Isebrand.com

Ulysses S. Grant, born April 27, 1822. The times and the man can help make each other

Ulysses S. Grant didn't want to go to West Point. His dad made him go. Grant was 16 years old, 5'1" and 117 pounds. He graduated, and despite being a quartermaster--a position not usually associated with combat--he managed to get into the thick of things in the Southwest when the US was fighting against Mexico; what is more, he proved cool-headed and even heroic under fire. But he was also truly appalled by the bloodshed he experienced and from the start was squeamish at the sight of it.

By the age of 32, after having served a dispiriting assignment in California under a commander he loathed, he'd resigned from the Army with a reputation as a drunk. In truth, it was not that he drank a lot, but that he drank regularly enough and got drunk very easily.

He became afterwards a bookkeeper working for his brother.

He did not vote regularly.

In April 1861, the American Civil War began. Grant wanted to return to the military, but had a very difficult time finding a commission. He finally was put in charge of training volunteers. On June 14, 1861 he was given command of the ill-regarded 21st Illinois volunteer regiment.

Bit by bit, he pressed forward--training, winning engagements. And as a Midwesterner (or Westerners as they were referred to then), he seemed to grasp intuitively the importance of the western portion of the Union's overall strategy, the Mississippi River strategy, which was crafted in 1861 by General Winfield Scott and is now known to history popularly as the Anaconda Plan. Despite Grant's overall professional progress, he had many setbacks along the way and was even demoted after the Battle of Shiloh. But he persisted. And he was needed. By late 1863, President Abraham Lincoln had given Grant a promotion and put him in charge of all of the Union armies. It came with a $12,000 salary for life.

More setbacks...but more victories, too. President Lincoln sent a spy to check on Grant and to find out if he was drinking. During the Vicksburg campaign, he might have been on a binge at one point. But, as would be the case until the war's end, his direct, blunt, simple, and dogged style of command proved too valuable.

In 1864, Lincoln named Grant Commanding General of the United States Army, which required Grant to be most directly in charge of the Union's Eastern campaign, in Virgina. He advanced his forces even after battles that would have made previous Union commanders in the Eastern campaign fall back. He was accused by detractors, including privately First Lady Mary Todd Lincoln, of being a butcher of his troops, feeding men into battle like flesh into a meat grinder. At one point, at the Battle of Cold Harbor, 6,000 Union soldiers were killed in one hour during a series of assaults against Confederate positions, and Grant admitted to it being an awful blunder. But he saw the overall military situation clearly: the larger size of his army and Union reserves compared to Robert E. Lee's army and the very limited Southern reserves were cheif among the Union's greatest strategic advantages. The greater number of men was a fact that needed to be effectively exploited.

Despite the massive casualties on battlefields in the South, in the North the morale kept rising because Grant the butcher was overseeing a more determinedly winning army--one reflecting its relentless and determined commander--in contrast to the more reticent Union army of the war's earlier years. Progress, bloodily, continued in Virginia while in the deep South, Gen. Sherman, according to Grant's larger military strategy, secured victories in Georgia...which thereby secured President Lincoln's re-election; something that in the grand scope of the war a greater, a more necessary strategic victory than any battlefield triumph. Without the well-timed victories in Georgia, Lincoln's opponent in the election of 1864, the former army general McClellan who ran on the Democratic Party's platform that called for a negotiated end to the war, would likely have won the election and, upon becoming President, ceased much or all aggressive action by Union forces.

By spring 1865, the Confederacy's rebellion was put down; Gen. Lee surrendered to Grant; the Confederate States of America ceased to exist. Grant was a hero in the North, and within three years became the 18th President of the United States. It had been the right time for the likes of a particular squeamish, understated, pint-sized, weak-livered pencil-pusher and former seemingly mediocre soldier on the fringes of the republic to be made by grand events and help make them, too. 

See: U.S. Grant: Warrior.

Letter to "His Excellency A. Lincoln, President of the United States" from "Your obt. Svt., U. S. Grant, Maj. Gn.," August 23, 1863, Cairo, Illinois:

In this particular instance there is no objection however to my expressing an honest convic­tion. That is, by arming the negro we have added a powerful ally. They will make good soldiers and taking them from the enemy weaken him in the same proportion they strengthen us. I am therefore most decidedly in favor of pushing this policy to the enlistment of a force sufficient to hold all the South falling into our hands and to aid in capturing more.

Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%

The upper 1 percent of Americans are now taking in nearly a quarter of the nation’s income every year. While the top 1 percent have seen their incomes rise 18 percent over the past decade, those in the middle have actually seen their incomes fall. 

via www.vanityfair.com

Here's a look going back to 1979. (Chart)

The article continues:

In terms of wealth rather than income, the top 1 percent control 40 percent.... Twenty-five years ago, the corresponding figures were 12 percent and 33 percent. (My emphasis.)

