I am a Presbyterian and a member of the Westminster Presbyterian Church in Minneapolis. Needless to say, I am shocked by the recent actions by our General Assembly. I see these actions, described below, as seriously misguided. I will remain in the Church and argue against such behavior.
_______________________________________________
From Real Clear Politics:
How ironic that, as the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church USA voted to divest from Israel, it also voted to recognize same-sex marriage.
It’s ironic for two reasons. First, because Israel is the only gay-friendly country in the Middle East. For example, this month’s 16th annual Gay Pride Parade in Tel Aviv drew over 100,000 participants.
Try doing that in Saudia Arabia, Yemen or Iran.
Second, because Israel is also the only place in the Middle East where Christian minorities can practice their faith freely.
The hypocrisy of the vote, which declared that the Presbyterian church “cannot profit from the destruction of homes and lives,” is underscored by the group’s silence on the slaughter in Syria and Iraq, not to mention the persecution of its fellow Christians elsewhere in the region — including by the Palestinian Authority.
Sad to say, the narrow vote (it passed 310 to 303) reflects a growing animus within the Presbyterian Church toward Israel.
Its Middle East advocacy group has published a virulent anti-Israel “study guide” that perpetuates the Zionism-is-racism canard. Though the Assembly distanced itself from the pamphlet, it refused to repudiate it.
Presbyterian officials claim the vote is not an endorsement of wholesale divestment from Israel — only from three firms (Caterpillar, Hewlett-Packard and Motorola) that “abet the occupation” by selling products such as military and surveillance technology.
But it’s telling that the Assembly rejected a suggestion to reinvest its $21 million in Israeli companies involved in “peaceful solutions.”
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu responded by urging the Presbyterians to come visit Israel — and then take a bus trip through Libya, Syria and Iraq to compare. And he offered them “two pieces of advice” for their travels into these other lands.
“One is, make sure it’s an armor-plated bus,” he said. “And second, don’t say that you’re Christian.”
FILED UNDERCHRISTIANITY, EDITORIAL, GAY RIGHTS, ISRAEL
READ NEXT:
Government’s attack on homeschooling
Author Archives: clarkgriffith
Beer Caused Civilization: Fermentation Came First
The link below will take you to an article that shows how ancient peoples fermented grains long before they were domesticated. Apparently, early brewers collected grain from as far away as sixty miles to provide for their buzz. This search for beer caused the domestication of grains so that beer could be produced more easily and in larger quantities. They learned that by planting grains, they only need 1% of the land and couId sell the surplus. This lead to villages then cities, and the rest is history.
I found this article to be very interesting, but I am still wondering about that first fellow who brewed the first pilsner, or was it lager? Read on for the details and see the evidence.
http://www.google.com/gwt/n?u=http://www.science20.com/timberati/civilization_and_beer_an_enormous_improvement_on_the_lack_thereof-137846
Charlie Wannan, Jr. At Omaha Beach
Charlie Wannan, Jr, was a Second Lieutenant at Omaha Beach. He was wounded as he led his platoon over a rise just off the beach. At a critical moment, he tripped over a root and fell into a ditch. At that moment, a German 88mm shell burst overhead, killing those around him. He received a head wound and had a steel plate inserted to replace the lost skull.
That tripping over a root was his lucky moment and mine, too, as he went on to become a science teacher and coach at my school. I took his second grade science course and learned alot. He used a skeleton that emerged, dangling, from an upright case so he could illlustrate skeletal structure. He made us figure out whether the skeleton belonged to a man or woman. The pelvis, as we later learned, was the key to that riddle of the female skeleton. When I was stuck on an exam question, “What part of the body acts like a camera shutter? He bent down in front of me, blinking continuously. I got it.
Later, he was my track coach. He was a calm, reflective, very supportive coach, unlike others I had who were abrasive.
Today, I think of my connection to Omaha Beach and am thankful that Coach Charlie survived his wounds to become an important part of my life and the lives of all the students and athletes his beneficence touched.
He did not tell me this story, it was another coach. He was explaining why Coach Charlie was so quiet, implying that he was not quite right. For me, he was perfect, the teacher and coach that listened when I spoke, helped when I needed it and cheered when I deserved it. Thanks, Coach Charlie, I appreciate you and salute you on this, the 70th Anniversary of your ordeal, and, gratefully, your survival on Omaha Beach.
Cold Harbor, The Union’s Worst Defeat. June 3, 1864
Five Years ago, I drove from Washington to visit, my cousin, Reverand Al Moreau, at his Presbyterian Church on the Cold Harbor battle field, just north of Richmond. I toured the battlefield before church to see the ground over which the main Union attack took place and found the Confederate trenches still there. It showed a concave defensive position that allowed enfilade fire of cannon and rifles against the advancing Yankees who lost, it is said, 7,000 troops in the first 30 (some say 15) minutes of the engagement.
The Confederate General at this position was Gen. Robert F. Hoke. Reports say that Robert E. Lee had designated Hoke as his replacement if he had been wounded or killed. An interesting note shows that after the war, General Hoke needed to visit then President Grant and appeared at the White House to ask for an audience. When Grant heard that Hoke was waiting to see him, he burst into the waiting room and warmly embraced the man who had given him his worst beating of the war.
Below is an account ot that battle that occurred 150 years ago today. It stopped Grant’s effort to break Lee and capture Richmond, and the armies took position in trenches around Petersburgh, south and east of Richmond, and the war continued until April, 1865.
The Battle of Cold Harbor
Shortly after dawn on June 3, 1864, the Union Army of the Potomac launched a massive frontal assault against the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia at Cold Harbor, Virginia. Intended to break the battered Confederate army and open the road to Richmond, the attack would serve as the conclusion and climax of Lieutenant General Ulysses S. Grant’s Overland campaign against General Robert E. Lee. The main part of the assault would take slightly less than an hour and, according to some accounts, would cost nearly 7,000 Union casualties. In a war that had seen more than its share of uncompromising slaughter, Cold Harbor would stand alone.
