Category Archives: Presidents

General Sherman’s Christmas, Savannah, 1864

Posted on by

My brother sent me this book, and he knew I would be interested in the content. It describes the march across Georgia after Atlanta fell to Sherman’s army. I should mention there is family interest before I book. Elijah Tilton was married to one of a Brooke sister who was an aunt of our grandmother. Elijah was a member of the 92nd Illinois mounted infantry and part of Sherman’s army when it was advancing on Atlanta. Two of his sons, George William and Cornelius (or Commodore) and two other Tiltons, Orrin and Alfonso, were also part of the unit. The unit was assigned to the reckless and not very admirable General Kilpatrick on May 7, 1864 (according to Elijah Tilton’s diary for that year), and “Lil Kil” is a central figure of the book. I don’t recall any of the incidents mentioning Kilpatrick that were complimentary. Elijah never mentions weapons except for hearing cannons fire, but his unit was one of those issued the Spencer rifles, which are mentioned in the book.

Elijah died of dysentery on October 6, 1864 (more soldiers died of disease than from combat) but his sons and the other relatives were there for the fall of Atlanta. We lose the family connection with the book when the surviving Tiltons were assigned to the forces heading for Tennessee when General Sherman prepares to begin his march across Georgia. They were therefore part of the army commanded by George H Thomas that defeated John Bell Hood at Nashville December 15-18, 1864. It was undoubtedly chance that sent those ancestors into Tennnessee instead of into Georgia and eventually South Carolina. However, that might make the book easier to accept by our son and his family who live in Fort Mill, South Carolina and his in-laws who live in Columbia. Sherman quite unpopular in South Carolina.

I’ll begin my review after that lengthy introduction. The book by Stanley Weintraub provides details of Sherman’s army marching across Georgia to Savannah in late 1864. The destination was a secret when the march began, but it wasn’t a particularly well-kept secret. The plan was to make “Georgia howl,” by destroying anything that could support the Confederate war effort. Railroads were ripped up and the rails twisted around trees in “Sherman’s bowties.” Most of the livestock was taken along with the stores of food necessary to feed 60,000 marching soldiers. Baled cotton and mills were burned along with homes of those who dared to show open allegiance to the Confederacy or their revulsion toward the Union. One woman who unwisely spit at a soldier had her home burned. One woman told a captain “Our men will fight you as long as they live and then these boys (her sons) will fight you when they grow up.” A man was quoted as saying war wouldn’t end until all the men and women were killed, and “…it won’t be ended then, for we’ll come back as ghosts to haunt you.”

There were many accusations that Sherman’s “bummers” were harsh to the citizens they encountered. There is no doubt there was significant thievery, because the route of march became littered with all manner of abandoned loot. There were accusations of rape and murder, although the author believes there were more accusations than actual outrages. Sherman’s men came across emaciated men dressed in rags from the Andersonville prison, and that undoubtedly gave some of them reason to behave in anger. The army came across an abandoned prisoner of war site at Millen that had no shelters and no water. There were burrows where the prisoners had lived and a large burial ground. One officer wrote that what he saw gave him a “…renewed feeling of hardness toward the Confederacy.”

Sherman and his troops marched 300 miles in twenty-four days. Most of the casualties were in a single a battle at Fort McCallister, There were more than two hundred listed as missing and presumed dead. Most of those were “bummers” who did the foraging.

Sherman would write about the accusations issued against his men that they had been, “A little loose in foraging, they did some things they ought not to have done, yet on the whole they have supplied the wants of the army with as little violence as could be expected…”  An order was issued ordering that anyone pillaging or burning a home without being ordered to do so would be shot, but none of the soldiers were charged with those crimes.

One controversial event was that Sherman ordered prisoners of war to move in front of the column with shovels searching for “torpedos” (mines) after one exploded and tore the right foot off an officer.

