say the parishes did not accede to the Dennis Canon and therefore the Episcopal Church had no trust rights to the properties. 

The key point in all of this is the Dennis Canon. Did the 29 parishes accede to the Canon? In the 2017 decision, four of the five justices agreed that they had acceded to it. One, Kittredge, said they had the right to revoke their accessions; and they did at the moment of the schism. This left three of the five, a majority of the court, to rule that the Dennis Canon remained in effect and as result, the Episcopal Church became the owner of the local properties at the moment of the schism. The Canon held that if a congregation left the Episcopal Church it would forfeit ownership of the local property to the Episcopal Church. Thus, by majority opinion, the SCSC ruled in its 2017 decision that the Episcopal Church was the owner of the 29 local properties (7 were recognized as owning their properties).

The SCSC remitted its decision back down to the circuit court of origin for implementation in 2017. Instead, the judge, Dickson, ruled that the parishes had not acceded to the Dennis Canon and therefore remained the owners of their local properties while the Anglican diocese was the owner of the Camp.

Thus, Dickson directly contradicted the SC Supreme Court. The SCSC said the parishes acceded to the Dennis Canon. Dickson said the parishes did not accede to it.

Two of the justices from the 2017 decision will be in the hearing on Dec. 8, Beatty (chief justice), and Kittredge. Both of them had ruled in 2017 that the parishes in question had acceded to the Dennis Canon. Therefore, it will be fascinating to hear attorney Runyan tell Chief Justice Beatty and Justice Kittredge to their faces that they were wrong.

There are two ways to approach the hearing and the impending decision of the SC Supreme Court. One of them is overt, the other covert. One side will press one and the other side the other. The overt approach is to interpret the case as one of jurisprudence. The Episcopal lawyers will use this approach. The SCSC issued a majority opinion in 2017 that became the law of the land when the court refused a rehearing and the U.S. Supreme Court refused to take the case. The circuit judge was assigned the implementation of the decision. He had no right to retry the issues or to reverse the SCSC decision. Thus, the SCSC must protect its authority in the state judicial system by refuting Dickson's illegal action. If a circuit court is allowed to reject and replace a state supreme court decision, anarchy will ensue in the whole legal and judicial system of the state. No case will ever be closed. In the end, the state supreme court must defend its motto "Nil ultra" (nothing beyond).

The other approach, the covert one, is the one the breakaway side may pursue, but if they do they must do so privately. This is to make the church case a part of the contemporary American culture war. The direct cause of the schism of 2012 in South Carolina was equal rights and inclusion of non-celibate homosexuals in the life of the church. The Episcopal Church for years had advanced human rights for all marginalized and oppressed people including African Americans, women, and gays. When the Church adopted the blessing of same-sex unions, in 2012, the leaders of the Diocese of South Carolina resolved to break the diocese away from the national church. They created a schism. The breakaway group then adopted a Statement of Faith that condemned homosexuality and joined a new denomination that kept women in submission to men. The breakaways left the Episcopal Church explicitly to prevent gays and women from having equality and inclusion. 

The culture war is a clash between the predominant historical movement in America towards a more democratic society and the backlash against this growing democratization. In history, a revolution always has a secondary counter-revolution. The Episcopal Church was a significant part of the revolution. The Anglican Diocese of South Carolina and its denomination the Anglican Church in North America are parts of the counter-revolution. Since the motivating factor for the schism was to prevent social change in the church, the Anglican diocese can interpret the battle at hand as the fight to keep gays and women in their pre-revolutionary roles. A victory for the Episcopal side in the church case will be a victory for social change. A victory for the Anglican side will be a victory for social reaction. Surely, behind the scenes the breakaway side are playing up the culture war in order to put pressure on the justices to favor the breakaway side. 

Two factors support the breakaway side in this. One, all state judges and justices in South Carolina are elected for terms by the state legislature. In a sense, all of them have to be political, especially if they want re-election. The other factor is the well-known historic conservatism of the state of South Carolina. Even though the statue of John C. Calhoun was removed from Marion Square, his influence is far from gone. Conservatives have a monopoly on SC state government as they have had for many years now. Thus, the natural inclination in SC would be to lean to the breakaway side in order to bolster its fight in the culture war. 

