Monthly Archives: November 2011

Andersonville Journey, The Civil War’s Greatest Tragedy

Posted on by

Any book on this subject is disturbing, and this one is no exception. Much of the book is about the commandant of the horrid prison where Union prisoners of war died by the thousands. Captain Henry Wirz was tried and executed after the war after a sham trial. The story of the prison is a disgrace as evidenced by the nearly 13,000 marble headstones nearly touching one another at the Andersonville National Historic Site. There were more than 33,000 prisoners of war crowded into the eighteen acre filthy log stockade with no shelter. The men made tents out of anything they could find. Some dug caves in the red clay. The only water for the first several months was an inadequate stream. The rations consisted mostly of corn ground with the cobs and shucks to give it bulk and rancid raw pork. The same food was issued to Confederate guards, since Confederate law required that prisoners and soldiers would be given the same rations.

Henry Wirz was born in Switzerland Heinrich Hartman Wirz. He “got in over his head” in some financial deals, was convicted of the crime of being in debt, and was exiled by the Swiss government. He immigrated to America, changed his name to Henry, and worked in a variety of jobs. He worked for a doctor for a time and learned enough about health care to move to Kentucky and opened a practice as a homeopathic physician. When the Civil War began he enlisted as a private in a Louisiana Confederate infantry unit. He was a sergeant by the time he fought at the Battle of Seven Pines and was wounded by minie balls in his right arm and shoulder. He was commissioned as a captain and was assigned to a variety of administrative duties. He was assigned to Andersonville in March 1864. Continue reading →

The Devil to Pay

Posted on by

The Phrase Finder says the current usage is to describe “impending trouble or other bad consequences from one’s actions. I settled on this expression after posting a review of a book about the Confederate camp for Union prisoners of war at Andersonville. The commandant, Captain Henry Wirz, was hanged (which certainly would be “other bad consequences”) after the war and a rigged trial. The phrase alludes to Faustian pacts in which people forfeit their soul to realize some wish or wanted goal. Thomas Brown wrote in Letters From the Dead to the Living in 1707, “…we knew we should have the Devil to pay…we have pawn’d our Souls…” Sailors named the seam that “…margins the waterways on a ship’s hull…” the Devil, and they called plugging the seam with caulk or tar “paying.” Sailors probably adopted the established phrase to describe the unpleasant task of seam caulking.

Obama Kicks Keystone XL Down the Road

Posted on by

A posting on this site was titled “Economic Recovery Versus Red Tape” discussed two pipeline projects. The Ruby natural gas pipeline provided thousands of jobs to construction workers and hundreds of jobs to environmental specialists. It also boosted property taxes in the areas where it was constructed. You would think such a project would have wide support, but the environmental hoops it had to jump through before successful completion, which cost millions of dollars, were tiny. The second pipeline described in the posting was the Keystone XL, which is proposed to bring oil from Canada to be processed in U.S. refineries. I’ve seen estimates that the project would add “shovel ready” jobs ranging from 4,500 (from environmentalists opposing the project) to as many as 20,000.

President Obama has taken the decision to approve the project out of the State Department and announced that he will make the decision after the 2012 election. This comes after three years of intensive study that decided the project had an acceptable environmental impact. (Hmmm, is there any significance to making a final decision after the 2012 elections?) I expect the announcement might have something to do with the fact that environmentalists opposed to the pipeline recently surrounded the White House and the Sierra Club declared that Mr. Obama could not count on the environmental vote if he allowed the project to be approved.

One objection to the project is that the oil from Canadian tar sands has more of an impact on “global warming” emissions than oil from other sources. I’ve seen estimates as low as a 5% increase in “greenhouse gases” to as high as three times by those who don’t like the project. An article in the Washington Post by Steven Mufson points out that any argument on how much more greenhouse gas is produced is meaningless, since the oil will probably be exported to China and consumed if there isn’t a closer market. Mr. Mufson also says several alternatives are being considered, to include a proposal to build a new refinery in Alberta to process the oil. That alternative would of course prevent creation of U.S. jobs to build a pipeline and to process the oil.

Environmentalists of course are demanding that alternate pipeline routes be considered to avoid the Ogallala aquifer (which is at a significant depth under the proposed pipeline). Matthew Brown of the Associated Press points out that there have been thirteen routes rejected. Environmentalists will find a reason, or many reasons, to reject any route. They don’t want a pipeline to be built, and will find compelling reasons to oppose any route.

The New York Times predictably applauded Mr. Obama’s decision to kick the can down the road. They point out that labor unions had supported the project while environmentalists oppose it. Call me a cynic, but I’m guessing that preventing the project until after the election will allow environmentalists to eagerly support Mr. Obama’s reelection, and that he already has done enough to earn the votes of labor union members.

It is interesting that there is already “Plan B” to transport the Canadian oil to U.S. refineries by expanding current pipelines with additional pumping stations. The delay to making a final decision on Keystone XL until after the 2012 elections will probably provide Mr. Obama cover for maintaining votes, but it won’t have any measurable impact on the eventual pathway for the oil except for preventing addition of “shovel ready jobs.”

Ignorance is Bliss

Posted on by

I just posted the second half of a review about Candice Millard’s book, “Destiny of the Republic, A Tale of Madness, Medicine, and the Murder of a President.” D. Willard Bliss was the doctor who took control of President James A. Garfield after he had been shot by a madman. Bliss probed to try to find the bullet with unsterilized fingers on several occasions. Garfield died from the massive infections introduced by the inept medical treatment. The author observes that the expression “ignorance is bliss” could have been applied to describe Dr. Bliss. According to Reference.com, the phrase came from the poem “Ode on a Distant Prospect of Eton College” by Thomas Gray. The quote is “Thought would destroy their paradise. No more. Where ignorance is bliss, ‘tis folly to be wise.”

