Itemoids

White House

Kamala Harris to attend Tyre Nichols' funeral

CNN

www.cnn.com › 2023 › 01 › 31 › politics › kamala-harris-tyre-nichols › index.html

Vice President Kamala Harris will attend the funeral of Tyre Nichols in Memphis on Wednesday, according to a White House official, joining other senior level Biden administration officials at the service.

J. Kenji López-Alt Thinks You’ll Be Fine With an Induction Stove

The Atlantic

www.theatlantic.com › ideas › archive › 2023 › 01 › j-kenji-lopez-alt-induction-gas-stove-electric-coil › 672897

Gas stoves are a new front in the culture wars. This month, an errant comment from a bureaucrat caused a full-blown conservative panic over whether such stoves would be banned, eventually prompting a White House statement that effectively walked the whole thing back.

Amid all this posturing, a more practical concern is getting lost: How much does gas actually matter when it comes to cooking? Are there some dishes that just can’t be made on electric stoves?

I called up J. Kenji López-Alt—a chef, a New York Times columnist, and the author of The Food Lab and The Wok—to discuss. While we chatted, López-Alt cooked on his gas stove in the background. But don’t take that as an endorsement: He told me that the stove came with his house, but that if he were to build a kitchen from scratch, he’d probably opt for an induction range.

Our conversation has been condensed and edited for clarity.

Caroline Mimbs Nyce: How much does the type of stove actually matter?

J. Kenji López-Alt: I would say for 99 percent of what home cooks—and even restaurant cooks—are doing at home, especially in the Western tradition, the heat source doesn’t matter much. All of your heat is being transferred to your food through the medium of a pan. A hot metal surface is a hot metal surface.

[David A. Graham: The gas-stove debate exemplifies the silliest tendencies in American politics]

One of the things that I think people who are used to cooking on gas appreciate about a gas burner is that it has nearly instant response times. When you turn it up, the flame gets bigger, and the heat gets hotter. And it’s a very visual confirmation of what you’ve done.

Induction has a very fast response as well. It’s a little bit slower than gas, because usually you’re cooking on a glass surface that will retain some heat—rather than just the air that dissipates under gas flame. With electric, you have very slow response time, because the coil will take a long time to heat up and cool down. So of the three, gas and induction are really high, as far as responsiveness goes. Electric coil is more difficult to use.

Nyce: Why do you think people get so grumpy over non-gas stoves?

López-Alt: Technology has changed. Induction is a heck of a lot better than electric coil. It’s extraordinarily efficient as far as energy use goes. With gas and heating coils, a lot of the heat that you’re creating actually dissipates into your kitchen, whereas with induction, the heat generated is literally in the surface of the pan itself. So all of the energy that you’re using goes into the pan.

Your modern induction cooktops are just a lot better than what people might think of as far as what you can get from a non-gas range. Electric coil is just a lot harder to control than either induction or gas.

Nyce: But if you have the right cook at the helm, can you make equally good food on electric?

López-Alt: As with anything, it’s a matter of getting used to it. There are some things that you can’t do. For example, when you’re stir-frying, or searing a chicken breast, and then making a pan sauce, you want to be able to adjust the heat on the go.

To be able to do that on an electric coil, you have to shift the pan on and off the element, because if you just leave it there and turn the dial, the coil is still going to be blazing hot for a long time. So you might end up hurting your chicken skin.

That’s one of the difficulties of electric coils. But some of the best restaurants in the world use solely induction.

Nyce: What are the styles of cuisine—and the specific foods—where it really would be hard to give up gas?

López-Alt: So certainly, some types of wok-cooked dishes, particularly ones that rely on that smoky wok hei flavor that comes from the aerosolized oil actually igniting in the gas flame, like a Cantonese-style chow fun. Or fried rice, for example, would have that sort of smoky flavor that you can’t get out of induction. But for most wok cooking, you don’t need it. There’s plenty of homestyle dishes that don’t have that flavor. For my Wok book tour, I brought around an induction wok cooktop. And it works just fine.           

People have this idea that you can’t cook on a wok without a gas flame. But most of the recipes in my book work just fine without one. There are very few specific recipes where that gas flavor—that smoky flavor of burnt oil—is an important part of the seasoning of the dish.

What I often recommend to people who have electric or induction is, if you want to cook something like a beef chow fun, the way you can do it is to get a portable butane-gas range. And the few times that you want to make that dish, you can pull that out, put it under your hood, or take it outside. And then you have a little portable gas thing, even though the rest of your kitchen is all induction.

My house came with a gas range. If I were to design my kitchen from scratch, I would probably go induction these days.

[Read: The why of cooking]

So that’s wok cooking. For other cuisines … so, for example, today I’m making sopes, so Mexican. And for the salsa I’m making, you need to char peppers on a gas flame. That’s part of the flavor. So I’ve put the peppers directly over the gas flame and let them really char, until the outside gets blackened.

Nyce: Could you also use a butane blowtorch for something like that?

López-Alt: For sure. In fact, there’s a technique I wrote about in my book where, if you want wok hei without a gas flame, you can get a butane torch. Essentially, you can stir-fry noodles, for example, and then spread them out onto a sheet tray, and then just use a butane torch. Pass it over them a few times, and you’ll see the oil kind of snap and crackle and char a little bit. Then put it back in the wok and finish stir-frying it. And you get that flavor that way. So there are definitely work-arounds.

Nyce: So if there are practical solutions for a lot of this stuff, do you think this debate—and the strong reactions that people have to news like this—is a little overblown?

López-Alt: For sure. I wrote online for many, many years. And I remember, any time you changed the fonts or the color scheme on the site, or had a redesign, people went nuts. People just hate, hate, hate change. And they especially hate when change is forced upon them by an outside party.

Nyce: Even if it’s good for their health.

López-Alt: You remember when the smoking ban came in, right? And people lost their minds. And then, like, two years later, it’s like, “Oh, I can go out and not have to inhale all this secondhand smoke and come home stinking.”

People who really cook a lot of, say, Cantonese dishes or certain types of Mexican food, things that really, really require that gas flavor and that direct interaction with the flame—they’re going to find workarounds. As far as restaurants go, I’m not sure, but I really hope that there are exemptions carved in place for restaurants that require wok ranges, for example. It would be insane and unfair to tell Chinese restaurants they can’t use wok burners anymore. But I think there are always industry exemptions for mandates like this, at least for any well-planned ones.