Also from the article, the causes of the ecomonc disparities include: 

The ordinary dynamics of supply and demand have certainly played a role.... But one big part of the reason we have so much inequality is that the top 1 percent want it that way. The most obvious example involves tax policy. Lowering tax rates on capital gains, which is how the rich receive a large portion of their income, has given the wealthiest Americans close to a free ride. Monopolies and near monopolies have always been a source of economic power—from John D. Rockefeller at the beginning of the last century to Bill Gates at the end. Lax enforcement of anti-trust laws, especially during Republican administrations, has been a godsend to the top 1 percent. Much of today’s inequality is due to manipulation of the financial system, enabled by changes in the rules that have been bought and paid for by the financial industry itself—one of its best investments ever. The government lent money to financial institutions at close to 0 percent interest and provided generous bailouts on favorable terms when all else failed. Regulators turned a blind eye to a lack of transparency and to conflicts of interest.

Wealth begets power, which begets more wealth.....The Supreme Court, in its recent Citizens United case, has [removed] limitations on [corporations'] campaign [contributions].... Virtually all U.S. senators, and most of the representatives in the House, are members of the top 1 percent when they arrive, are kept in office by money from the top 1 percent, and know that if they serve the top 1 percent well they will be rewarded by the top 1 percent when they leave office. By and large, the key executive-branch policymakers on trade and economic policy also come from the top 1 percent. When pharmaceutical companies receive a trillion-dollar gift—through legislation prohibiting the government, the largest buyer of drugs, from bargaining over price—it should not come as cause for wonder. It should not make jaws drop that a tax bill cannot emerge from Congress unless big tax cuts are put in place for the wealthy. Given the power of the top 1 percent, this is the way you would expect the system to work. (My emphases.)

Here's that income gap's growth since 1917, comparing the top 5% to the nation's median income:

This puts me in mind of what Warren Buffet and billionaire hedge fund manager Tom Steyer, said about the tax breaks to the ultra-rich (which the ultra-rich make sure are put into the tax code in the first place).... 

There's been this increasing disparity between the rich and the poor, and we found out that a rising tide just lifted all yachts, not all boats.... The rich are always going to say that you know, just give us the money and we'll go out and spend more and then it will all trickle down to the rest of you. But that has not worked the last 10 years, and I hope the American public is catching on... [Y]ou might extend [the tax cuts] further for the lower class, middle class, maybe upper middle class but I think that you should raise taxes on the very rich. I lived in periods where capital gains taxes were 39.6 percent, when earned income taxes were 70 percent and our economy did just fine.
.....
[T]he payroll taxes become 40% of [America's] total revenue just like the income tax. And people that talk about how the rich pay their share and all that sort of thing, they totally ignore the payroll tax. You know, I did this little survey in my office a few years ago and there were 16 people who responded. And I had the lowest tax rate of the 16. I didn't have any tax shelters. I didn't have any tax planner. It was all courtesy of the U.S. Congress. I mean, they did my tax planning for me. And, literally, the average for the office, counting payroll taxes was 32% and mine was 16%.

Tom Steyer, billionaire hedge fund manager favors higher taxes on the ultra rich like himself. He says he disagrees with the sentiment: "Hang on, I did this work, this is a capitalist society, this is my just reward." Instead, he said:

I think anyone who doesn't give credit to the system that they are born into is taking an awful lot onto themselves. I mean, I really think that people have sacrificed a lot more than a little tax money to make that system available for all of us. And I would be ashamed of myself if I didn't give some credit to them.

The Vanity Fair article continues:

Economists long ago tried to justify the vast inequalities.... [T]hey came up with...“marginal-productivity theory.” In a nutshell, this theory associated higher incomes with higher productivity and a greater contribution to society.... Evidence for its validity, however, remains thin. The corporate executives who helped bring on the recession of the past three years—whose contribution to our society, and to their own companies, has been massively negative—went on to receive large bonuses. In some cases, companies were so embarrassed about calling such rewards “performance bonuses” that they felt compelled to change the name to “retention bonuses” (even if the only thing being retained was bad performance). Those who have contributed great positive innovations to our society, from the pioneers of genetic understanding to the pioneers of the Information Age, have received a pittance compared with those responsible for the financial innovations that brought our global economy to the brink of ruin.

By the way, President Obama wants to restore taxes on the wealthy to where they were before Bush's big tax cuts for the wealthy. Those pre-Bush tax rates on the wealthy weren't all that high to begin with. Take a look.

What is more, if we're serious about tackling America's ongoing deficits (and our debt) we need to be honest about there major causes. Those causes include tax cuts for the weathly that were enacted by President Bush.

Take a look at this chart of the Bush policies' projected (2010) shares of the deficit.

Trickle me pink?

150 Years Ago Today in America: CIVIL WAR BEGINS

I do not pretend to go to sleep. How can I? If Anderson does not accept terms at four, the orders are, he shall be fired upon. I count four, St. Michael's bells chime out and I begin to hope. At half-past four the heavy booming of a cannon. I sprang out of bed, and on my knees prostrate I prayed as I never prayed before. - Diary entry by Mary Chesnut, wife of a South Carolinian politician who hours before had been part of a delegation presenting to US Maj. Robert Anderson letters demanding the evacutation of federal troops from Ft. Sumter.