If the majority of the five justices want to prop up conservatism in the state, they will have a great challenge in the case at hand because the state supreme court has already ruled in favor of the Episcopal Church. If they vote to uphold Dickson, they will be voting to overturn their own court's decision which was the law of the land. If the majority does go down this route, I will be fascinated to see how they explain themselves. They cannot uphold the 2017 SCSC decision and Dickson at the same time. These two are are directly contradictory. It will have to be one or the other. Either the parishes adopted the Dennis Canon or they did not. There is no in-between.

So, it boils down to whether the court wants to defend established jurisprudence or to strike a blow to support the social reactionaries in the culture war. If they choose jurisprudence, the Episcopal Church will win. If they opt for the culture war, the Anglican side will win.

One more thought. Although the culture war is raging in America stronger than ever, the part opposing rights for gays has waned over the past few years. After the U.S. Supreme Court established same sex marriage in 2015, the anti-gay crusade moved far into the rear of the war. In the forefront now is the anti-abortion crusade (anti-women) and voter suppression (anti-black and brown). I think we may safely assume the deep pockets financing the reactionary side of the culture war are putting their money on the new crusades rather than on the dead horse of homosexuality. All of this suggests that the reactionary side in South Carolina may have lost interest in the issue of homosexuality, the very reason for being of the schismatic diocese. If so, the right wing groups' support for the Anglican diocese may have waned too. It was very strong in 2017 when it viciously hounded a state supreme court justice into recusing herself for the future of the church case. Since any pressure on the justices to side with the breakaways would have to be in private, we may never know what is actually going on behind the scenes. We may not be able to tell until the court issues its written decision.

Jurisprudence or culture war? I suggest we all listen very carefully to the questions the justices ask in the hearing. These will give us a good indication of their thinking and their probable course toward a written decision. Looking back, the 2015 hearing certainly indicated the future decision. We have every reason to believe this hearing will do the same.

So, again, we are nearing the end of the game. It has been a long and hard fight for everyone involved. The hurt, the wounds, the sorrows are deep and wide. Yet, in our fatigue and sadness we must not forget that we are Christians. Whatever happens next, we must remain worthy of the name we bear.      

 

[Note. The following has nothing to do with South Carolina or church. It is my memoir of my major professor in graduate school. I am posting it here to give it a presence on the Internet and to encourage his other students to do the same.]

MEMORIES OF DONALD DAVID HORWARD

(1933-1921)

When Mister Rogers (Fred Rogers) gave a talk, he usually invited his listeners to close their eyes and remember the people in their lives who had helped them the most. The point was that none of us makes it in life alone. We are all helped along by the people who contribute to our lives. When you close your eyes, for whom do you give thanks? For me, outside of my immediate family, the first name that pops into mind is Donald David Horward. He enriched my life beyond measure. He died a few days ago, on October 31, 2021, at the age of eighty-eight. Today my sadness is tempered by the overwhelming gratitude I feel for having had this most remarkable person in my life. Here are my memories of Don Horward.

Donald D. Horward was a professor in the History Department of Florida State University from 1961 to 2005. His specialty was the period of the French Revolution and Napoleon (Europe 1789-1815). The Doctor of Philosophy program of the History Department offered a major field of study in the French Revolution and Napoleon, one of relatively few U.S. universities to do so.

Space here does not allow a complete accounting of his monumental academic career. He directed over one hundred graduate students, published numerous books, wrote hundreds of articles, amassed a world-class library, and gave countless papers and talks. He was awarded a long list of honors, the greatest of which was the French Legion of Honor. In my opinion, he was the star of the F.S.U. History Department, at least certainly among the non-Americanists. Naturally, students flocked to him as to a magnet. His contingent, "the Horwardians," basked in his dazzling glow and imagined themselves to be the crème de la crème among the graduate students in the Department. Et puis nous les Horwardiens parlaient français, si mal.