Nyce: Is there anything else from a practical perspective that you would want a home cook to know as they navigate a potential future change from gas to induction?

López-Alt: The biggest difference between cooking on the two for me is just the lack of visual feedback. Every stove is going to be slightly different, even if they all have dials from one to 10. With gas, I can see, This one’s got a really big burner that’s shooting a huge flame when I turn it to 10. Whereas with induction, who knows what that means?

It’s always better to follow visual and auditory cues written into recipes as opposed to ones like “medium for 10 minutes.” Really pay attention to what your food is doing, and correlate that to the settings on the stove. That way, you can rely on those settings instead of the visual feedback you used to rely on of the size of the flame.

J. Kenji López-Alt Thinks You’ll Be Fine With an Induction Stove

The Atlantic

www.theatlantic.com › ideas › archive › 2023 › 01 › j-kenji-lopez-alt-indusction-gas-stove-electric-coil › 672897

Gas stoves are a new front in the culture wars. This month, an errant comment from a bureaucrat caused a full-blown conservative panic over whether such stoves would be banned, eventually prompting a White House statement that effectively walked the whole thing back.

Amid all this posturing, a more practical concern is getting lost: How much does gas actually matter when it comes to cooking? Are there some dishes that just can’t be made on electric stoves?

I called up J. Kenji López-Alt—a chef, a New York Times columnist, and the author of The Food Lab and The Wok—to discuss. While we chatted, López-Alt cooked on his gas stove in the background. But don’t take that as an endorsement: He told me that the stove came with his house, but that if he were to build a kitchen from scratch, he’d probably opt for an induction range.

Our conversation has been condensed and edited for clarity.

Caroline Mimbs Nyce: How much does the type of stove actually matter?

J. Kenji López-Alt: I would say for 99 percent of what home cooks—and even restaurant cooks—are doing at home, especially in the Western tradition, the heat source doesn’t matter much. All of your heat is being transferred to your food through the medium of a pan. A hot metal surface is a hot metal surface.

[David A. Graham: The gas-stove debate exemplifies the silliest tendencies in American politics]

One of the things that I think people who are used to cooking on gas appreciate about a gas burner is that it has nearly instant response times. When you turn it up, the flame gets bigger, and the heat gets hotter. And it’s a very visual confirmation of what you’ve done.

Induction has a very fast response as well. It’s a little bit slower than gas, because usually you’re cooking on a glass surface that will retain some heat—rather than just the air that dissipates under gas flame. With electric, you have very slow response time, because the coil will take a long time to heat up and cool down. So of the three, gas and induction are really high, as far as responsiveness goes. Electric coil is more difficult to use.

Nyce: Why do you think people get so grumpy over non-gas stoves?

López-Alt: Technology has changed. Induction is a heck of a lot better than electric coil. It’s extraordinarily efficient as far as energy use goes. With gas and heating coils, a lot of the heat that you’re creating actually dissipates into your kitchen, whereas with induction, the heat generated is literally in the surface of the pan itself. So all of the energy that you’re using goes into the pan.

Your modern induction cooktops are just a lot better than what people might think of as far as what you can get from a non-gas range. Electric coil is just a lot harder to control than either induction or gas.

Nyce: But if you have the right cook at the helm, can you make equally good food on electric?

López-Alt: As with anything, it’s a matter of getting used to it. There are some things that you can’t do. For example, when you’re stir-frying, or searing a chicken breast, and then making a pan sauce, you want to be able to adjust the heat on the go.

To be able to do that on an electric coil, you have to shift the pan on and off the element, because if you just leave it there and turn the dial, the coil is still going to be blazing hot for a long time. So you might end up hurting your chicken skin.

That’s one of the difficulties of electric coils. But some of the best restaurants in the world use solely induction.

Nyce: What are the styles of cuisine—and the specific foods—where it really would be hard to give up gas?

López-Alt: So certainly, some types of wok-cooked dishes, particularly ones that rely on that smoky wok hei flavor that comes from the aerosolized oil actually igniting in the gas flame, like a Cantonese-style chow fun. Or fried rice, for example, would have that sort of smoky flavor that you can’t get out of induction. But for most wok cooking, you don’t need it. There’s plenty of homestyle dishes that don’t have that flavor. For my Wok book tour, I brought around an induction wok cooktop. And it works just fine.           

People have this idea that you can’t cook on a wok without a gas flame. But most of the recipes in my book work just fine without one. There are very few specific recipes where that gas flavor—that smoky flavor of burnt oil—is an important part of the seasoning of the dish.

What I often recommend to people who have electric or induction is, if you want to cook something like a beef chow fun, the way you can do it is to get a portable butane-gas range. And the few times that you want to make that dish, you can pull that out, put it under your hood, or take it outside. And then you have a little portable gas thing, even though the rest of your kitchen is all induction.

My house came with a gas range. If I were to design my kitchen from scratch, I would probably go induction these days.

[Read: The why of cooking]

So that’s wok cooking. For other cuisines … so, for example, today I’m making sopes, so Mexican. And for the salsa I’m making, you need to char peppers on a gas flame. That’s part of the flavor. So I’ve put the peppers directly over the gas flame and let them really char, until the outside gets blackened.

Nyce: Could you also use a butane blowtorch for something like that?

López-Alt: For sure. In fact, there’s a technique I wrote about in my book where, if you want wok hei without a gas flame, you can get a butane torch. Essentially, you can stir-fry noodles, for example, and then spread them out onto a sheet tray, and then just use a butane torch. Pass it over them a few times, and you’ll see the oil kind of snap and crackle and char a little bit. Then put it back in the wok and finish stir-frying it. And you get that flavor that way. So there are definitely work-arounds.

Nyce: So if there are practical solutions for a lot of this stuff, do you think this debate—and the strong reactions that people have to news like this—is a little overblown?

López-Alt: For sure. I wrote online for many, many years. And I remember, any time you changed the fonts or the color scheme on the site, or had a redesign, people went nuts. People just hate, hate, hate change. And they especially hate when change is forced upon them by an outside party.

Nyce: Even if it’s good for their health.