Over the last few years, there has been renewed interest in this tragic engagement that seems to have been overlooked compared to other major battles of Grant’s campaign. But few analysts have focused attention on what may have been the root cause for this military disaster — the command process within the Army of the Potomac. In human terms, Cold Harbor was an utter catastrophe, the direct result of a flawed command process that finally broke under the strain of battle.
Grant’s campaign during the summer of 1864 was distinguished by almost constant hard and desperate fighting. This style of warfare not only made incredible demands on the average soldier but it also had a severe impact on those in the chain of command and as a result the entire command process. The decision to make the attack was based on poor information and invalid assumptions about the morale and military capabilities of the enemy. More important, the decision to launch the fateful assault and its delayed execution reflected a total lack of command cohesion.
(Photo not added.)
In March 1864, Ulysses S. Grant was promoted to lieutenant general, a rank that had been newly reactivated by Congress, and assumed the position of general-in-chief of the armies of the United States. Almost immediately, Grant moved to execute a new grand strategy for defeating the Confederacy. For the first time, all Union armies would move in a coordinated fashion on all fronts. This was both to prevent the Confederates from using their interior lines of communication to reinforce one another and at the same time put unrelenting military pressure on them. Essentially, Union forces would pound and hammer the Confederate armies, inflicting losses in both men and supplies that they could ill-afford to sustain, while attacking the economic and social infrastructure of the South.
While Grant initially considered returning to the West to oversee the execution of his strategy, he eventually decided to conduct his command of the war from the field, alongside the Army of the Potomac. In Grant’s strategy, his army would have a vital mission: to draw the Army of Northern Virginia into the open and destroy it. In Grant’s view, if Lee’s army was crushed, Richmond would fall by default and the war would end.
The Army of the Potomac posed many problems for Grant in terms of command, however. First, Maj. Gen. George G. Meade, the army’s commander and the victor at Gettysburg, had chafed under criticism from the administration and the press, as well as congressional investigations, because he had failed to pursue and destroy Lee’s army in the days following Gettysburg. Meade was seen as irritable, slow, overly cautious and best when on the defensive — not the sort of man to execute Grant’s aggressive strategy. The men who would be Meade’s four infantry corps commanders during the coming campaign were also somewhat suspect. The best of them, Maj. Gen. Winfield Scott Hancock, was a tenacious and talented fighter, but the wounds he received at Gettysburg had not yet healed, and his poor health affected his ability to command.
Given this unsettling picture, and the Army of the Potomac’s reputation for being commanded by gentlemen politicians, it is little wonder that Grant elected to ride into his grand campaign firmly joined at its hip. The army’s part in Grant’s strategy was vital, and he could ill-afford its slowness and tendency to turn back to regroup, rest and resupply as soon as the first engagement was concluded. So when Grant arrived at Meade’s headquarters near Brandy Station on March 10, 1864, everyone including Meade expected the army’s commander to be replaced. But Meade came across to the new general-in-chief as a man of modesty, honesty and true patriotism, and Grant elected to retain him in command.
For his part, Meade was publicly supportive, courteous and subordinate to Grant. Privately, he was not a happy man. His letters to his wife showed his disappointment with Grant’s decision to remain in the field with the Army of the Potomac. His wife urged him to resign and return home. Meade responded that she should be careful not to criticize Grant in public or indicate that there was any problem. He was, after all, retaining his command of a major army, and he would do his duty.
In keeping Meade in his position and by placing himself so close to the Army of the Potomac, Grant was creating a command problem that would eventually result in calamity. The questions that naturally arose revolved around Meade’s actual role and how far Grant would go in directing the army’s activities. Grant would later write that his concept was to make Meade’s position seem as much as possible as though Grant were in Washington and Meade were in the field — Grant issuing the orders for the movement of the army to Meade, and Meade executing them. In other words, Grant would issue broad directives for the maneuvering and conduct of the Army of the Potomac, as well as the armies in other theaters, leaving the detailed tactical execution to Meade.
But Grant’s actual words and conduct at the time indicated something entirely different. Lieutenant Colonel Horace Porter, one of Grant’s staff officers, wrote that, when speaking to his staff, Grant indicated he would take a more hands-on approach. Porter said that Grant referred to the practice of sending his staff to ‘critical points of the line to keep me promptly advised of what is taking place’ and that when emergencies dictated, he wanted them to communicate his ‘views to commanders, and urge immediate action’ without awaiting specific orders from himself. Further, Grant told them he would place his headquarters near Meade’s and ‘communicate his instructions through that officer.’ This seemed to indicate a role unrestricted to mere broad strategic direction. As a result, the Army of the Potomac appeared to have two heads.
The initial fighting of the campaign, in the Wilderness, demonstrated how much Grant became involved in the details of battle. For example, on the evening of May 5, Grant ordered an attack all along the line to be carried out at 4:30 a.m. on May 6. Meade responded that he had ordered the attack take place at that time, but suggested 6 a.m. instead, adding, ‘Should you permit this change, I will advise the corps commanders.’ Grant replied through his staff that Meade could change the attack to 5 but not 6. It should have seemed obvious to the most casual of observers that this ridiculous process, wherein the general-in-chief and one of his major army commanders were trading dispatches on minor time adjustments, could not continue. But continue it did, from the Wilderness to Spotsylvania and on to the North Anna River.