I knew history was my calling at the age of ten when I did my Fourth Grade project on Florida history. From then on, the study of history was the focus of my academic life. At Pensacola High School (2,200 enrollment) I was the most outstanding history student and was awarded the "History Medal" at graduation. Of all the honors I have won in my life, that is the one of which I am most proud. I went on to Florida State University, gaining a bachelor's degree in Education in 1965 and a master's degree in History in 1966. I taught history at a junior college in Orlando from 1966 to 1968.

In 1968 I gained admission to the doctoral program in History and returned to F.S.U. Early on, my first encounter with Don Horward did not go well. I forget the circumstances now, but he asked me, "Who is your major professor?" I shot back cheerfully, "You are!" He stared at me increduously for what seemed like a long time and moved away. Later, he sent me word through another student that that was not the way to do business in the Department. Nevertheless, he took me on anyway and never mentioned it. What he should have said was, "Mr. Caldwell, you must first ask a professor if he will accept you as a doctoral student in this Department. You are not to assume anything." In spite of my initial brash impertinence, we became good friends and I began to mature. 

What really sealed our bond early on came in 1969 when Phi Alpha Theta, the history student honor society, held a contest for the best undergraduate and graduate papers with the awards to be given out at the annual banquet. Not expecting to win against stiff competition (there were more than 100 graduate students in the F.S.U. History Department at that time), I turned in a 75-page paper on the split between Talleyrand and Napoleon. Low and behold, the emcee called out my name for the best graduate paper and then called out Richard Long for the winning undergraduate work. We were both Horwardians. For weeks, Don went about the Department reminding the three dozen other faculty that his students were "the best." We were on the same page from then on. I had put my initial faux pas behind me.

It was a good thing that we were friends because I had an incredible amount of hard work ahead of me and needed all the help I could get. The requirements for the Ph.D. were extremely demanding. Most of the students who entered the program did not obtain the degree. There were the highly rigorous written and oral exams in five fields, one outside of History, then the dissertation, an original book written from archival sources.

I would like to say I sailed through it all with flying colors but that would not be true. My verbal exam by the panel of five professors did not go as well as I had expected. I did alright with most questions but then stumbled over some that a person aspiring to a doctor's degree should have answered easily. I have never been good at speaking spontaneously on my feet. After making what I thought as a good discussion of the economic background of the American Civil War, I was asked about the abolitionists. I went through a long list of secondary and obscure ones and then the professor started at me. He said, "You have given us all the obscure ones, but who was the greatest of the abolitionists?" My mind went completely blank. I struck out on what should have been an easy homerun. "Frederick Douglass" he shouted incredulously. My face turned bright red as I shook my head and my self-confidence collapsed. What an idiot I am, I thought. It was downhill from then on. When it came to tough questions on Eighteenth Century philosophers, I managed only thin responses, to the obvious disappointment of that professor. By the end, I was completely rattled. 

Afterwards, I stood outside the room for what seemed an eternity. I was not informed of the conversation among the five in the room but I believe now, looking back, Dr. Horward saved my skin. By his forceful personality, he convinced the others to let me by on the promise that my dissertation would more than make up for my lackluster performance. My defeat would have been his defeat, and defeat was something he would not accept for either of us. I believe that because they did agree to pass me and I did turn in an impressive dissertation.

Since Horward's great interest was Napoleonic military history, and most of all the Peninsular War, he almost always guided his students to research topics into this area. Campaigns, battles, and generals were the usual dissertation subjects. I, however, was not much interested in military history. To me a battle is akin to a football game. There is only so much one can say about it.

These were the days of the 1960's and as a person who had grown up in the Jim Crow south, I was fascinated by the swirling cultural and social changes going on all around me. I wanted to know how societies of the past had managed great changes and no period in history was more exemplary of such than the French Revolution, the mother of all subsequent revolutionary movements. I was fascinated by the French Revolution with its good side, which was very good, and its bad side, which was infamously bloody. It seemed to me in the 1960's that nothing could be more exciting to study than the French Revolution. My problem was in finding the right topic for my dissertation.