López-Alt: You remember when the smoking ban came in, right? And people lost their minds. And then, like, two years later, it’s like, “Oh, I can go out and not have to inhale all this secondhand smoke and come home stinking.”

People who really cook a lot of, say, Cantonese dishes or certain types of Mexican food, things that really, really require that gas flavor and that direct interaction with the flame—they’re going to find workarounds. As far as restaurants go, I’m not sure, but I really hope that there are exemptions carved in place for restaurants that require wok ranges, for example. It would be insane and unfair to tell Chinese restaurants they can’t use wok burners anymore. But I think there are always industry exemptions for mandates like this, at least for any well-planned ones.

Nyce: Is there anything else from a practical perspective that you would want a home cook to know as they navigate a potential future change from gas to induction?

López-Alt: The biggest difference between cooking on the two for me is just the lack of visual feedback. Every stove is going to be slightly different, even if they all have dials from one to 10. With gas, I can see, This one’s got a really big burner that’s shooting a huge flame when I turn it to 10. Whereas with induction, who knows what that means?

It’s always better to follow visual and auditory cues written into recipes as opposed to ones like “medium for 10 minutes.” Really pay attention to what your food is doing, and correlate that to the settings on the stove. That way, you can rely on those settings instead of the visual feedback you used to rely on of the size of the flame.

Did George Washington Burn New York?

The Atlantic

www.theatlantic.com › magazine › archive › 2023 › 03 › george-washington-burn-new-york-great-fire-1776 › 672780

This story seems to be about:

On July 9, 1776, General George Washington amassed his soldiers in New York City. They would soon face one of the largest amphibious invasions yet seen. If the British took the city, they’d secure a strategic harbor on the Atlantic Coast from which they could disrupt the rebels’ seaborne trade. Washington thus judged New York “a Post of infinite importance” and believed the coming days could “determine the fate of America.” To prepare, he wanted his men to hear the just-issued Declaration of Independence read aloud. This, he hoped, might “serve as a fresh incentive.”

But stirring principles weren’t enough. By the end of August, the British had routed Washington’s forces on Long Island and were preparing to storm Manhattan. The outlook was “truly distressing,” he confessed. Unable to hold the city—unable even to beat back disorder and desertion among his own dispirited men—Washington abandoned it. One of his officers ruefully wished that the retreat could be “blotted out of the annals of America.”

As if to underscore the loss, a little past midnight five days after the redcoats took New York on September 15, a terrible fire broke out. It consumed somewhere between a sixth and a third of the city, leaving about a fifth of its residents homeless. The conflagration could be seen from New Haven, 70 miles away.

New York’s double tragedy—first invaded, then incinerated—meant a stumbling start for the new republic. Yet Washington wasn’t wholly displeased. “Had I been left to the dictates of my own judgment,” he confided to his cousin, “New York should have been laid in Ashes before I quitted it.” Indeed, he’d sought permission to burn it. But Congress refused, which Washington regarded as a grievous error. Happily, he noted, God or “some good honest Fellow” had torched the city anyway, spoiling the redcoats’ valuable war prize.

For more than 15 years, the historian Benjamin L. Carp of Brooklyn College has wondered who that “honest fellow” might have been. Now, in The Great New York Fire of 1776: A Lost Story of the American Revolution, he cogently lays out his findings. Revolutionaries almost certainly set New York aflame intentionally, Carp argues, and they quite possibly acted on instructions. Sifting through the evidence, he asks a disturbing question: Did George Washington order New York to be burned to the ground?

The idea of Washington as an arsonist may seem far-fetched. Popular histories of the American Revolution treat the “glorious cause” as different from other revolutions. Whereas the French, Haitian, Russian, and Chinese revolutions involved mass violence against civilians, this one—the story goes—was fought with restraint and honor.

But a revolution is not a dinner party, as Mao Zedong observed. Alongside the parade-ground battles ran a “grim civil war,” the historian Alan Taylor writes, in which “a plundered farm was a more common experience than a glorious and victorious charge.” Yankees harassed, tortured, and summarily executed the enemies of their cause. The term lynch appears to have entered the language from Colonel Charles Lynch of Virginia, who served rough justice to Loyalists.

Burning towns was, of course, a more serious transgression. “It is a Method of conducting War long since become disreputable among civilized Nations,” John Adams wrote. The Dutch jurist Hugo Grotius, whose writings influenced European warfare, forbade killing women and children, and judged unnecessary violence in seizing towns to be “totally repugnant to every principle of Christianity and justice.”

Still, in the thick of war, the torch was hard to resist, and in North America, it was nearly impossible. Although Britain, facing a timber famine, had long since replaced its wooden buildings with brick and stone ones, the new United States was awash in wood. Its immense forests were, to British visitors, astonishing. And its ramshackle wooden towns were tinderboxes, needing only sparks to ignite.

On the eve of the Revolution, the rebel Joseph Warren gave a speech in a Boston church condemning the British military. Vexed British officers cried out “Oh! fie! Oh! fie!” That sounded enough like “fire” to send the crowd of 5,000 sprinting for the doors, leaping out windows, and fleeing down the streets. They knew all too well how combustible their city was.

The British knew it too, which raised the tantalizing possibility of quashing the rebellion by burning rebel towns. Although some officers considered such tactics criminal, others didn’t share their compunctions. At the 1775 Battle of Bunker Hill, they burned Charlestown, outside Boston, so thoroughly that “scarcely one stone remaineth upon another,” Abigail Adams wrote. The Royal Navy then set fire to more than 400 buildings in Portland, Maine (known then as Falmouth). On the first day of 1776, it set fires in Norfolk, Virginia; the city burned for three days and lost nearly 900 buildings.

Thomas Paine’s Common Sense appeared just days after Norfolk’s immolation. In it, Paine noted the “precariousness with which all American property is possessed” and railed against Britain’s reckless use of fire. As Paine appreciated, torched towns made the case for revolution pointedly. “A few more of such flaming Arguments as were exhibited at Falmouth and Norfolk” and that case would be undeniable, Washington agreed. The Declaration of Independence condemned the King for having “burnt our towns.”

In Norfolk, however, the King had help. After the British lit the fires, rebel Virginia soldiers kept them going, first targeting Loyalist homes but ultimately kindling a general inferno. “Keep up the Jigg,” they cried as the buildings burned. From a certain angle, this made sense: The fire would deny the Royal Navy a port, and the British would take the blame. In early February a revolutionary commander, Colonel Robert Howe, finished the job by burning 416 remaining structures. The city is “entirely destroyed,” he wrote privately. “Thank God for that.”

