Civil War Horses: Life and Death of a War Horse

Link

Civil War Horses: Life and Death of a War Horse

General Lee on Traveller at the Battle of Gettysburg, 1863.

Although the soldiers of the Civil War realized that the horse was the backbone of the Northern and Southern army; many readers of history have lost sight of their contribution to the war effort. Mounts of famous generals became almost as well-known as their riders ; among others, U.S. Grant’s Cincinnati, Lee’s Traveller, Stonewall Jackson’s Little Sorrell, Phillip Sheridan’s Rienze, , George G. Meade’s Old Baldy (wounded five times in battle) to name the most famous. By contrast and of less renown were the “War Horses” that moved caissons, guns, ambulances, cavalry, and messages between and during battles. During the American Civil War (1861-1865), soldiers preferred to shoot and kill horses rather than enemy combatants, because without horses, artillery became passive objects of heavy metal and without mounts the swift cavalryman was reduced to a foot soldier now powerless to scout, locate, and strike the enemy and its supply lines. Sharpshooters were ordered to take away the horse, it stripped the enemy of two of its major forces for combat, cavalry and artillery, leaving only disadvantaged infantry to carry the brunt of the battle.
During the conflict it is estimated that between one million and three million equines died, including horses, mules, donkeys, and even confiscated children’s ponies. It was estimated that the horse causalities at the Battle of Gettysburg alone, July 1 to July 3, 1863, exceeded 3,000. Diaries and letters of soldiers often mentioned the stench of dead steeds rising up from the killing fields.

Dead Horses after the three day Battle at Gettysburg, July 1-3, 1863.

An account of an event at Gettysburg, General Gibbons of the Union army made an observation for all to hear:
“One thing which forcibly occurred to me was the perfect quiet with which the horses stood in their places. Even when a shell, strong in the midst of a team, would knock over one or two of them or hurl on struggling in its death agonies to the ground, the rest would make no effort to struggle or escape but would stand stolidly by as if saying to themselves It is fate, it is useless to try and avoid it. “
The horses that died from gunfire or artillery shells were the more fortunate ones. The majority suffered a much more cruel death. Many were simply ridden to death, either due to the exigencies of battle or to poor judgement by cavalry riders. Some were worn down over time, became sick and lame, and were shot or abandoned.
Feeding the horses was always a big issue. The feed ration for a horse was 14 lbs. of hay and 12 lbs. of grain per day. Multiply that by the hundreds of horses in a unit and you can see the logistical problem required to garner 800,000 lbs. of feed each day to maintain their horses. It was an overwhelming task and forced the army to languish the farms and towns to find horse feed.

General John F. Reynolds at the rear was exhalting  the charge of the Union light brigade at the Battle of Gettysburg, July 1, 1863. He was shot in the head and died that day.

In most cases, generals rode horses and didn’t walk. The horse provided added height, enabling them to see their men on the battlefield. In addition, the mounted the officers’ voices carried  as they commanded in the field while at the same time the sight of the commander majestically poised on his horse gave the soldiers a symbol of bravery and honor.

Finally, one clause in the surrender terms at Appomattox reflected on the importance of the War Horse.   Every Confederate cavalryman was entitled to take his horse home with him. This provision, insisted on by General Lee, was accepted by General Grant when he was told that once the soldiers returned to civilian life, they needed the “War Horse,” to plow the fields and plant spring crops.

 

 

 

:   every Confederate cavalryman was entitled to take his horse home with him. This provision, insisted on by General Lee, was accepted by General Grant when he was told that once the soldiers returned to civilian life, they needed the “War Horse,” to plow the fields and plant spring crops.

“Was President Obama the Worst President in U.S. History?”

“Was President Obama the worst president in U.S. history?”

President Obama’s approval rating has averaged about 48% to date in contrast to Congress’ approval rating averaging around 15% in the eye’s of the American public(Gallup, 2014).  The President’s job rating for the sake of this writing will be viewed from the vantage point of its effect on the American economy.

The job market hit a milestone this year, after 52 consecutive weeks of job growth, the market has recovered all the jobs lost in the 2008 financial crisis.

Job loss from the 2009 economic crash have been recovered to date.

Job loss from the 2008 economic crash have been recovered to date.

Those jobs gains came entirely from the private sector, as government jobs were flat.  This could be a turning point for workers and their wages.  Some feel that this a meaningless benchmark, because it doesn’t feel like a recovery.  7.4 million people are working part-time, even though they would prefer full-time hours.  These figures lead to the conclusion that the job market is tougher with a growing population creating a higher supply of available workers.  Even with the President’s success in job recovery, it may take another 5 years to create another 5 million jobs to bring down the unemployment rate to 5.5%(Shierholz, 2014).

The U.S. Treasury Department reported that the federal deficit has decreased from approximately $1.4 trillion dollars in 2009 to a dramatic $680 billion dollars.  This news comes in light of Republicans insisting that the president has been a poor steward of the economy.  It maybe noted that fiscal battles on capital hill have gone from a boil to a mild simmer as knowledge of the improvement reaches the voting public.

The country has heard the cries of ” trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see.”  Such cries are being replaced by a more rational prediction of the rapidly diminishing national deficit.  Jan Hatzius of Goldman Sachs expects the deficit to be down to $500 million dollars or just under 3% of GDSmithsonian 003P.  What is contributing to the reduction?  Is it less spending and less taxes on the rich?  Not at all, despite the pundits call for both measures to improve the economy.  President Obama has affected the deficit reduction by fueling economic growth with his stimulus program.  For decades deficits as a % of  GDP have been closely correlated to economic improvement.  In a nutshell, if the current trend continues, and if it plays out, America will be shocked!