Out of the blue, that problem was solved by a pure coincidence. I inherited a topic which turned out to be the perfect one for me. It allowed me to delve deeply into the heart of the history of the French Revolution. My gift came from Emma Walker Schulken who had been a History student at the University of Florida years earlier and had written a master's thesis on a political leader of the radical phase of the Revolution, André Amar. She had intended to go on with the topic on the doctoral level but had switched to major in Education. As a professor in the F.S.U. College of Education, she sent word to Horward offering to donate her box of research notes on Amar. She was cleaning out to move to a new job in Virginia. Thank goodness, Horward thought first of me and then, true to form, instantly called me in and sputtered orders for me to go straightaway to see Schulken. I raced over to the Education building. I could hardly believe my good fortune. There is another person who contributed greatly to my life and I am eternally grateful for her generosity. Owing to Schulken's magic gift, I was the only one of Horward's dozens of graduate students who produced a doctoral dissertation on the political history of the French Revolution. I was doubly fortunate because all this happened before my doctoral exams. 

With the comprehensive exams out of the way, I headed off to Paris for my research. I spent the four months of September-December 1970 in France, most of the time in les Archives nationales which was then in the beautiful Eighteenth Century Rohan-Soubise mansion on the Right Bank. I read and made notes on countless original documents from the revolutionary governments. Amar had been the leader of one of the two governing committees at the height of the revolution. While I was in Paris, Don and Annabel Horward came over for his own research and we had a grand time in the most beautiful and wonderful city in the world. The friends I had made among the other American graduate students there became his friends and he kept up with them for years. He was sincerely interested in what everyone was studying. 

By January of 1971, I was back in Tallahassee, at Alumni Village, the married student housing, ready to write my magnum opus on Amar and the French Revolution. My father lent me the money I needed to get by. I had no telephone, car, television, or air conditioner. I had a typewriter and a mountain of notes and copies of documents. I turned in a chapter at a time to Don who promptly returned it to me with many red lines. I never had to wait long to get a chapter back. I lost track of the number of times I had to redo material, all for the better. By June the dissertation was mostly done but still with much hard work to do. 

Another lingering problem was what to do about a job once I had finished the degree. This was 1971 and the job market in academia was quickly running dry. Then suddenly, as with Schulken, a stroke of good luck appeared out of the blue. Horward learned of an opening for an Associate Professor at Jacksonville State University, in Jacksonville, Alabama, in modern European history. Since I had no telephone, as soon as he got the news of the job, he hopped into his Ford and raced out to Alumni Village and ordered me to call the dean at Jacksonville State. I was flat broke. I did not have a quarter to put in the pay phone. Not to be deterred, Don jumped into his car as the city bus was passing by. He decided to run down the bus to get change for a dollar from the driver. After a wild ride, he lost the race as the bus sped off into the distance. He then drove to a nearby convenience store to get change. With his quarter, I made the call and was hired on the phone, on the spot, for the job teaching surveys, upper level courses, and graduate classes in the J.S.U. History Department. It paid $13,500 a year, a good salary at the time and an astonishing fortune to me. Don never let me forget that I was so poor I had to use his quarter to get my job.

Having the job in hand meant I had to finish the dissertation in the next two months. Horward cleared the deck. I turned in chapters as fast as I could and he returned them covered in red as fast as he could. We went through this over and over. Although we were in a rush, he refused to sacrifice perfection for expediency. And, remember I had no air conditioner. An upstairs apartment with little to no ventilation in a Tallahassee summer is---well you know if you have been there.

Finally D-Day arrived, as I recall on August 9, 1971. I appeared before my panel of five professors to defend my dissertation. With the memory of the dismal verbal exam fresh in mind, I refused to assume any outcome. I did not know how the five would react, whether they would throw it out the window or venerate this book Don and I had created. As it turned out, I need not have worried. They all raved about it, one even calling it "dazzling." Don beamed. I beamed as I melted into my chair. I was not out of the room long before they brought me back in and addressed me as "doctor." If I had had the energy, I would have wept. Instead, I thanked each of them profusely and apologized for my missteps. My long, hard struggle for the doctor's degree in History was over. While I thanked Dr. Horward as much as I could, I could never repay him for what he had done for me. A few days later, my wife and I packed our few meager possessions in a tiny U-Haul and headed out for northern Alabama and a new life.