A year later, the Virginia legislature commissioned an investigation, which found that “very few of the houses were destroyed by the enemy”—only 19 in the New Year’s Day fire—whereas the rebels, including Howe, had burned more than 1,000. That investigation’s report went unpublished for six decades, though, and even then, in 1836, it was tucked quietly into the appendix of a legislative journal. Historians didn’t understand who torched Norfolk until the 20th century.

This was presumably by design: The Revolution required seeing the British as incendiaries and the colonists as their victims. Washington hoped that Norfolk’s ashes would “unite the whole Country in one indissoluble Band.”

Carp believes that what happened in Norfolk happened in New York. But how to square that with Washington’s renowned sense of propriety? The general detested marauding indiscipline among his men. Toward enemy prisoners, he advocated “Gentleness even to Forbearance,” in line with the “Duties of Humanity & Kindness.” And he deemed British-set fires “Savage Cruelties” perpetrated “in Contempt of every Principle of Humanity.” Is it thinkable that he disobeyed orders and set a city full of civilians aflame?

It becomes more thinkable if you look at another side of the war, Carp notes. In popular memory, the Revolutionary War was between colonists and redcoats, with some French and Hessians pitching in. But this version leaves out the many Native nations that also fought, mostly alongside the British. The Declaration of Independence, after charging the King with arson, indicted him for unleashing “merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.”

[From the May 2022 issue: Daniel Immerwahr reviews a new history of World War II]

This accusation—that Indigenous people fought unfairly—haunted discussions of war tactics. Redcoat attacks on American towns fed the revolutionary spirit precisely because they delegitimized the British empire, whose methods, John Adams wrote, were “more abominable than those which are practiced by the Savage Indians.”

Perhaps, but Adams’s compatriots, at least when fighting Indians, weren’t exactly paragons of enlightened warfare. A month after the Declaration of Independence complained about burned towns and merciless savages, the revolutionaries launched a 5,500-man incendiary expedition against the British-allied Cherokees, targeting not warriors but homes and food. “I have now burnt down every town and destroyed all the corn,” one commander reported.

This was hitherto the “largest military operation ever conducted in the Lower South,” according to the historian John Grenier. Yet it’s easily overshadowed in popular accounts by more famous encounters. The Pulitzer Prize–winning writer Rick Atkinson, in his painstakingly detailed, 800-page military history of the war’s first two years, The British Are Coming, spends just a paragraph on it. The Cherokee campaign was, Atkinson writes, a mere “postscript” to Britain’s short and unsuccessful siege of Charleston (even though, by Atkinson’s own numbers, it killed roughly 10 times as many as the Charleston siege did).

But the Cherokee campaign was important, not only for what it did to the Cherokees but for what it revealed about the revolutionaries. Washington brandished it as proof of how far his men were willing to go. The Cherokees had been “foolish” to support the British, he wrote to the Wolastoqiyik and Passamaquoddy peoples, and the result was that “our Warriors went into their Country, burnt their Houses, destroyed their corn and obliged them to sue for peace.” Other tribes should take heed, Washington warned, and “never let the King’s wicked Counselors turn your hearts against me.”

Indigenous people did turn their hearts against him, however, and the fighting that followed scorched the frontier. In one of the war’s most consequential campaigns, Washington ordered General John Sullivan in 1779 to “lay waste all the settlements” of the British-aligned Haudenosaunees in New York, ensuring that their lands were “not merely overrun but destroyed.” Sullivan complied. “Forty of their towns have been reduced to ashes—some of them large and commodious,” Washington observed. He commended Sullivan’s troops for a “perseverance and valor that do them the highest honor.”

It’s hard, looking from Indian Country, to see Washington—or any of the revolutionaries—as particularly restrained. In the 1750s, the Senecas had given him the name “Conotocarious,” meaning “town taker” or “town destroyer,” after the title they’d bestowed on his Indian-fighting great-grandfather. Washington had occasionally signed his name “Conotocarious” as a young man, but he fully earned it destroying towns during the Revolutionary War. “To this day,” the Seneca chief Cornplanter told him in 1790, “when that name is heard, our women look behind them and turn pale, and our children cling close to the neck of their mothers.”

Carp acknowledges but doesn’t linger over what the revolutionaries did on the frontier. As he shows, there’s enough evidence from Manhattan itself to conclude that the New York conflagration was intentional.

To start, this was perhaps the least surprising fire in American history. Rumors swirled through the streets that it would happen, and Washington’s generals talked openly of the possibility. The president pro tempore of New York’s legislature obligingly informed Washington that his colleagues would “chearfully submit to the fatal Necessity” of destroying New York if required. The fire chief buried his valuables in anticipation.

When the expected fire broke out, it seemed to do so everywhere simultaneously. Those watching from afar “saw the fire ignite in three, four, five, or six places at once,” Carp notes. He includes a map showing 15 distinct “ignition points,” where observers saw fires start or found suspicious caches of combustibles. The fire could have begun in just one place and spread by wind-borne embers, but to those on the scene it appeared to be the work of many hands.

As the fire raged, witnesses saw rebels carrying torches, transporting combustibles, and cutting the handles of fire buckets. Some offenders allegedly confessed on the spot. But, as often happens with arson, the evidence vanished in the smoke. The British summarily executed some suspects during the fire, others fled, and those taken into custody all denied involvement.

Months elapsed before the British secured their first major confession. They caught a Yankee spy, Abraham Patten, who’d been plotting to torch British-held New Brunswick. On the gallows, Patten confessed, not only to the New Brunswick scheme but also to having been a principal in the conspiracy to burn New York. “I die for liberty,” he declared, “and do it gladly, because my cause is just.”

[Amy Zegart: George Washington was a master of deception]

After Patten’s execution, Washington wrote to John Hancock, the president of the Continental Congress. Patten had “conducted himself with great fidelity to our cause rendering Services,” Washington felt, and his family “well deserves” compensation. But, Washington added, considering the nature of Patten’s work, a “private donation” would be preferable to a “public act of generosity.” He’d made a similar suggestion when proposing burning New York. Washington had clarified that, if Congress agreed to pursue arson, its assent should be kept a “profound secret.”