In fact, some did see the absurdity of the situation — but not as one might expect. Grant’s staff quickly began to lobby for the general to simply ignore Meade’s position and bypass him entirely in directing the campaign. Porter recalled a heated discussion that took place among Grant’s staff after the Wilderness regarding Meade’s’somewhat anomalous position.’ With Grant listening intently, they argued that vital time was being lost in transmitting field orders through an intermediary whose position was essentially ‘a false one.’ Some stated that they believed Meade and his staff were modifying Grant’s instructions or that they were ‘elaborated as to change their spirit.’ Finally, as the discussion became more heated, they characterized Meade as having an irascible temper that ‘often irritated officers who came in contact with him.’
Grant waited until the arguments were completed and said that, while the present situation was not totally satisfactory, Meade’s presence relieved him of many duties he would otherwise have to undertake if he assumed a more active role. Porter noted, however, that while Grant maintained his view throughout the war, after those discussions he began to give even ‘closer personal direction in battle to the movements of the subdivisions of the army.’
On the other side of the coin, Meade, though always calm and cooperative in Grant’s presence, read the newspaper accounts of the campaign, which gave every credit to Grant, and began to resent the control that Grant and his staff were exercising. His temper became increasingly foul, and he grew more abrasive with each day. On one occasion Assistant Secretary of War Charles Dana made the mistake of reading a dispatch to Meade from Maj. Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman, informing Grant that his army had engaged the enemy successfully, could now maneuver and, if Grant could inspire the Army of the Potomac to do its share, success would be assured. Meade flew into a rage, telling Dana: ‘Sir! I consider that dispatch an insult to the army I command and to me personally. The Army of the Potomac does not require General Grant’s inspiration or anybody else’s inspiration to make it fight!’
Not surprisingly, the staffs that surrounded Grant and Meade felt even stronger about the situation, and they would be a primary obstruction to command cohesion. Each staff had little respect for the other or its respective commander. Colonel Theodore Lyman wrote at length in his journal about the relationship between the two headquarters’ staffs, and his biggest concern was not so much Grant’s treatment of Meade but the disrespect Grant and his staff showed toward their opponent. Lyman said that from the very beginning, he sensed an air of overconfidence among Grant’s staff, which ‘talked and laughed flippantly about Lee and his army.’ To be certain, Grant fostered some of this attitude in an effort to remove the seemingly mystic spell Lee had cast on the Army of the Potomac. What was most troubling about this kind of talk was that, as the campaign continued and the army fought one bloody engagement after another, the big talk evolved into genuine overconfidence that began to affect Grant’s official assessments and command decisions.
Following the brutal and inconclusive fighting at Spotsylvania, Dana reported to Secretary of War Edwin Stanton that the ‘Rebels have lost all confidence and are already mortally defeated,’ and that Stanton could be certain ‘the end is near as well as sure.’ Meanwhile, Grant told Maj. Gen. Henry Halleck that the Confederate army was ‘really whipped’ and added, ‘I may be mistaken, but I feel that our success over Lee’s army is already insured.’ This miscalculation of Lee’s strength by Grant and his staff would prove to be a critical ingredient in the Cold Harbor disaster.
In the days immediately following Grant and Dana’s pronouncements that Lee’s army was near its end, Grant continued to shift the Army of the Potomac to the left, forcing Lee to remain between the Federal forces and Richmond while still trying to get Lee to come out and fight the final climactic battle. Lee, however, would not take the bait. Meanwhile four weeks of continuous marching and brutal fighting were wearing everyone down. From the soldiers on the line to the generals in command, the emotional and physical strain was quietly and insidiously taking a heavy toll.
On May 29, Grant ordered Maj. Gen. Philip H. Sheridan to reconnoiter to the left and probe for Lee’s right, as he suspected Lee might be trying to move past the Federal left flank. Two days later, Sheridan discovered Lee had indeed moved far to his right and had entrenched infantry and cavalry at the Cold Harbor crossing. Sheridan engaged the enemy forces and, after a hard fight, drove them out. His scouts told him that heavier Confederate forces were moving in, however, so he elected to withdraw. But when Grant heard this news, he understood how important that move was. Lee was indeed extending to his right, trying to cut Grant off from the shortest route to the James River and, perhaps more important, his base of supply in Washington, D.C. Grant would later write, ‘The enemy knew the importance of Cold Harbor to us, and seemed determined that we should not hold it.’ Grant immediately ordered Sheridan to return to the crossing and ‘to hold the place at all hazards, until reinforcements could be sent to him.’
With the news from Sheridan, Grant immediately began to issue a series of orders that Meade acted upon with great energy. While it is difficult to place a finger on the precise moment of change, it is apparent Meade then tried to play the role of the proactive tactical commander and that Grant let him do it. The strategic decisions would be Grant’s, but Meade would now attend to the details. Perhaps Grant realized the system he had been using was terribly cumbersome, or perhaps he thought Meade was now capable of tactically executing the campaign as Grant wanted it done. Whatever the reason, Meade was now tactically in control of his army. But things got off to a terrible start.
Major General Horatio Wright’s VI Corps was ordered to pull out of the line and begin marching toward Cold Harbor to relieve Sheridan, but bad roads and slow delivery of orders delayed its arrival. Things were even more confusing for the men of the XVIII Corps, led by Maj. Gen. William F. ‘Baldy’ Smith. His corps was also ordered to move to Cold Harbor, but Grant’s staff made an error in the orders and told Smith to move to the New Castle Ferry, not to Cold Harbor. Smith hurried his corps forward, and it had already arrived at New Castle Ferry, some five or six miles away from Cold Harbor, before an officer from Grant’s staff arrived and told him of the error. Smith moved his men out quickly, but they did not arrive at Cold Harbor until the early afternoon of June 1.