Destiny of the Republic, A Tale of Madness, Medicine, and the Murder of a President—Part II

Posted on by

Part I of this book by Candice Millard was about Garfield’s early life, his military service during the Civil War, entrance into politics, and his seemingly accidental connections to a madman named Charles Guiteau who shot him and the inventor, Alexander Graham Bell. This part will be about the medical treatment after Guiteau shot him, or more accurately the inept medical treatment of Garfield, the people who interacted with Garfield during his long decline to his end, and the remarkable transformation of Vice President Chester Arthur. Arthur was transformed from being a political hack to becoming an admirable American President.. He was influenced to become a decent President by the coaching from a previously unknown disabled woman and by his limited contact with the remarkable Garfield. I would be remiss if I did no encourage any student of history or anyone who enjoys a well written, interesting story to read this book. I give it a very high recommendation.

Alexander Graham Bell began working on an electrical induction device when he learned that President Garfield had been wounded by a gunshot from the insane Guitreau, and that there was doubt where the bullet had lodged. He hoped he could develop a metal detector that would assist in identifying the location of the lead slug embedded in Garfield. Bell would test his equipment with some success on a Civil War veteran who had carried a bullet in his body for many years. However, his equipment failed to find the bullet in Garfield in part because of an error in setting up the equipment, and in part because Bliss, the doctor in charge of Garfield’s treatment, gave him a completely incorrect assessment of the approximate location of the bullet. Bell continued to work on his equipment after failing to find the bullet in Garfield, and would eventually find the location of a slug in Private John McGill who had carried a bullet twenty years after being shot at the Battle of Gaines’ Mill. Bell made a return visit to Garfield’s bed and found a feeble signal in the general vicinity where Bliss believed the bullet to be lodged. Bell was unconvinced, but Bliss took it as proof of his ideas. Bell did not know the President was on a mattress with metal coils that probably gave the false signal that Bliss believed proved he was right. Continue reading →

Is Carbon Dioxide Dangerous?

Posted on by

Too much carbon dioxide can indeed be dangerous, and people have died when they are trapped in an area where carbon dioxide fire suppression systems displace the air with the oxygen needed for life. However, there have been events resulting in the declaration that carbon dioxide is dangerous even in trace quantities. The Supreme Court in 2007 declared that carbon dioxide and other “heat-trapping gases to be pollutants that endanger public health and welfare.”  That ruling set the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in motion to establish regulations to control the gases.  A New York Times article quoted the EPA as saying the science supporting the…endangerment finding “compelling and overwhelming.”  They proposed a law under the Clean Air Act to regulate “heat-trapping gases” (which includes methane, nitrous oxide, and hydroflurocarbons in addition to carbon dioxide). (I first mentioned this in a posting dated June 8.)

Several aspects about the discourse on carbon dioxide and its influence or lack of influence on global warming trouble me. What troubles me most is that I don’t see that there has been an honest presentation of the facts. To give one example, the proposed regulations and the list of “heat-trapping gases” does not include the gas that has the largest effect. Water vapor exerts a much stronger greenhouse gas effect compared to carbon dioxide or any of the other gases that are to be regulated.  None of the gases have much of an influence compared to the sun. It seems too obvious to mention that the sun should always be given first consideration when global temperatures are mentioned.  Warming oceans from increased solar activity results in higher concentrations of both water vapor and carbon dioxide.  The water vapor is obviously created from evaporation and the carbon dioxide results from lower solubility in warmer water.  The question that begs to be asked is why do we focus on regulating carbon dioxide and not worry about water vapor, if water vapor has a much greater greenhouse gas effect?  I will propose an answer, which I predict won’t be well received in the camp that wants us to believe man-made global warming is a risk to life as we know it. Carbon dioxide is a by-product of power production, which gives us industry, jobs, wealth, and a comfortable life style.  The environmental movement has become a powerful political force, and, to state the issue simplistically, many in that movement believe we should be ashamed of all of the benefits we derive from having plentiful generation of energy.  It would be difficult to vilify water vapor, because it has nothing to do with how we generate power.  Therefore, it is ignored.

Something else that is being ignored are all of the positive effects that result from higher concentrations of carbon dioxide.  Revisiting memories of junior high and high school science classes reminds me that we and all other mammals exhale carbon dioxide, which makes it seem incredible that the EPA has decided it “endangers public health and welfare.” Also, carbon dioxide is the fertilizer that allows plants to grow.  Plants combine carbon dioxide with water with the energy from sunlight to produce organic chemicals.  They release oxygen as a result of the process, and we find good uses for oxygen (like being able to keep on living). One would think that increases in plant growth that accompany higher levels of carbon dioxide would be considered a positive by even the most ardent critics of the gas. I suggest readers review Dr. Arthur Robinson’s paper titled “Environmental Effects of Increased Carbon Dioxide.” That article provides details of the increases in plant growth.  I don’t think I’m going too far out on a limb to say that better food crop yields resulting from higher concentrations of carbon dioxide is something we should celebrate.  I will warn readers that Dr. Robinson is not well-liked by the advocates of man-made global warming.  He circulated a petition that questions the validity of that theory, and it was signed by over 31,000 people with scientific degrees.  Kind of puts a new light on the term “consensus,” doesn’t it? I signed the petition, and have yet to be rewarded by the oil industry, which is one of the accusations directed at Dr. Robinson and his petition.