It’s possible, given Carp’s circumstantial evidence, that New York radicals conspired to incinerate the city without telling the rebel command. Or perhaps Washington knew they would and feigned ignorance. Yet, for Carp, Patten’s confession and Washington’s insistence on paying Patten’s widow under the table amount to “a compelling suggestion that Washington and Congress secretly endorsed the burning of New York.”

Whoever burned the city, the act set the tone for what followed. As the war progressed, the British incinerated towns around New York and in the southern countryside. The rebels, for their part, fought fire with fire—or tried to. In 1778, Commodore John Paul Jones attacked an English port hoping to set it aflame, but he managed to burn only a single ship. Other attempts to send incendiaries to Great Britain were similarly ineffectual. British cities were too fireproof and too far for the revolutionaries to reach with their torches.

Vengeful Yankees had to settle for targets closer at hand: Native towns. In theory they were attacking Britain’s allies, but lines blurred. Pennsylvania militiamen searching for hostile Lenapes in 1782 instead fell on a village of pacifist Christian Indians, slaughtering 96 and burning it to the ground. If against the British the war was fought at least ostensibly by conventional means, against Indigenous people it was “total war,” the historian Colin G. Calloway has written.

That war continued well past the peace treaty signed in Paris—with no American Indians present—on September 3, 1783. Andrew Jackson’s arson-heavy campaigns against Native adversaries helped propel him to the presidency. Burning Indigenous lands was also key to William Henry Harrison’s election, in 1840. He won the White House on the slogan “Tippecanoe and Tyler Too”: Tyler was his running mate; “Tippecanoe” referred to the time in 1811 when Harrison’s troops had attacked an Indigenous confederacy and incinerated its capital.

Native Americans deserved such treatment, settlers insisted, because they always fought mercilessly, whereas white Americans did so only when provoked. Crucial to this understanding was a vision of the Revolution as a decorous affair, with Washington, venerated for his rectitude and restraint, at its head.

The legend of the pristine Revolution, however, is hard to sustain. The rebels lived in a combustible land, and they burned it readily, torching towns and targeting civilians. Like all revolutions, theirs rested on big ideas and bold deeds. But, like all revolutions, it also rested on furtive acts—and a thick bed of ashes.

This article appears in the March 2023 print edition with the headline “Did George Washington Burn New York?”

Montana’s Black Mayor

The Atlantic

www.theatlantic.com › ideas › archive › 2023 › 01 › wilmot-collins-helena-montana-mayor-senate-race › 672852

This story seems to be about:

In his office overlooking Sixth Avenue in Helena, Montana, Wilmot Collins leans back in a chair at his conference table and recounts all of the ways his being here, as a Liberian refugee who in 2018 became the first Black mayor of any city in Montana since the state joined the union, was unlikely to happen.

Perhaps it all traces back to April 12, 1980, when a faction of armed militants in Liberia, led by Master Sergeant Samuel Doe, entered the executive mansion in Monrovia, the nation’s capital, and murdered President William Tolbert. They dumped his body into a mass grave with those of 27 of his colleagues—members of the West African nation’s single-party leadership—ushering in a new era of military rule. Collins was a senior at Carroll High School in Yekepa then, and he remembers the string of killings and atrocities that began shortly after the start of Doe’s rule. “Things were bad,” he told me. They soon got worse. Those years started Collins’s thinking about political systems and how they could be made better—what they might look like if they worked.

[Read: The new Southern strategy]

After high school, he attended the University of Liberia, where his interest in politics deepened. Specifically, he was fascinated by America’s system. “Professor [D. Elwood] Dunn taught American government; that’s where we learned about Roe v. Wade, Brown v. Board of Education; and the system of government intrigued all of us,” he told me. Liberia had a three-branch federal system as well, but studying the clear divisions of power in America captivated him; he imagined a better Liberia.“We had the executive, the legislative, and the judiciary—but the executive was always meddling into every other branch … But then to see that working,” he said, “we had hope.”

Nearly 10 years on, in 1989, his country was on the verge of a second coup. Charles Taylor and his rebel army had been training in Libya and entered Liberia through the Ivory Coast—gaining support along the way from people who had felt left behind by the ever more ruthless military dictatorship. “When Taylor came in with his rebels promising honey and gold,” he said, people thought, This is who we want. But Taylor was a warlord, an ethnic conflict broke out, and Collins eventually fled to the United States.

Collins took some basic lessons from the destabilization of his home nation: the importance of a peaceful, functioning government and the dangers of despotism. It’s wisdom he wishes was not so hard-won, and wisdom he gained only in hindsight. His concern at the time, of course, was escaping.

Twenty-five years after moving to Helena, Collins was serving his first term as the city’s mayor and had eyes on running for statewide office. But then he learned a few more lessons, ones that received only passing mentions in textbooks on American government in the 1980s: that the party system has tremendous influence on who prevails politically. That gatekeeping can exclude candidates who lack the right connections. That hopefuls can have their campaigns smothered by their opponents’ cash.

Collins learned those lessons in his own bid for Senate, a race he was elbowed out of when a candidate backed by the Democratic Party establishment jumped in, only to then lose to the Republican. To Collins, the whole experience was dispiriting. “When the establishment is not in your corner, you will struggle, and struggle raising money,” Collins told me. “I was pissed; I was angry because I didn’t get the support.”

But he still thinks he has a path ahead. He cites a colloquial definition of insanity: “to do the same thing over and over hoping for a different result.” But he hopes that here in Montana he can get a different result.

Liberia began as an idea: that Black people might better prosper in Africa than in the United States. The American Colonization Society sent more than 13,000 free Black people to the west coast of Africa—and though some believed it to be a potential remedy to slavery, it was also a mass exile.

By the time Collins was born, in 1963, Liberia had grown into an independent state. His father was a civil engineer; his mother was the superintendent of schools. “Growing up in Liberia was calm,” he told me. “We grew up just like [in America] basically.” He went to school, played baseball and tennis. Then the first coup happened, then the second. “And life ceased as we knew it.”

On December 24, 1989, the First Liberian Civil War began. Food supplies grew scarce. Each day, Collins or one of his siblings would leave the house to find food, which was concentrated in rebel-held areas. In October 1990, when it was his turn to venture out, he and his fiancée, Maddie Muna, were able to find only a tube of Pepsodent toothpaste.