With Sheridan’s troopers replaced by Wright’s and Smith’s exhausted infantry, Meade also ordered Hancock’s II Corps to pull out of the line and march toward Cold Harbor. Shortly thereafter, to the surprise of many, Meade decided to order a frontal assault on the Confederate forces digging in opposite Smith and Wright. Perhaps Meade was trying to prove that if Grant wanted a big push against Lee here, he would be aggressive enough to give him one. The infantrymen, however, were tired from their forced marches, and there had only been time for a ‘hasty reconnaissance’ of the ground in front of the Federal lines. At 4:30 p.m. the infantry attacked and after fierce fighting managed to sweep over the Confederate rifle pits and seize their main trenches, but a strong Southern counterattack forced them back. It had been a useless bloodletting that accomplished little except to provide reconnaissance on enemy strength and positions.
With nightfall, things in the Army of the Potomac became even more unsettled, and Meade began to show signs of stress and fatigue. Theodore Lyman recorded that Meade ‘was in one of his irascible fits to-night.’ Meade complained that Maj. Gen. Gouverneur Warren and his V Corps had pushed too far forward without orders, adding that Wright was too slow, and that he wished the corps commanders would act for themselves and stop leaning on him. In the midst of all this ranting, an aide to General Smith arrived to report that his commanding officer was in serious need of ammunition and transportation, and that Smith ‘considered his position precarious.’ Using profanity he seldom indulged in, a clearly exasperated Meade roared, ‘Then, why in Hell did he come at all for?’
Meade later instructed Smith to be ready for an early morning assault. But Smith cautioned him that his command was not up to such an attack, calling the prospect’simply preposterous.’ Meade soon discovered he had more problems than Smith’s concerns. He had been counting on the presence of the hardened veterans of Hancock’s II Corps to mount the early morning attack, but their night march to Cold Harbor was going worse than Wright’s had the previous evening. The II Corps had become hopelessly lost and would not arrive until 6:30 a.m.
Learning of Hancock’s lack of progress, Meade issued an order at 12:30 a.m. that the attack would be postponed until 5 p.m. on June 2. All those delays, however, were giving Lee time to shift his forces and dig in. Despite these setbacks, after discussing the issue with his key commanders, Grant still believed that attacking Lee in his present position was the best course of action. Concerned that Hancock’s men were not up to an attack that afternoon, Grant advised Meade to delay the assault until the early morning hours of June 3.
While the decision provided Lee’s army with even more time to entrench and reinforce, Meade’s order to postpone until the next morning did direct commanders to conduct a reconnaissance of the ground in front of their positions. This not only would tell them the nature of the terrain between the Union and Confederate lines but it would also aid in determining the makeup of the enemy’s fortifications. Why no such reconnaissance ever took place is one of the great mysteries surrounding Cold Harbor. It seems inconceivable that experienced commanders would violate what any soldier then or now would see as a crucial element of battlefield preparation.
Hancock’s adjutant, Francis Walker, later wrote that there had been no opportunity to ‘make an adequate reconnaissance of the enemy’s line…it was, beyond question, the most unfortunate decision made during that bloody campaign.’ The fact that Hancock’s adjutant made this comment is telling. Meade’s circular had been clear in that it stated commanders should use the additional time to examine the ground in front of them. So why did Walker state that there had been no opportunity, and why did no other commander make any effort at a reconnaissance? Time should not have been a problem, since the circular went out at 2:30 p.m., which meant there was more than enough daylight left before nightfall to probe the Confederate positions.
The only real reconnaissance was made during the fighting late on June 1, and much had probably changed. The heavy woods between the Union and Confederate positions limited the troops’ ability to see the enemy positions. There was certainly evidence that field fortifications had been prepared, but their nature, their orientation and the enemy strength were totally unknown. All the Union troops could see was some turned earth, and that was what they would attack. Unfortunately for the Army of the Potomac, the freshly dug earth they could see included rifle pits and not just one main line of trenches, but two and even three in some places. Lee and his men had skillfully placed their fortifications so that they followed the uneven terrain and made maximum use of its natural characteristics.
The other odd thing about preparations was that each Federal corps was seemingly left on its own to determine how it was going to attack, with no plans for cooperation. Smith said that the entire concept made it apparent to him that there was no semblance of a military plan involved. So he sent a message to Wright asking him to explain his plan of attack. Smith reasoned that, since Wright’s VI Corps would be on his left, perhaps he could do something to conform to its plan. To Smith’s dismay, Wright replied that his plan was simply to ‘pitch in.’ Therefore Smith realized his only option was to do the same: charge straight ahead and see what happened.
Colonel Charles Wainwright, who served in Sheridan’s cavalry at the time of the campaign, heard about the attack and the lack of planning in the days after the battle. He commented in his diary that ‘there was a still more absurd order issued, for each command to attack without reference to its neighbors, as they saw fit; an order which looked as if the commander, whoever he is, had either lost his head entirely, or wanted to shift the responsibility off his own shoulders.’ Clearly, any remaining semblance of command cohesion was gone.
In the darkness preceding dawn on June 3, all five corps of the Army of the Potomac began to form up in a long, almost unbroken line. The concept for the attack was simple but without any solid military logic. The II, VI and XVIII corps would conduct the main attack on Lee’s right. Meanwhile the V and IX corps under Maj. Gens. Gouverneur Warren and Ambrose Burnside, respectively, would attack the left of the Army of Northern Virginia to hold the units there in place and prevent Lee from transferring them to help hold the right side of his line. The only coordination in this plan was that everyone would attack at 4:30 a.m.