150 years ago today in Charleston, South Carolina's harbor, a bloodless 34-hour artillery dual between one group of militarized Americans and another inside an out-gunned federal installation, Fort Sumter, began and was the first contested act of violence in a civil war that would end 4 years later to the day and claim 618,000 American lives.

Some 40,000 shells were fired, the vast majority of them by the Confederate forces besieging the fort. The fort's commander, Maj. Anderson, a pro-slavery former slave-owner, formally surrendered the fort on April 14. There was an official surrender ceremony during which one Union soldier, Pvt. Daniel Hough--born in 1825 in Tipperary, Ireland--was killed and another, Pvt. Edward Gallway, was mortally wounded when cannon cartridges accidentally ignited during what was to have been the 50th discharge of a rolling 100-gun salute.

After seeing to the burial of Pvt. Hough in the fort, Maj. Anderson and his garrison along with the 33-star American flag that had been lowered from the fort were taken aboard the Confederate steamship Isabela and then the Union steamer Baltic to the North. On April 20, 1861, Anderson placed the flag atop the statue of George Washington in New York City's Union Square during a pro-Union rally attended by 100,000 to 250,000 people, the largest public gathering in North America's history up to that time. (Photo: the only known photograph of the Union Square rally. Click to enlarge.)

Following declarations of secession by seven Southern states, South Carolina demanded that the U.S. Army abandon its facilities in Charleston Harbor. On December 26, 1860, U.S. Major Robert Anderson surreptitiously moved his small command from the indefensible Fort Moultrie on Sullivan's Island to Fort Sumter, a substantial fortress controlling the entrance of Charleston Harbor. An attempt by U.S. President James Buchanan to reinforce and resupply Anderson using the unarmed merchant ship, Star of the West, failed when she was fired upon by shore batteries on January 9, 1861. South Carolina authorities then seized all Federal property in the Charleston area, except for Fort Sumter.
.....
The resupply of Fort Sumter became the first crisis of the administration of President Abraham Lincoln. He notified the Governor of South Carolina, Francis W. Pickens, that he was sending supply ships, which resulted in an ultimatum from the Confederate government: evacuate Fort Sumter immediately. Major Anderson refused to surrender. Beginning at 4:30 a.m. on April 12, the Confederates bombarded the fort from artillery batteries surrounding the [fort].

via en.wikipedia.org

If you have a pair of those simple red and green "3-D" glasses, you can view a 3-D photo presentation (technically a stereoview-style presentation) featuring vintage photos of Fort Sumter on the Civil War Trust website.

Bottom image: the Fort Sumter flag.

I now support full marriage equality - Louis J. Marinelli

Having spent the last five years putting all of my political will, interest and energy into fighting against the spread of same-sex marriage as if it were a contagious disease, I must admit that it is hard for me to put the following text into words let alone utter them with my own voice.
.....
As you may already know, I was the one behind the 2010 Summer for Marriage Tour which the National Organization for Marriage sponsored and operated throughout July and August last year. It was my doing when, in March that year, I approached Brian Brown, then Executive Director of the National Organization for Marriage about sponsoring and participating in a series of traditional marriage rallies scattered around the Nation.
.....
My name is Louis J. Marinelli, a conservative-Republican and I now support full civil marriage equality. The constitution calls for nothing less.

via louisjmarinelli.com

He also writes, "Lastly, I came to understand the difference between civil marriage and holy marriage as in the sacrament of the Catholic Church. Let me rephrase. I understood that but either willingly chose not to accept it or just didn’t see it."

"I understood that but either willingly chose not to accept it or just didn’t see it." The most obvious of facts is embraced by Marinelli only at the end. Thus is the power of fear-based cognitive dissonance. Gays are out to destroy humanity. The Theory of Evolution is sinfully false and born of arrogant man's dislike of God's sovereignty. Barack Obama is a Kenyan Marxist. Up is down.

Poetry of the American Civil War - BBC Radio 4 - A House Divided

On the 12th of April 1861 Confederate forces attacked the US Military's Fort Sumter, thus beginning the bloodiest war in American history. It is this conflict, more than the American Revolution or World War Two that has had the most dramatic impact on the nation's character. This year marks its 150th anniversary.

In a war of brother against brother; the conflict created a tragic human drama as the country struggled to define itself. America's most distinguished poets were affected by unprecedented levels of carnage. Herman Melville wrote a chronological, impressionistic volume of poetry on the Civil War.

Walt Whitman, a volunteer nurse during the war wrote heart-wrenching poems about wounded soldiers beside piles of amputated limbs. Emily Dickinson was most productive during this time, though she never wrote directly about the war. However, her meditations on death, violence and the bloody landscape provide a deep insight into the nation's character.

In this programme, we'll hear music and poetry from before, during and after the war.

via www.bbc.co.uk