[From the December 1992 issue: Liberia]

“They say hunger is the best sauce,” he told me, explaining how he guzzled down half the tube before sharing the other half with Maddie. He furrowed his brow as he related the story, but allowed himself to laugh. “I’m not kidding you, that thing tasted like, Oh wow!” His speech slowed down a little again as he remembered how they were almost killed.

On their way back to his family, they were stopped at a checkpoint by rebel troops. The armed men called Maddie over for questioning first. “Where are you from?” he recalled them asking. “What do you do?” Then they pointed at Collins, who had been standing quietly to the side. “Who’s that? Is that your man?” “Yes,” she replied. “You are very lucky. I’m done killing for the day,” the rebel told her.

They sprinted away. “We ran until we got home; we didn’t stop,” he told me. “I’m talking about three, four miles.” That’s when they decided to leave. “We will die,” he remembers thinking. “We didn’t have any food; we’ve been threatened. We’ve gotta get out of here.” But they didn’t know how difficult getting out would be.

A peacekeeping force, led by Nigeria, was helping Liberians escape on cargo vessels, but the lines were staggeringly long. He and Maddie queued at 9 o’clock in the morning on a Friday later that October—only leaving their spot, in shifts, in order to use the bathroom. Almost three days later, on Sunday, at about 10 o’clock at night, they boarded. Three more days passed before they arrived in Ghana—it had been nearly a full week since they had eaten. “Imagine,” he told me, his eyes welling up, “seven days without food and water, barely drinking. And no change of clothes. Nothing.”

He eventually got a job in Ghana, working for SOS Children’s Villages as a teacher—the same job he’d held in Liberia before the war began. But after a few months, he and Maddie, who’d married at the start of 1991, were still struggling to make ends meet, and Maddie offered a suggestion: They should move to America.

“How are we supposed to do that? We don’t have any money,” he responded. “We’ll go to Montana,” Maddie said. Years earlier she had been an exchange student at a high school in the state, and she thought her host family might be able to help.

She wrote a letter to the family, who contacted Montana’s congressional delegation, including Senator Max Baucus. The best way for Maddie to get back to the United States would be on a student visa. With the delegation’s help, the family reached out to a Catholic institution, Carroll College, in Helena, where they lived. Soon after, she was awarded a full scholarship to study nursing at Carroll. She would once again live with the family that had hosted her. But getting to the States would prove a little more difficult for Wilmot. Two weeks before Maddie left for Montana, the couple learned that she was pregnant; they resolved that Maddie should go ahead. It would take two more years before Wilmot would be able to join his family.

“Welcome to Helena, it’s sunny and warm at 32 degrees,” the pilot said over the intercom on February 17, 1994, as Wilmot’s flight from Salt Lake City descended. He was the last one off the plane, and as he walked into the terminal he spotted a sign that read Welcome home, Wilmot. Carroll College faculty and the institution’s president were waiting for him—there to support his wife and child. “I saw my wife for the first time holding my daughter up, and she put her down and said, ‘There’s Daddy, go to Daddy,’” he recalled. The tears start again as he remembers that day. “So my daughter started to walk towards me … and then she just started to run and I just fell on the ground and grabbed … ”

He stops. It’s still fresh.

“I started screaming, calling my wife. ‘Maddie, Maddie, she came to me! She came to me!’”

They moved into low-income housing around the corner from Helena High School, which Maddie had attended as an exchange student, and began their life in America.

Each day, he’d get dressed, leave their eggshell-white townhome, and turn onto North Montana Avenue—both in search of a job and to acquaint himself with his new home. One day, he explored a bit farther than normal and stumbled upon the state capitol.

He walked inside and was immediately struck by the marble columns and grand rotunda. He marched up the stairs and saw the governor’s office. “And I decided to go meet the governor,” he told me, matter-of-factly. The governor’s scheduler stopped him. “Do you have an appointment?” she asked. When he shook his head, she asked if he’d like to make one and took his information. Then a man came up behind him.

“May I help you?” he asked.

“No, I’m here to meet the governor,” Collins responded.

“Well, I am the governor, Marc Racicot,” the man responded.

Collins was floored. He explained that he’d just come from Africa—that he was a Liberian refugee—and that he was looking for work. He handed the governor his paper résumé, and Racicot quickly phoned his educational adviser, who in turn realized that her daughter and Collins’s wife had a few classes together at Carroll College. Racicot and his adviser told Collins to apply for a job at Intermountain Children’s Home, a mental- and behavioral-health facility for young people, and to list both of them as his references. By March 31—a month and a half after arriving in the United States—he had work. Soon after, he joined the Army National Guard as well.

Over the course of two years, Collins told me, he saw the best of America. Yes, his visa application and resettlement paperwork were held up in bureaucracy, but his application process was helped along by Senator Baucus, a Democrat, and he’d found work through Racicot, a Republican. He saw a system functioning without violence or corruption, and he saw what could happen when politicians tried to help someone.

Collins told me he later realized that not everything was as idyllic as he had wanted to believe—something Racicot’s own trajectory would soon demonstrate. The rising star in the Republican Party was praised by both liberals and conservatives for his hawkish approach to budgeting and his personal touch, and he was so popular that one pollster jokingly suggested he “could run for king.” But just a few years after helping Collins, he was deemed too moderate by the Bush administration to be considered for attorney general. Harsher undercurrents were at work.

Still, Montana proved a soft landing ground for Collins, and the assistance he received from Racicot and Baucus helped solidify the raw idea about American politics that he’d had in Liberia. They were models of the kind of leader he was starting to think he might one day become.

The Montana state capitol building, in Helena, Montana (William Campbell / Corbis / Getty)

On February 10, 2007, Barack Obama traveled to Springfield, Illinois, to announce, on the steps of the building where Abraham Lincoln began his political career, that he would be running for president of the United States. He spoke of Lincoln’s fortitude. “He tells us that there is power in conviction,” Obama told the crowd of 17,000. “That beneath all the differences of race and region, faith and station, we are one people. He tells us that there is power in hope.”