At the appointed time, a signal gun sounded and the Army of the Potomac stepped off in a heavy mist and fog. Within minutes, as the first wave moved forward, the heavy vegetation and previously unseen swamps and wetlands began to break up the neat formations, and any appearance of coordination vanished within the corps. Thus the assault quickly became a collection of isolated, individual actions. Further, as the V Corps advanced and the Confederate fortifications came into view, each Union formation began to square up with the works at its front. Given the configuration of Lee’s lines and because the Federals had not previously reconnoitered the ground, this approach caused their formations to depart off at odd angles from one another, and each corps began to lose contact with the units next to it. As a result, when the Confederates opened fire, they were able to enfilade the Union attackers with devastating effectiveness.
In a war that had seen more than its share of slaughter, Cold Harbor set a new and terrible standard. The Union forces advanced under a storm of rifle and artillery fire, and men went down in large groups under sweeping volleys. In the course of the first hour two waves went forward, and only Brig. Gen. Francis C. Barlow’s division of Hancock’s corps met with success, managing to seize and hold a portion of Lee’s far right. Here again, however, command cohesion failed. Despite Barlow’s repeated requests, Brig. Gen. David B. Birney’s division, which was in reserve, stayed where it was and was never ordered to move forward to exploit what Barlow’s men had gained. The remaining four Union corps went forward, some getting farther than others, until the overwhelming fire from Lee’s entrenchments slowed, stopped and eventually pinned down the Federals. The embattled troops simply dug in where they were and tried to survive.
Command communications were so extremely confused that there was no control over the attack. Meade and his staff were oddly disconnected from the battle because the woods filtered the noise of battle, making it more difficult for them to get a feel for what was happening. The reports that came into Meade’s headquarters conveyed a confusing picture, and the lack of planning and coordination soon became apparent. Each of the three corps commanders on the Union left complained to Meade that the corps on his right or left had failed to protect him from enfilading fire. Meade’s curious response was to send copies of each corps commander’s complaint to the others. He kept trying to urge his commanders forward, but they became increasingly insistent that, from their particular viewpoint, nothing could be done.
At 7 a.m., with attacks failing up and down the line, Meade sent Grant a message advising him, ‘I should be glad to have your views as to the continuance of these attacks, if unsuccessful.’ This dispatch in some ways seemed to indicate that Meade was surrendering his control back to Grant. Grant quickly replied, ‘The moment it becomes certain that an assault cannot succeed, suspend the offensive, but when one does succeed push it vigorously, and if necessary pile in troops at the successful point from wherever they can be taken.’ With that dispatch sent, Grant moved to Meade’s headquarters and, for all intents and purposes, once again took tactical control of the Army of the Potomac.
Grant had been nearby at his headquarters and was apparently receiving the same reports as Meade. In addition, his staff went out to ride the lines and gather information, which they funneled back to the general-in-chief. However, things were happening faster than they could report them. After moving to Meade’s headquarters, Grant decided to ride out to the lines himself and consult directly with the corps commanders. That action could leave no doubt as to who was now in command. Grant returned to Meade’s headquarters, and at 12:30 p.m. he issued an order suspending the assault.
Later that afternoon an order was sent out to try another assault, but the reaction it received varied. There were some isolated moves forward, but they apparently amounted to nothing more than brief exchanges of rifle fire. For his part, Baldy Smith flatly refused to obey the order. Interestingly, he was never sanctioned for that move. Finally, while some senior officers would deny it ever happened, there were units that simply refused to advance. One soldier who witnessed that phenomenon later wrote: ‘The army to a man refused to obey the order, presumably from General Grant, to renew the assault. I heard the order given, and I saw it disobeyed.’ The common soldier had put in his vote, and the battle for the crossing at Cold Harbor was over.
Grant’s initial report to General Halleck, sent at 2 p.m., was shocking in its understatement. He reported, ‘Our loss was not severe, nor do I suppose the enemy to have lost heavily.’ The magnitude of what had happened and the ghastly cost of this command blunder would soon become apparent, however. While the exact number of casualties has become an item of debate, no matter their total, Cold Harbor had been an unmitigated Federal disaster.
That night Grant finally made his feelings known to his staff: ‘I regret this assault more than any one I have ever ordered. I regarded it as a stern necessity, and believed it would bring compensating results; but, as it has proved, no advantages have been gained sufficient to justify the heavy losses suffered.’ With that said, as was his manner, Grant focused his energies on planning his next moves. He seldom spoke of Cold Harbor again.
Nevertheless, there was a profound change at Grant’s headquarters. Colonel James H. Wilson described it as a sense of despondency. Wilson said that Grant was deeply disappointed that he had not been able to overwhelm Lee, and upset that his subordinates had not properly attended to the detailed planning required to carry out his orders. According to Wilson, Grant was now aware that this was perhaps being done so as to shift responsibility to him. In addition, his staff was now seeing the disastrous effects of the continuous use of frontal assaults and feared the army would come apart if that approach continued. One thing was certain: The cockiness that had been the hallmark of Grant’s staff when the campaign began was now gone, and a sense of harsh reality had set in.
For his part, Meade would take a petulant attitude. In a meeting with Baldy Smith two days after the battle, he told his corps commander that he had worked out every plan for every move since the campaign began. He then complained about the newspapers being full of the activities of ‘Grant’s army’ and that he was tired of it. He finished by saying that he was now ‘determined to let General Grant plan his own battles.’ Smith later wrote that while he had no knowledge of the facts, he believed that Meade simply did not try to execute Grant’s orders at Cold Harbor properly because he was angry about his treatment by Grant and by the press. Whatever Meade’s thinking had been, the result was that at Cold Harbor no one was in effective command of the Army of the Potomac.
The tragedy of Cold Harbor was that it was avoidable. Its leadership failed, and failed miserably. Cold Harbor was a horrible example of what happens when command cohesion breaks down under the weight of an unworkable system, when the stress of battle overcomes professionalism and when otherwise good officers forget the basics of command and their responsibilities as commanders. In the end, their men, average soldiers, paid the ultimate and terrible price.