Donald Horward was the model history professor. From him I learned three guiding principles for my own career:  be passionate about what you do; research your topic to exhaustion; and care for your students. While neither I nor any of his other students could ever reach his levels on these, we all knew we should try and we did. Our major professor was the lofty example to which we all aspired. 

Over the years we maintained warm if infrequent contacts. The only time I think he got really annoyed with me was around the publications of the Napoleonic bibliographies. In 1985, he edited a book on the bibliography of Napoleonic military history with chapters being contributed by various authorities. It had been a lot of work and he was rightfully proud of it. Then, I told him I was continuing a project I had started years earlier. In 1985, I published a large two-volume comprehensive bibliography of the French Revolutionary period. As it had been well received, I planned to go on to another large two-volume bibliography of the Napoleonic age. At first he took a dim view as he saw it as potentially overshadowing his own bibliography. I tried to assure him the works would be very different. He said to me, in other words, Why should people use your bibliography since you are not an authority on Napoleonic history? Taken aback at this implied criticism, I replied that if people did not want to use my bibliography they could make their own and I was not concerned about what other people thought about my work. He never brought up the subject again, and, in fact, published a warm review of my 1991 bibliography of the Napoleonic period in The Journal of Military History. 

As my two big bibliographies (four large volumes) found a certain amount of acclaim, Horward never hesitated to share in the credit. In one review, Raymonde Monnier, a French Revolution authority, said my bibliographies were called "le Caldwell" among scholars in France. La Fondation Napoléon noted Horward's retirement in its 2005 Bulletin: "One further highlight of Don Horward's teaching career is the huge two-volume, essential bibliography of works on Napoleon, the result of a Ph.D. by Ronald Caldwell, supervised by Don. This work is the Napoleonic student's vademecum and Don cannot be praised enough for having encouraged its inception." Thus, in time, Horward stopped worrying about what people might think of my work and starting praising it. I greeted all of this with open arms because nothing would mean more to me than my mentor's pride in my publications. In a way, for a moment, our old roles reversed. Instead of my basking in his light, he basked in mine. He had had nothing to do with creating my bibliography of Napoleon, but he had a lot to do with its aftermath. I was delighted.

There were three periods in Horward's career at F.S.U., 1961-1977, 1978-1989, 1990-2007. The first I will call "The Youthful Spring." He arrived in 1961, at the age of twenty-eight to become an instructor. Young, enthusiastic, bursting with energy, and ambitious, Horward soared quickly climbing in the History Department and gathering a devoted and growing student following. Four students finished their dissertations before I did, Gordon Bond in 1966, Jeanne Ojala in 1969, Gordon Teffeteller in 1969, and Daniel Gray in 1970. Erin McCawley Renn completed her work in 1971, the same as I. 

Gordon Bond went on to have an illustrious career at Auburn University as chair of the History Department and dean of Arts and Sciences. He died in 1997, aged 57. Jeanne Ojala went on to a long career in the History Department of the University of Utah. She died in 2020, aged 86. Gordon Teffeteller taught for years at Valdosta State University. He died in 2017, age 86. Dan Gray taught at Troy State University at Ft. Rucker, in Alabama. He died in 1993, aged 48. Erin Renn went on to a series of jobs teaching in college and working in museums and history related areas.

I do not know if Renn is still alive but if she is, she and I are the "deans" of the Horwardians, the earliest surviving Ph.D.s of Don Horward, both finishing in 1971.

According to the American Historical Association Directory of History Dissertations, Donald Horward directed thirty-five Ph.D. dissertations. Fifteen of these were in the first period, 1961-1977. All of them dealt with Napoleonic history, mostly military, except for mine on the French Revolution and Richard Long's on Tuscany's relations with France during the Revolution. Horward was known to all as a highly energetic, outgoing, assertive, and caring mentor. This was especially true in the youthful vigor of his twenties, thirties and early forties. 