[Read: My president was black]

Ten days later, Wilmot Collins awoke to the words KKK: Go back to Africa scrawled across the side of his house in spray paint. He was scheduled to testify at the state capitol that day about a bill that would have expanded the definition of hate crimes in the state. His mailbox had been destroyed before; his car had been set on fire. According to a report from The Great Falls Tribune, his then-14-year-old daughter regularly heard racial slurs; and his 10-year-old son, Bliss, no longer wanted to go to school. “They shouldn’t have to go through that,” he told lawmakers at the time. “Please, for decency’s sake, let’s do something now.” But he was heartened by how his neighbors had rallied around him each time something like that happened. He had seen Helena at its worst; but he’d seen his neighbors at their best.

In 2016, as he was staring down retirement from the National Guard, he began to look around for what to do next. His son, then a junior at the University of Montana, was visiting home from school and asked what Wilmot might do with all of the free time he would soon have. “I’ll never have free time, because your mom will make me work,” he told me he joked at the time. “But why are you asking?” Bliss suggested that he enter politics. “Dad, I know you. You know a lot of people; a lot of people know you—I think you’re ready.”

Eventually, Collins was persuaded. The first order of business was to figure out what his platform would be. He began knocking on doors. He needed to introduce himself to people in the community, but he also needed to hear what they were most concerned about in Helena. In those early conversations, three things came up repeatedly: funding essential services such as firefighters, EMTs, and police officers; increasing affordable housing; and curbing teenage and veteran homelessness. Those became his campaign planks. “I always call my issues ‘human issues.’ I don’t call them ‘political issues,’” he told me—a common refrain for Democrats in red states. The mayor’s office is nominally nonpartisan, and a broadly appealing platform was important not only to being elected, but to properly serving his community.

Many Black politicians would find Collins’s goals familiar—a strategy political scientists call “targeted universalism.” In a city like Helena, which is more than 90 percent white, candidates like Collins need to find ways to appeal to a broad swath of the public. When candidates travel to the rural outskirts—or the wealthier suburbs—of their district or city to campaign, they have to align their messages to the interests of those communities. But that does not have to mean compromising a candidate’s own beliefs. Instead, as Ravi K. Perry, a political scientist at Howard University, explained to me, targeted universalism is the practice of making clear to those voters why the candidate’s policies—such as a large increase in low-income housing—would benefit the entire community. Even if a person is not experiencing homelessness themselves, or is not in need of low-income housing, many people can understand the ways material improvements to housing and roads in areas that need them can boost the city’s bond rating and may—down the road—contribute to lower taxes, or other opportunities across the city.

Collins also knew that there was power in alliances. He and a pair of city-commission candidates, Andres Haladay and Heather K. O’Loughlin, decided that it would be best to run as a unified bloc—billed in local newspapers as the progressive ticket whose ideas were to the left of the incumbent mayor’s more conservative stances on issues such as Medicaid expansion and public-works projects like fixing roads.

As Election Day 2017 approached, polls had Collins running within a point of Mayor Jim Smith. As votes were tallied, Collins eked out a marginal victory—earning 51 percent of the vote to Smith’s 48 percent—to become the first Black mayor since Montana joined the union. (The election of a Black barber by the name of E. T. Johnson, in 1873, continues to be the subject of some debate among local historians.) Haladay and O’Loughlin won their races, for city commission, as well.

National outlets seized on the story, lumping Collins’s victory together with other elections that they cast as a repudiation of President Donald Trump’s first year in office. But Collins had campaigned on local issues, and he kept his focus on Helena. Alongside the city’s commissioners and manager, his administration began improving roads, provided greater funding to the fire and parks departments to help limit the spread of wildfires, and broke ground on new affordable-housing developments.

Collins had built some momentum: He’d defeated a popular incumbent with an upstart campaign that had generated national interest. His was a story that people could believe in. And he’d never felt more like a Montanan. Perhaps, he thought, a statewide campaign might someday be in order.

He’d learned that the hardest part of running for office was fundraising. “Calling people and begging them, writing people letters—it was hard for me,” he said. “I did that when I was homeless; I didn’t want to do that when I was not homeless.” Without a personal network of wealthy donors, he knew he’d have to get started early. And so, in 2019, nearly three decades after fleeing Liberia, Collins announced that he would be running to unseat Republican Steve Daines in Montana’s 2020 U.S. Senate election.

Wilmot Collins visits with a colleague during his first month in office. (William Campbell / Corbis / Getty)

in July 2019, standing before a group of Democrats assembled for the state party’s rules convention at the Colonial Hotel in Helena, Wilmot Collins wanted to talk about division. “It’s not about Democrat or Republican,” he told those in the ballroom. “That’s what we need to bring this state back to. We’re divided. If I’m representing you, I’ll represent all of you.”

There was no need to explain who he was; by that point, Collins was a known quantity in the state—and nationally. What he really wanted to highlight in his brief remarks was that he intended to be the kind of political leader who cared about people—like those who had helped him come to Montana and get a job to support his family.

But he also wanted to talk about money. “I am you,” he told them. “We’re not rich.” He was painting a contrast between himself and his would-be opponent were he to become the official nominee. In 2018, Daines had a reported net worth of more than $30 million. “Not only the rich should be able to govern,” Collins told the Montana Free Press.

He may have felt personally aggrieved as well. Prior to announcing his candidacy, Collins had met with Montana’s then-governor, Steve Bullock—a Democrat who had launched a presidential campaign—and asked for his blessing to run for office. But, according to Collins, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee was convinced that the governor would ultimately run for the Senate seat if his bid for the White House was unsuccessful. “They tried to dissuade me and discourage me from announcing—and I announced anyway, so I didn’t have any support from them,” he told me. (The DSCC did not respond to multiple requests for comment.)

Of course, parties are risk-averse and rally behind their perceived best bets all the time. But that tendency can have the unfortunate side effect of limiting, rather than deepening, the party’s bench, and party leaders’ instincts for who will succeed with voters are not always right. For example, when Jon Tester—Montana’s senior senator—first wanted to run for his seat, the party wasn’t interested, preferring John Morrison, then the state auditor, whose father had been a state-supreme-court justice. “A lot of Democrats tried to dissuade him as well, including people like Max [Baucus], [Chuck] Schumer, and Harry Reid,” Bill Lombardi, who ran Tester’s primary campaign in 2006, told me. But Tester, a farmer who was in his first term as State Senate president, managed to win the primary anyway, and has been popular with voters since, having won his seat three times now. Democrats are hoping he will run again in 2024, in what is expected to be a tough race for the party.