This article was written by Civil War historian Robert N. Thompson and originally published in the November 2006 issue of
Military History magazine. For more great articles be sure to subscribe to
Blog: Scientist confesses he made up polar bear population estimates
As we head towards new Presidential mandates on carbon emissions, it is helpful that a scientist responsible for the globwl warming hoax admits that he lied. This was no ordinary lie. This was the lie that caused polar bears to be placed on the endangered species list, when in fact, they weren’t endangered.
There are many lies about climate, Michael Mann’s “Hockey Stick Graph” being a prime example of that. This lie is the one that caused millions of people to feel pain over the plight of the cuddly polar bears and believe that regulations that lessend their economic freedom and raised utility costs were worthwhile if they could save the drowning polar bears. The polar bears, of course, were not drwoning, and, as this article points out, were prospering.
The serial lies about the climate have lead Obama to expand government’s control over peoples lives, that is why the lies keep coming. Stay alert, my friends.
Blog: Scientist confesses he made up polar bear population estimates.
How Baseball Teams Became Tribes
Prior to the middle of the 1970’s there was a separation in baseball between fans and teams. In the thousands of photos that exist of crowds prior to 1975, you will not see team hats and shirts on fans. Now, such a photo shows that fans are also in uniform. This change occurred in 1975 or 1976 due to a chance encounter with an anthropology professor and the new Vice-Chairman of Major League Baseball Promotion Corporation, Now MLB Properties. (The reason the company had that long, awkward title was that the NFL had a “Properties” organization, and baseball didn’t want to appear to be copying the NFL! )
I was that Vice-Chairman and we were starting a program that registered team trademarks (they weren’t all registered at the time) to allow licensing of those trademarks to merchandise manufacturers. In those days, it was commonplace for teams to allow others to sell merchandise with, say, the Detroit classic Old English ‘D’ logo as it was seen as good advertising. No uniform parts were sold, however. Teams received no revenue from such practices. I was looking for ways to gain control over that intellectual property and increase sales and generate revenue from the licensing of team trademarked merchandise, especially uniform shirts, jackets and official hats.
A chance meeting with an anthropology professor provided the rationale. In an hour long meeting, he explained that fans were like Tribes in that they were organized around their teams, had a pantheon of gods, the venerable old stars, shared lore of games and pennants won, songs, “Skoal Vikings” and “We’re Gonna Win Twins,” and, most importantly, similar uniforms in designs and colors. The team’s hats and shirts being primary in this regard.
The. Professor went on to say that in a community, the members of tribes for various teams had allegiance only to that team. Where there was overlap, it was minor and a fan would have allegiance to one tribe only, but may have interest in another. In Minnesota, for example, a Twins fan may have interest in the Vikings, Wild and Timberwolves, or even the University’s teams, but were bound viscerally to the Twins.
I remember returning to the stadium that day wondering how to implement this information. I went to the merchandise department and checked on the Team trademarked goods being sold. there was little other than pins and badges, no real, authentic uniform articles, Wearing a T-shirt was interesting, but wearing an actual uniform shirt was critical to the link between the fan and the player. This is the essence of this change in marketing. The fan and player would now wear the same clothing. Isn’t that what members of the same tribes did, after all? Is there any wonder at why some teams are named for tribes, like “Fighting Irish” and “Quakers?” (Furthermore, baseball is unique in that it has a maximum of fan participation in the game as fans chase foul balls and there are even civilian casualties from this pursuit.)
Prior to this moment, the rule was that only uniformed personnel could wear the actual uniform. I had once given a high school baseball coach a fitted official team cap that he proudly wore everywhere. I was chastised for breaking a sacrosanct rule. I was about to break that rule again. I went to the clubhouse and asked the equipment manager for some team jackets. These had previously been worn only by players on the field, a foreign concept today. I asked what they cost, tripled the amount (the seller would receive 20% of the sale price), and took them to a merchandise kiosk, hung them up and waited. The sale price, probably $45, was very high for the day, and nothing else sold for $10, so I asked a friend of mine to buy one and wear it. (What cost $45 in 1976 would cost $192 today!)
What was dramatic was the reaction of other fans, who wanted to know where he bought that jacket. A new market had been created. This event was reported to Promo Corp Executive Director, Joe Podesta, in New York the next day and we started focusing on this concept as the core of merchandise sales. Some teams embraced it quicker.than others and I was again chastised internally for this behavior, but the industry had changed.
I was at Target field last night and it seems everyone wears some tribe/team clothing. Some celebrate the demi-gods, Killebrew, Oliva etc. Or the modern demi-gods, Mauer, others remind us of things gone wrong like Cuddyer and Morneau, players playing for other tribes now. Surrounding the stadium are statues to the famous and most important executives and players in the team’s history. Your team is your tribe, act and dress accordingly.
Global Warming and The Corruption of Science
Dwight Eisenhower warned about the dangers of undue influence of government money in the Military/Industrial Complex and sugggested that the same influence could be felt in the government/scientific complex. The article below, (see link), describes the numerous threats of great and horrible consequennces from so called catastrophes resulting, for example, from acid rain, radon, DDT, plutonium, ozone hole, lead, fracking, second hand smoke, ocean acidification, vaccines, global cooling, and finally, global warming. Many of us remember the horror DDT caused, yet, after millions have died from malaria due to its being banned, the World Health Organization has removed the ban and now allows its use. The US government has not followed in this as to do so is to suggest that the “settled science” was wrong. If “settled science” was wrong on DDT, and the other “calamities,” it could be wrong on global warming.