With a few exceptions the army did not meet much organized resistance. They seldom came across a farm, plantation, or town that hadn’t been deserted by men. They were greeted as liberators by blacks, and thousands of the freed slaves joined in the march. Sherman was said to not think highly of blacks, and tried on several occasions to convince the followers to go back. The author observes that they required rations and slowed the movement of the army. One sad event was that the army pulled the pontoon bridge from a river they had crossed, which stranded the thousands of blacks. Some tried to swim the river despite the fact they couldn’t swim. Some union soldiers tried to push logs to them for rescue, and many were disturbed by what happened. Most of the blacks were left to be recaptured by Confederate soldiers and a very uncertain fate.

There were also acts of kindness. Two girls estimated to be three and five were found in an abandoned home dressed in burlap bags with holes cut for their heads and arms. They were fed, bathed, clothed, and taken along by the army. They eventually found their way to homes in the North after being transported there by soldiers who had been released from duty after their enlistments had ended. Women often welcomed officers into their homes, because they had undoubtedly heard the stories about what had happened to others earlier in the march.

Sherman’s army did begin to run low on provisions as they approached Savannah, and there was concern that the only path to the city was on narrow causeways through the swamps. However, the confederates decided not to defend the city and pulled out during the night over a makeshift bridge. The action is said to have kept Savannah “…relatively safe from the destruction wreaked upon other cities visited by Sherman’s marchers through Georgia.” Sherman telegraphed, “To His Excellency President Lincoln, Washington, D.C.: I beg to present you as a Christmas-gift the city of Savannah…”

George W. Bush and Social Security

Posted on by

George W. Bush was vilified for “wanting to privatize Social Security” after he proposed allowing younger workers to voluntarily elect to invest a third of their Social Security taxes in a private IRA type retirement account. However, there has been little political outcry as Barrack Obama champions the continuation of reducing personal Social Security taxes from 6.2% to 4.2%. My rudimentary math indicates that workers are being allowed to keep just under a third of the taxes they were originally paying. A friend points out that Obama’s approach has the advantage that the government isn’t involved in what happens with the money left in the paychecks.  Workers can use the money in any manner they elect, and they might even decide to put it into an IRA. However, it doesn’t do anything to repair or improve Social Security.

A brief history of Social Security was given in a posting titled “Weasels and Social Security,” and preparing that posting has me thinking more about the subject. I’m going to focus this posting on what Mr. Bush really proposed, which was a far cry from “privatizing Social Security.” The information I’ll be using is from a link that provides fact checks on several of his speeches beginning in 2000 on the subject.

Mr. Bush said in his State of the Union address on January 20, 2004,” Younger workers should have the opportunity to build a nest egg by saving part of their Social Security taxes in a personal retirement account. We should make the Social Security system a source of ownership for the American people.” He continued his advocacy for changes in his acceptance speech at the Republican national convention on September 2, 2004.  “We will always keep the promise of Social Security for our older workers. With the huge Baby Boom generation approaching retirement, many of our children and grandchildren understandably worry whether Social Security will be there when they need it. We must strengthen Social Security by allowing younger workers to save some of their taxes in a personal account a nest egg you can call your own, and government can never take away.”

Mr. Bush clearly stated that his ideas were for workers under 50, and that benefits promised to older workers and people who were already retired would not be changed. However, I learned that elderly relatives were sending money to organizations promising to prevent George W. Bush from gutting Social Security with his plans “to privatize it.”

The outcry against what Mr. Bush had proposed was reinstated when the stock market tanked in 2008. There were frequent news reports that the market collapse would have been even more devastating to people if Bush’s proposal to “privatize Social Security” had been accepted. I’ve done some calculations based on a worker who has a static salary of $50,000/yr to estimate the results. That worker has Social Security “contributions” of $6200/yr. Half would be taken from the paycheck and the employer is required to match it. The Bush proposal would have allowed the worker to voluntarily invest one third of the total, or $2066.67/ year in a private account. The worker could also choose to leave all the money in Social Security.