Collins’s appearance before the Democrats in Helena in 2019 was brief, but he laid out the ideas that would underpin his campaign as well as the primary obstacle he would face. Alongside his small team, he began traveling the state to raise money—a difficult task in the fourth-largest state, but a necessary one for a candidate without party funding. He often played to small crowds, even if they weren’t small for the area. “We went to Fort Benton,” he told me, a two-hour drive, minimum, from Helena. “And when we got to the hall, there were 50 people—and I turned to my campaign manager and said, ‘You’ve got to be kidding me.’” (A local Democrat later explained that it was the most people that that corner of Montana had seen turn out for someone in their party in a long time.) People would donate $5, $10, $20—anything that might gas up his tank to get him and his team to the next city to continue campaigning. “I raised $350, $400 from that crowd [in Fort Benton], but it really showed me what grassroots campaigning is.”

Over the next several months, Collins raised nearly $300,000. But in December, Bullock dropped out of the presidential race. And in early March, just as America began to implement restrictions to stem the coming surge of COVID-19 cases, the governor called Collins and asked for a meeting. They met at the governor’s mansion for lunch. “He told me, ‘Things have changed. I’m planning to get back in the race.’” In the 24 hours after he made his announcement, on March 9, Bullock raised $1.2 million; quadruple the amount that Collins had raised in nearly six months.

Bullock was someone whom party bosses were excited about. He had already won statewide office, and he was the kind of centrist that Democrats believed Montanans could get behind. But that wasn’t enough—he lost by 10 percentage points, sending Daines to the Senate.

Was Montana destined to vote for Daines regardless of who was on the Democratic ticket? Or, in a year when Democrats won the White House, retained control of the House, and got to 50 seats in the Senate, could a different candidate have earned a different result? If not for gatekeeping, would a candidate like Collins, a refugee who had served in the military for two decades before ascending to the mayor’s office in a city where only a handful of people look like him, have won? Bill Lombardi isn’t sure. “There aren’t a lot [of Democratic candidates] rising to the top who can bridge the rural-urban divide” in the state as well as energize Montanans who have simply soured on the Democrats’ brand, he told me. Candidates need to be able to show they’re willing to buck the party, and party favorites may not be the people most likely to do just that.

Both Collins and Lombardi agree on one thing: Democrats in Montana need more future leaders. “I’ve been asking people, in traveling around the state at different events, ‘Who are the candidates who can reach across the aisle?’ and people are stumped because they can’t think of anyone on our statewide bench,” Lombardi told me.

Collins worries that a lot of young Democrats have been cowed by the party’s rigidity. “I see a lot of prominent, young Dems who want to get into politics who don’t know how—they’re scared,” he told me. If the party does not start training and encouraging them instead of going “back to the same old people who are still losing,” those young Democrats will run away.

A late-summer evening in Helena is unnerving in its beauty. The walking mall down Sixth Street is bustling; patrons sit outside one of the several breweries; remnants of the Pride rally—the largest in Montana’s history—still line the street. On a bench, Collins sips his beer and holds court. Not officially, but everyone here seems to know him.

In 2021, Collins was close to running unopposed for reelection—in fact, in some ways, his tenure has been marked by very little friction, though there are things that residents hope can be improved. Homelessness is still a major issue—one Collins has taken to saying can’t be solved by Helena alone; he has begun calling on surrounding cities for help. On the day before campaign filing closed, he received a challenger, Sonda Gaub. “I wanted a choice, and no one was stepping up,” Gaub told a local television station after her announcement.

[From the August 1866 issue: A year in Montana]

Gaub, like others in the city, worried about Helena’s unhoused population. And she sought greater transparency in local government, though, as the Independent Record noted, she conceded that a lot of that transparency work—publicly available meetings where the community could hear directly what went into decision making—was already happening.

Though it was her first foray into politics, her husband, Darin, had run for public office in 2020, and has since become deeply involved in Republican politics in the state. “Here in my small town of Helena, Montana, we’ve got a mayor and a commission that constantly puts us in debt over things we don’t need,” Darin, the chair of the Lewis and Clark County Republican Central Committee, said on a podcast in August, on which he also made several references to disbelieving the 2020 presidential-election results. (Neither of the Gaubs responded to multiple requests for comment.)

Ultimately, though, a majority of voters thought Collins had done enough to serve a second term, and he was reelected—this time with more than 60 percent of the vote. His campaign was still built around issues that residents felt were most important: fixing roads, making housing affordable, improving wastewater treatment and snowplowing, expanding trails to allow for e-bikes. He’s open to seeking statewide office again, but right now he’s focused on helping train young Montanans to run for office; building a bench for the future through the coalition approach he used to get elected.

After more than 20,000 miles crisscrossing Montana with the hope of a Senate election, he’s back where he feels most comfortable: in Helena. He’s still the guy who fell in love with American democracy in Liberia, and who has had to learn, over and over again, the ways it falls short. But even if he never wins statewide office, he’s part of that system now, and what could be a better testament to its ideals than that?

Analysis: Trump takes early aim at the only 2024 GOP rival he cares about

CNN

www.cnn.com › 2023 › 01 › 30 › politics › donald-trump-ron-desantis-2024-analysis › index.html

Ex-President Donald Trump's bid to keep Ron DeSantis out of the 2024 White House race reveals as much about his own mindset and the challenges his campaign faces as it does about Florida's fast-rising Republican governor.

New Hampshire GOP governor says he's considering 2024 White House bid

CNN

www.cnn.com › 2023 › 01 › 29 › politics › chris-sununu-2024-president-cnntv › index.html

GOP Gov. Chris Sununu of New Hampshire said Sunday he is considering a White House bid in 2024, citing the Granite State's "live free or die" spirit as a model for the Republican Party.

Biden and McCarthy to meet Wednesday amid debt ceiling showdown

CNN

www.cnn.com › 2023 › 01 › 29 › politics › biden-mccarthy-meeting › index.html

President Joe Biden and House Speaker Kevin McCarthy will meet Wednesday, a White House official confirmed, the first such gathering since the California Republican captured the speakership earlier this month.