The alarmist community, a combination of government that wants to take more control over people, science that wants to continue the billions of dollars funding “research” on the subject, and industry that wants billions of dollars to subsidize inefficient and unnecessary “green” industries. The war on coal, a hold over from the acid rain scare, is a example of this. The absurdity of this is Nancy Pelosi’s plea that “we stop using fossil fuels and use more natural gas.” Of course, natural gas is a fossil fuel, but details and accuracy don’t matter to the alarmist crowd. What matters is the continuing flow of government money to spurious research and inefficient green industries.
Science is a imperfect study. There are many scientists who object to the alarmist claims but they are struck down by the alarmist community that has no interest in debate or peer review, the classic method of proving a scientific principle. An example of this is Roy Spencer’s aricle in “Remote Sensing,” a Swiss Journal. Such was the outrage for this blasphemy, that the. Editor was forced to resign. Galileo would have been hung by this crowd, Einstein may have just gone back to his job at the pateht office. Richard Linzen of MIT, Tim Ball, author of the book, “The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science” have been hounded by the alarmists and groundless lawsuits have been filed to silence them. They are acting as whistle blowers and are serving a very important function.
Curiously, even with a gullible media feeding the frenzy, the public, the ultimate jury here, is not buying the alarmist nonsense as common sense shows that there is no global warming or, if there is, it’s not harmful, and what’s so bad with temperatures rising another degree this century? We may even recover from the Little Ice Age and get close to the salubrious climate of the Rennaissance. People even notice that there has been no warming for over 15 years and the last winter was horrible. Facts such as that will win the day. For example, when the fear mongers say that the West Antarctic Ice sheet is melting and sea levels will rise three feet, smart people analyze the amout of ice involved and state that there just is not enough water there. If the Ice Sheet melts, which is doubtful give average tempuratures of -49 degrees, sea levels will rise 2.7 microns! Facts will win the day in this battle and the people who say Climate Change is important are less then 4% of the population. Until then, we will spend billions of dollars on faulty computer models, kill millions of birds with wind and solar power installations, (a farmer was fined heaviiy for shooting a Bald Eagle, but wind power is killing them regulary), and paying ever higher utility bills to accomodate the climate alarmists. Remember, if you are still scared by CO2, that that it is less than. .0004% of the atmosphere and it is essential for life on earth. Remove green house gasses that create our “Goldilocks Zone” climate, and you have Mars.
The article “The Corruption of Science” by Norman Rogers, that I’ve linked to below says it all and must be read by thoughtful people like you.
The Climate Controversy Explained in Detail.
My friend, John Hinderaker has posted this complete, and I assume, accurate account of climate history since the last ice age. Curiously, I was looking at the data since the last ice age earlier this week to gain a prospective on the fallacy of the recent federal report on climate change. Simply stated, the threats and alarms raised by that report have no basis in fact. That the current co2 level, less than .0004% of the atmosphere, is far below ice age levels, .001% to .002% of the atmosphere, debunks the threats.
This article makes the simple observation that it is the presence of “greenhouse gases” that make the earth habitable, for without these heat retaining gases, solar heat would escape to space, as it does on the moon. Furthermore, the sea level rise predicted by the federal report is impossible as the only source of water is locked in the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets, and these ice sheets survived the co2 levels during the ice age.
The complete article, from powerlineblog.com, is below.
WHY GLOBAL WARMING ALARMISM ISN’T SCIENCE
Science is not a set of dogmas, and it is not a pronouncement by a committee. It is a method. Richard Feynman, perhaps the world’s most eminent physicist, put it this way:
In general, we look for a new law by the following process: First we guess it; then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right; then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience, compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with the experiment, it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is—if it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong.
The catastrophic anthropogenic global warming theory is based entirely on models, which are programmed by their creators to predict disaster. But we know for a fact that the models are wrong, because they disagree with reality. When the facts collide with a theory, the facts win.
At Watts Up With That?, Don Easterbrook applies the scientific method to the recently-produced National Climate Assessment (NCA). The NCA predicts all kinds of awful consequences from a hypothetical rise in temperature that is based exclusively on models, not on observation. Easterbrook finds that the NCA fails the test of reality. Here are a few examples.
NCA assertion: “Temperatures are projected to rise another 2°F to 4°F in most areas of the United States over the next few decades.” “By the end of this century, a roughly 3°F to 5°F rise is projected under a lower emissions scenario, and a 5°F to 10°F rise for a higher emissions.”
Facts: How do we check the validity of this prediction? Well, we can look at comparisons of previous computer model results to recorded satellite temperatures. Figure 2 shows Roy Spencer’s plot of 44 of the latest climate models versus satellite measurements. As his graph shows, the models were not even close to the real measured temperatures. The obvious conclusion here is that the models failed miserably, a fact admitted to by the IPCC in their latest report.
2. NCA assertion: “It has been known for almost two centuries that carbon dioxide traps heat.”
Facts: That’s not the question—it’s not if CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it’s how much is there in the atmosphere (Fig. 3) and how much can it affect climate? CO2 makes up only 3.6% of the greenhouse gases (Fig. 4) and coupled with the fact that the atmospheric concentration has changed only 0.0065% since recent warming began in 1978 (Fig. 3), there is no way that this miniscule amount can have any significant effect on climate. Water vapor accounts for ~95% of the greenhouse effect and computer modelers put a large arbitrary water vapor factor in their computer programs, claiming that if CO2 increases, so will water vapor. But that isn’t true—atmospheric water vapor has been declining since 1948 (Fig. 5), not increasing, so modelers who put a water vapor driver in their programs will not have a valid output.
