Some months ago, an edition of the South Bethlehem Historical Society's admired newsletter "Southern Exposure" carried an announcement that I found ominous. I have been unable to locate this edition in my files, although it IS in there; but what struck me about it was what I may call its hidden boldness. As I recall, it did not have a border around it, or anything else to call attention to it. The gist of it was that several board members had (apparently on their own hook, since the people I was able to talk to do not remember an election)constituted themselves a committee of three to pursue the matter of affiliation with Historic Bethlehem Partnership.
The three board members who seem to have selected themselves for this purpose were the then-president, his predecessor, and another board member, all of whose terms were to end in June of this year.
Assuming ill intent--and I DO assume ill intent--this announcement was slid by so smoothly that at least one board member did not notice it at all. Other board members may or may not have given it much thought, if they noticed it at all. Even I, who definitely DID notice it, shrugged it off as something to be dealt with later.
One of the things most alarming about it, though, was that three people who had no apparent future with the organization, were about to decide--and had possibly TAKEN IT UPON THEMSELVES TO DECIDE--the group's future.
I no longer have a copy of the bylaws, but cannot help but wonder if those bylaws address such a situation. I mean, shouldn't at least one member of the committee have been a board member whose term was not up?
But it gets more interesting. The committee is now aware that there is growing public interest in what is going on. So, an ex-board member tells me, the committee members have "offered" to "stay on" until the affiliation is pushed through.
Well, I am virtually certain the bylaws allow no such thing as usurping board positions and offices. Besides, are there no other possibilities for SBHS? Such as remaining independent and resuming doing its important work. Why should the board not be permitted to discuss and vote on ALL possibilities? Why should it not spend its funds on South Side history, as the donors intended, instead of having those funds melded into those of a large organization? (Which I assume is one of the intentions of the proposed affiliation.)

It seems to be true that Historic Bethlehem Partnership wishes to swallow the South Bethlehem Historical Society, and is likely to succeed in doing so.
This almost certainly is not because the north side historical complex has any more sincere interest in South Side history than it has ever had. Hardy immigrant workers from many lands have never been one of its big interests; neither have the brilliant and hard-driving entrepreneurs who, with the immigrants, put Bethlehem on the world map.
No. Clearly, two things have happened. One is that industrial history is now very much in the spotlight; and the north side desperately wants to be part of that scene. That is why we have the sudden invention of "the Moravian South Side."
The other is that, rumor has it, HBP is in desperate financial straits. If the rumors are true, HBP could certainly use SBHS's few tens of thousands of dollars.
There are two troubles with this. One is that, when this small trove of money is gone, together with the society, it will be gone for good. The other is that much of it was given in the form of bequests from good people who expected it to be used for South Bethlehem history. It does not seem ethical to take these funds and use them for other purposes, as is almost bound to happen.
As for South Bethlehem history itself, I predict it WILL be given its due, but probably not by HBP. During the 30 plus years I have been in the Bethlehem area, that group and its constituent parts have never demonstrated the heart for it, as I have indicated. Mere need will not be enough to make them good at pretending they care.

Recently there have been efforts to promote "the history of the Moravian South Side" of Bethlehem. This seems a fairly desperate ploy; and one wonders why the effort is being made--though it IS possible to speculate. For now, I intend to keep my speculations to myself.
The fact is, there was no Moravian South Side after about the mid-1840s.
It is true there was a Moravian church on the south side until 1962, when it and its whole neighborhood fell victim to Lehigh University's developmental thrust north of Packer Avenue. But in the early 1960s there were also on the South Side at least seven Roman Catholic churches, one Eastern Rite Catholic Church, one or two Orthodox churches, four Lutheran churches, one United Church of Christ, one Episcopalian, one Presbyterian,one Methodist, one African Methodist Episcopal,one German Baptist, plus an Orthodox Jewish synagogue, and a Conservative synagogue. Having written all this, I still fear I have forgotten some.
Did any of these churches claim to attach its name to the South Side? No; yet some of them might have had far more reason to do so than the Moravians--either because of their influence on the development of the neighborhood, because of the great number of their communicants, or both.
Why did the South Side cease to be Moravian in the 1840s? Because the Moravians disposed of their farms on the South Side for the purposes of establishing an industrial settlement where heavy industry might thrive. The result, then, was not accidental; it was planned. And it was definitely planned for profit--not that there is anything wrong with that, but why, years later, pretend things were different than they were?
What follows is an abridged quote from pages 12 and 13 of "Bethlehem of Pennsylvania: The Golden Years." The quote is abridged to save space; however, anyone who suspects I may have distorted the meaning is invited to go and look at the book and be reassured about its essential accuracy.
Here it is:
"...the business and civic leaders of the community saw clearly what was happening 'out there.' They wanted to benefit from the new industrial wealth. That meant bringing blast furnaces, manufactories,railroads, foreigners, strange religions, and much else to the vicinity of Bethlehem. At the same time, the Moravians wanted to preserve the old way of life...The solution was a new town,
conveniently located across the river Lehigh, yet organized separately from Bethlehem. Moravians had a tradition of forming new colonies...Only, this time the colony was to exist for economic, not religious reasons. It was to be a settlement without Moravians, excepting the few who found it convenient for business reasons to live in the south side."
That was the way of the founding of Bethlehem South, as South Bethlehem was originally known. At least, that was the way of it in the eyes of the Bethlehem Book Committee, which published the book from which I have been quoting.
Who was the Bethlehem Book Committee? It was a group of distinguished citizens, academics, editors, writers, historians, journalists, some Moravians, some not. I knew at least a couple of them personally. They seem to have taken their role in interpreting Bethlehem history in a straightforward way with great seriousness; and, for local history, their results seem distinguished. (Local history, like all history, is frequently a tug of war.)
One must then ask, whence comes this strange new interpration of South Side history--and why?
As I have suggested earlier, I am keeping my speculations to myself. For now.

No matter what anyone claims to think, the South Bethlehem Historical Society has only ever had one goal: To enrich the cultural and economic life of the community by developing an appreciation for the contributions of the South Side and its peoples. I (and, I am sure, others involved with SBHS) dreamed of a day when we would be accepted as full partners in Bethlehem's historic enterprise.
To me, a mark of full acceptance would have been acceptance by the Collegium. (Remember that? The loose-knit organization that was supposed to keep the city's historic boat afloat? It should have been enough of a structure to suit anyone whose real concern was progress and not power.)
Well, we WERE invited to join the Collegium; but only in what turned out to be that organization's final days. I suppose we should consider ourselves honored, because I don't think the Sun Inn Preservation Association ever WAS allowed to join. I may be wrong about this.
But the honor was in any case severely limited. I remember one occasion, on which I and my successor as president hiked across the bridge to help with a Collegium mailing. Lo and behold! Somebody had "forgotten" to put our organization's name on the mailing. You might call it "putting out the welcome moat." I insisted that our name be written on every single mailing piece; but I certainly was not happy.
This brings us to today, and today's Historic Bethlehem Partnership. All too ready, in my view, to be all too welcoming.
But that is an evolving story, and I hope to keep you abreast of it.