After I finished in 1971, Horward produced nine more Ph.D.s in The Youthful Spring phase---1972, Milton Finley, Richard Long;  1973, Donald Howard Barry, Winslow Cope Goodwin (1926-1993);  1974, Mildred L. Fryman;  1975, John Severn;  1976, George Knight (1928-2013), Samuel Vichness;  1977, Susan Punzel Conner (d. 2020, age 73). 

As time went by, age mellowed him, and in the end, at the conference to him last year, he had naturally grown markedly slower and quieter while still putting out the occasional spark of the old dynamic self. Those of us who were lucky enough to know and work with him in his dynamic youth were more fortunately than we may have realized. 

By the mid-1970's the academic scene for History changed drastically. Jobs became few and far between if there at all. Instead of continuing to churn out Ph.D.s who could not find college teaching jobs, Horward resolved to reduce his graduate load. From 1978 to 1989, he guided only two students to Ph.D.s.

The lull was not to last. It was just not in Horward's nature to allow this inactivity to continue long. He was much too energetic. Perhaps he was stimulated by the great celebrations of the French Revolution bicentennial in 1989. He himself put on one of the best shows as he hosted a conference in Tallahassee that eclipsed by far anything ever seen in this history of the Consortium on Revolutionary Europe (around since 1971). It was dazzling. I know because I was there.

So, the third phase began in 1990 and ran to 2007. I will call this the Final Flurry, as if the aging master was resolved to produce as much of value and worth as he could in the limited time left. This was particularly true for the years 1990 to 2001 when he directed sixteen dissertations, a record number. This was where he was at the zenith of his maturity and his students benefited greatly from his long career of intense scholarship. Although he retired in 2005, at the age of seventy-two, he still directed two dissertations one in 2006 and the other in 2007.

In looking back, I have one major regret about my relationship with Don Horward. When I retired from Jacksonville State in 1999, he specially arranged for me to have a visiting professorship to teach a course in the French Revolution at F.S.U. Unfortunately, when he told me about it, I had already committed to another appointment and could not back out. I would have dearly loved to have been able to return to F.S.U. to share with the students what I had learned over the years about the Revolution. Nothing could have made me happier. As it was, I had to decline the offer. I am still sad about it, but I will always appreciate beyond measure his thought about me.

It is sometimes said we spend our lives seeking our parents' approval as if to justify our existences. Although Don Horward was only ten years older than I, I regarded him more as a father figure than a brother. So, in the end did I get his approval? I think so. He offered me a visiting professorship in a program he had built from scratch to monumental status. In the end, I felt all my hard work had been validated. I will wrap up that nugget and keep it in my pocket.

Everyone is unique, but once in awhile comes along the person who is so exceptional as to stand far beyond the rest. In the academic world of History, Donald D. Horward was that man. He enriched the lives of dozens on dozens of people who saw in him their better selves. He made us better academicians. He made us better historians. He made us better people. This is his legacy. 

NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN THE ALL SAINTS, FT. WORTH, BANKRUPTCY CASE

Today, November 2, 2021, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, in Ft. Worth, Texas, issued a procedural schedule in the bankruptcy case of All Saints Episcopal Church, Ft. Worth. On October 20th, All Saints filed in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court of North Texas. The bankruptcy filing puts up an automatic stay that prevents creditors from collecting from the debtor (All Saints). 

Today's court decisions may be found here :

"Meeting of creditors 341(1) meeting to be held on 12/1/2021 at 01:30 PM by TELEPHONE. Proofs of Claims due by 3/1/2021. Government Proof of Claim due by 5/30/2022."

Since I am not a lawyer, I cannot speak to what all this means legally, but I assume it means the bankruptcy filing continues to at least May 30 of 2022. If the stay continues for the duration of the bankruptcy filing, I expect this means the breakaway diocese cannot gain possession of All Saints' bank accounts until at least next June. If this is true, it should give All Saints Episcopal Church a breathing space. 

All Saints Episcopal Church is a major parish, 1,500 members, with a large and valuable building and considerable budget. In the schism, it remained loyal to the national Episcopal Church. Thanks to the Texas supreme court, the secessionists won the whole of the pre-schism diocese and promptly moved to take possession. All Saints' recourse to the bankruptcy court at least stalls the turnover of the parish property to the anti-Episcopal Church party.