This is a critically important point. Everyone agrees that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. (That’s a good thing; the Greenhouse Effect makes life on Earth possible.) The problem from the hysterics’ point of view is that doubling the tiny concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere would, without more, have only an insignificant–and in fact, beneficial–effect on the Earth’s climate. The Earth would become a greener and slightly warmer place. (It is ironic that “greens” are obsessively hostile to the very substance–carbon dioxide–that makes the Earth green.) The hysterics admit this, so their models are programmed to amplify the effect of increased CO2. They hypothesize positive feedbacks, most notably by assuming that increasing CO2 will lead to a higher concentration of water vapor. The supposedly baleful consequences of burning fossil fuels are mostly indirect; they derive primarily from the feedbacks, not from the CO2.
But, as Easterbrook says, we know that this assumption is false. Carbon dioxide levels have been increasing for some decades now, and that has not led to an increase in water vapor in the atmosphere. On the contrary, as Easterbrook notes, atmospheric water vapor has declined since 1948. So, once again, the alarmists’ models are simply wrong.
Let’s conclude with the NCA’s predictions about sea level rise. For some reason, more liberals seem to make fools of themselves over the idea of a rising sea level than anything else. You see pictures of the Statue of Liberty, up to her waist in water. California’s Governor Jerry Brown recently had to retract a dumb comment about needing to move LAX because the present location will soon be under water. The whole thing is a fantasy:
NCA assertion: Global sea level has risen by about 8 inches since reliable record keeping began in 1880. The future scenarios range from 0.66 feet to 6.6 feet in 2100. This recent rise is much greater than at any time in at least the past 2000 years.
Facts: During the last Ice Age (~10-20,000 years ago), vast areas of continents were covered with ice sheets up to 10,000 feet thick. [Ed: That’s almost two miles.] There was so much water tied up in these ice sheets that it caused sea level to drop about 120 meters (400 feet). 11,500 years ago, the climate changed abruptly, warming at rates up to 20 °F in a century, bringing the Ice Age to a very sudden end. The ice sheets melted at an astonishing rate, causing sea level to rise sharply. We know the chronology of this sea level rise (Fig. 21), so we can calculate the rate of sea level rise as the ice sheets melted. Sea level rose 50 meters (160 ft) between 12,000 and 8,000 years ago. That’sa rate of sea level rise of 4 feet per century, during a time when gigantic ice sheets were melting from warming of tens of degrees per century.
Figure 21. Sea level over the past 12,000 years.
The authors of the NCA report (and NOAA) want us to believe that sea level may rise as much as 6.6 feet by 2100 (86 years from now), a rate of sea level rise of 7.7 feet per century! That’s about twice the rate at which sea level rose while the huge Ice Age ice sheets melted under warming of tens of degrees per century. So where do the so-called scientists of this report think all this water will come from? Those huge Ice Age ice sheets no longer exist, so the only possible source is melting of the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets? How likely is it that a 0.006% rise in CO2 is going to melt a significant portion of the Antarctic ice sheet? Probably zero to none. Why couldn’t the so-called scientists who authored the NCA report do the simple math? If they had even read the literature, this analysis has already been published (Morner, 2010).
The East Antarctic ice sheet (the major Antarctic ice sheet with ice up to 15,000 feet thick) first appeared in the Miocene, 15 million years ago. Throughout most of the Antarctic ice sheet history, global CO2 levels were 1000-2000 ppm (compared to present 400 ppm), so the recent miniscule rise of CO2 is peanuts compared to what it has been. So even doubling, tripling, quadrupling, or quintupling of CO2 would still be well below the levels of most of the ice sheet’s history and the ice sheet survived those quite nicely.
I am sure most people don’t realize how low contemporary CO2 levels are. We are living in a carbon-deprived era. CO2 levels have been 15 times higher than they are at present without any runaway warming, or any other adverse consequence.
The Antarctic ice sheet is continuing to grow, not melt, and sea ice is presently at an all-time high (Fig. 22). The average daily temperature in Antarctica is –58° F, so to get significant ice to melt would require raising the average daily temperature from -58 to +32 ° F (melting point of ice), plus another ~10 ° F, a total warming of +100° F. Not likely!
Figure 22. Antarctic sea ice is presently at an all-time high, about a million square kilometers above average.
Another way to look at the ridiculousness of the NCA predicted sea level rise is to compare their predictions with history sea level rates. The rate of sea level rise from 1900 to 2000 was 1.7 mm/yr (~7 inches per century) (Fig. 23). Figure 24 shows a comparison of the sea level rise over the past century with the NCA predicted sea level rise. The huge difference is impossible becausethere is no source of water for the NCA predicted rise.
Figure 23. Sea level since 1700 AD
Figure 24. NCA sea level rise prediction compared to projecton of sea level rise over the past century.
Global warming alarmism fails the test of science. The alarmists’ models generate one false prediction after another. When a model is falsified by experience, we know that the model is no good. A bad model cannot be a basis for predicting the future, or for making decisions about public policy. Global warming alarmism is not science. It is, rather, an industry fueled by billions of dollars that the world’s political class showers on climate “scientists” to compensate them for producing silly projections of doom. The political class needs the predictions of doom to justify its own grab for more power and money, and certain compliant “scientists” are happy to oblige. Money talks, but it doesn’t necessarily produce good science.
6 Surprising Facts About Caffeine
I started drinking coffee when I was a sailor facing a mid-watch, the midnight to 4:00AM watch, 0 hours to 0400, one bell to eight bells in the mid-watch for landlubbers. I continue the habit and have investigated various ways to make coffee from the old percolator where I learned to keep the temperature low to avoid scalding the coffee to the Jura coffee maker that requires one to push a button to get a perfect, with crema, cup of coffee.
News that coffee is damaging causes some alarm, so this article that clears that up is welcome. So, fellow caffeine users, this one is for you.
No Change In California Sea Level Since 1871
There is other such evidence from various places, but this tells the story.