The next area to  examine as a factor  to determine president Obama’s rating in history must come from Wall Street, the economic hub of the world.

Dow Jones Average

Dow Jones Average

The Dow remains a Bull market during its record breaking climb from the summer of 2008 where it closed at a low of 6,500 to the present incredible high.  The Dow continued upward to surpass its prior all-time record setting performance with an inflation adjusted average of 17,000 for the best milestone since the end of 1999.

Did the president’s policies help this remarkable growth?  The answer is a proven yes. As the the statistical facts found in the  above illustrated;  examples of growing financial markets,steady job growth,  a soon to be shocking deficit reduction, and a targeted stimulus policy which has worked in concert to bring American back from a near financial collapse in 2008.  So, why does the public believe he has been ineffective?  According to Nancy Pelosi in her television appearance, the president needs to do a better job of communicating his achievements.  His critics had avoided the true facts as they  twisted and turned information into half truths in an effort  to cause confusion and chaos with the public.  Obviously, after an examination of the U.S. economy and its related facts, President Obama is closer to being one of our foremost leaders.

 

The Cold War and Today’s Preppers

atomicbomb1957

 

The social and cultural phenomena of “prepping” for the eventuality of a catastrophic event in the United States has its roots in the “Cold War” in the 1950’s.

In the 1950’s  just as today, American information experts are faced with the realities of engaging the American public in a nationalistic purpose to promote our democratic freedom and economic prosperity in the face of gender inequality, economic disparity, and racial segregation. The challenge then: how could the propagandists rally the country in spite of those glaring injustices?

Please note, those schoolbombdrill1957
propagandists were not cynical strategists, but believed strongly in the virtue of their cause and of the struggle against the Soviet Union.

So a narrative was built that trumpeted the accomplishments of democratic capitalism, downplayed domestic problems, and justified the U.S. actions in the “Cold War.”   Furthermore, they presented an idealized vision of the United States as having a necessary role in combating the greater danger of Soviet communism. It was implied by the government strategists through a narrative to the American people that our country was destined to save the world from the evils of communism..

Furthermore, in the 1950’s the fear of a nuclear war and the effects of nuclear fallout was fresh in the minds of America’s in the aftermath of the atomic bombs dropped on Japan in August of 1945. School children were drilled religiously as they marched to air raid shelters and were told to take cover for their lives.  People built home-made versions of shelters as the paranoia of a Soviet nuclear attack swept the country.  Nike  sites were built and manned in and around major cities to intercept an attack,while our country began to build an arsenal of nuclear weapons that could destroy the world many times.  As a child,  recalling the adults sitting around the table discussing the  worst case scenarios of war with the Soviets was a commonplace event.

What was the purpose of the The “Cold War?”  The answer can not be simplified, and there isn’t space to discuss it here.   Yet today, we live peacefully with many communist countries, excepting North Korea. Did a cold war need to happen to bring about our current relationship with other communist governments?  I believe not.

Today the “preppers” are living out such a narrative. Is this current narrative valid and reliable?  Do emotions cloud the subject and its rationality?  Today’s “preppers” feel many of the same feelings that were felt during the 1950’s; fear, frustration, and a unifying purpose against some evil in the world. These  reasons are important and  understandable for we are living in a country where the current narrative about terrorism has  created signs of paranoia.  Could a look into the past provide some perspective? Is our country creating a narrative against terrorism to divert our citizens from addressing the current social injustices in our society? How would you compare or contrast the 1950’s with today?    How do you see it?

 

1950--000tthtytyty-fallout-shelter-NYC

 

 

 

 

Slavery: More Dirty Little Tricks

On March 2, 1807, President Jefferson signed a bill to abolish slave trade.  The congressional debates surrounding this bill show how legislators found it hard to cope with moral issues as they competed with commercial interests in the abolition of the importation of slaves In a nutshell, the bill found commercial and legal concerns taking precedence over the moral and humanitarian issues around the slave trade. Trade continued and grew within the United States.
The invention of the cotton gin impacted slave trade beyond the vision of this bill, also slaves continued to be illegally smuggled into ports like Charleston, S.C. being sold privately. Across the Atlantic Ocean slavery remained legal in most of the British Empire until the Slavery Act of 1833.
Britain used its international strength to put pressure on other nations to end their own slave trade. Britain created fines for captains that continued with the trade. The fines could be up to 100 pounds per slave found on a ship. Captains would sometimes dump slaves overboard when they saw Navy ships coming in order to avoid these fines.  The Royal Navy controlled the world’s seas,and established the West African coast as an area to board ships.amistead

Antebellum Slavery: The Politics, Economics, and Dirty Little Tricks

Image

dyingslave

Slave States 1860

Slave States 1860

  The antebellum period in American history ranged from 1830-1860.  It was a period of wide spread slavery in the country.  President Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe were Virginia plantation owners who supported the use of slaves on their plantations.  The question of abolishing slavery continued to be a strong political issue for the South.  With the invention of the Cotton Gin, and the lucrative textile markets abroad, slave labor became an important part of the successful cotton economy.  Cotton was king!  It created wealth and prestige for the slave owners farming cotton.      All of the presidents leading up to Lincoln found ways to avoid ending slavery.  The most important question is how slavery and prejudice have interacted to create the set of social relationships steeped in our current, hierarchical society.