Everyone who has investments in the stock market knows that 2008 was a scary year. The hypothetical young worker who elected to open the private retirement account would have been just as spooked. There would have been about $8300 added to the account if the account had been opened at the beginning of 2005. The value would have dropped to about $5700 at the end of 2008 if it had been invested in a Standard and Poors 500 index fund. The good news is that more shares are purchased per dollar invested when the market drops if you have the guts to keep buying when the market is plummeting. Continuing to invest the $172/month in the same S&P 500 fund would have resulted in your account being worth about $16,400 (including a net dividend of about 2 % after expenses) versus the $14,469 put into the account by the end of 2011.

What would the account have in it at the end of a career? Who knows? The stock market has historically been a good place to invest. However, as all those financial documents say, “past performance is not an indication of future performance.” Mr. Bush’s proposal was that people could invest the money according to their willingness to take risk. People could have put the money into insured CDs, and those could have very high yields if surging inflation happens a few years as many predict.

I’ve provided a fun link to a calculator to allow a reader to play with various investment scenarios. I entered data for a person opening a private account beginning in 2005 that is worth the $16,400 estimated above. I kept salary static at $50,000/yr for the worker who retires at age 62. The account would be worth $58,000 for a person who began the investments at age 40 and $94,000 for someone beginning at age 30 using an annual rate of return of 2%. The account would be worth about $81,000 for a forty year old and $154,000 for a thirty year old worker with a rate of return of 5%.

I see at least two important lessons. It is important for people to begin preparing for retirement as early as possible. That is especially true for young people who can’t depend on Social Security unless our politicians suddenly develop the courage to improve it.   The other lesson is to be successful in politics you must dress up your policies and criticize others with selective language. For example, you can explain your idea to let people keep about a third of their Social Security contributions is a tax break for the middle class while Bush’s idea about allowing people to voluntarily put a third of the money in a private account is “privatizing Social Security.”

Weasels and Social Security

Posted on by

I’ve tried to maintain interest in politics, but it is challenging. Republican candidates demean each other while the Democrats demean the Republicans ranking highest in the polls at the moment.   The spectacle brings to mind an article titled “On Weasels and Removal Thereof Though Unified Action” by Susan Westfall. The author wrote that she “…decided to settle on a word to use when referring to politicians…and special interest groups who work so hard to sell the sovereign countries of the world down the road for personal gain, all the while espousing their good intentions for the ‘general welfare’ of the people.”  “Ultimately, I settled upon the term ‘weasel’.” That term is used to describe people who are acting in “…a cunning/and or deceitful fashion to achieve desired ends.”

We need fewer politicians willing act like weasels to buy enough votes to be reelected. Government entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare are popular with voters and any politician mentioning changes to improve the long term economics of the programs will face the wrath of voters. Too many politicians buy votes by defending both of the programs even though they know the programs need to be fixed.

President Clinton spent a year at town hall meetings talking about Social Security and that we should “…fix the roof while the sun is shining.” He was and is a clever politician, and he didn’t lay out details of how to fix the program. That resulted in people nodding knowingly that something should be done.

George W. Bush wasn’t as clever. He actually suggested that we begin to fix the Social Security by letting younger people voluntarily put a third of their Social Security “contributions” into private retirement accounts similar to IRAs. The account owner could then select how the money was invested, and they could select treasury bills or insured certificates of deposit if they wanted to be conservative to assure the money was there for them when they retired. They could also select the beneficiary, while Social Security is limited to dependent children and legal spouses (and is therefore homophobic).  Democrats were mortified. Robert Reich, who had been Clinton’s Labor Secretary, responded, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!” Alliances were formed with older people who were told Bush wanted to destroy Social Security by “privatizing it.” I was discouraged that members of Congress and evidently their voting constituents believed the government could more intelligently manage money than the people who originally earned the money.  Bush lost, and future politicians received a clear message. Act like a weasel if you want to be reelected.

I have one hope, and that is some future politician will have the courage to offer what Franklin Delano Roosevelt proposed in an address given November 14, 1934. “It takes so very much money to provide even a moderate pension for everybody, that when the funds are raised from taxation only a “means test” must necessarily be made a condition of the grant of pensions.” He not only recommended a means test to determine whether people should receive a benefit, he also said he believed the taxpayers should only support the program for thirty years (until about 1965) at which time it would be replaced by private accounts.  When Bush’s opponents commented that Bush wanted to “destroy FDR’s legacy program,” they apparently believed what he had proposed didn’t go nearly far enough to implement FDR’s vision.

(Some readers might hesitate to believe the previous paragraph. A link is provided for those who want to read FDR’s comments in context. I predict you will find what I’ve written is accurate. Links are also provided to speeches by President Clinton and George W. Bush on the Social Security web site.)

Realistically, FDR probably would have been pleased with the backlash at Bush for suggesting changes. He even predicted that once the program was put in place “…no damn politician…” would ever be able to change it.  An advisor told FDR that Social Security wasn’t good economics. FDR famously responded, “I guess you’re right on the economics, but those taxes were never a problem of economics. They were politics all the way through.”

A few years back there was a bumper sticker popular in areas of the country where you would find large concentrations of retirees on vacation that read, “We’re spending our children’s inheritance.”   I hadn’t seen the sticker lately, and it occurred to me that message is no longer valid.  We retirees are no longer satisfied with spending only the children’s inheritance.  The Social Security program is diligently collecting substantial portions of incomes from the salaries of young workers and transferring it to those of us who are retired after skimming the cost of operating the bureaucracy.  Not fixing the program means we are willing to take that money with the promise workers under the age of about forty won’t receive equivalent benefits unless more money is taken from paychecks of the shrinking numbers of employed younger people.

I have advocated ending the cost of living adjustments to Social Security beneficiaries, and I’m guessing that one suggestion means there’s no risk of me being elected to any political position. However, I promise I’ll vote for people who show the courage to do something to improve future prospects for the country. My appeal is for others to join me in a quest to show the weasels the door. The other alternative is to wait for the eventual bankruptcy of the U.S. economy and the end of those monthly Social Security checks. I don’t think I’m the only grandparent who is willing to see changes to the Social Security program that would  give our families a better future.

The River of Doubt, Theodore Roosevelt’s Darkest Journey

Posted on by

I posted a two part review of “Destiny of the Republic, A Tale of Madness, Medicine, and the Murder of a President by Candice Millard (November 16 and 25). That book led me to this magnificent book, which I highly recommend to anyone who enjoys a well written story with fascinating events and characters. The book has many details about Roosevelt that were new to me, and I had never heard of the expedition down the Rio da Duvida, or the River of Doubt.

The book begins with Theodore Roosevelt deserting the Republican Party to run for President for what would be his third term in office. He had become President after McKinley was assassinated, finished about three years remaining on that term, and had been reelected. He was disappointed in Republican William Howard Taft who followed him, and ran as a Progressive against Taft and Woodrow Wilson. He was shot and badly injured while campaigning, but continued campaign appearances with the bullet still in his body. He said, “It takes more than that to kill a bull moose!” He and his party were thereafter called the “Bull Moose.” Roosevelt finished with the second highest number of votes behind Wilson and ahead of Taft and the Socialist Eugene Debs. Angry Republicans blamed him for Wilson’s victory, and made him miserable by their scorn.

The American Museum of Natural History recruited Roosevelt to lead a “…not particularly dangerous…” exploration of a tributary of the Amazon. George Cherrie, a talented explorer and naturalist was chosen to accompany him. Brazilian officials provided Colonel Candido Rondon as the guide for the expedition. Rondon brought a contingent of military “camaradas,” or companions to the expedition. Roosevelt’s son Kermit joined the expedition. Less competent members were winnowed as the trip progressed. The five tons of equipment selected for the trip contained many unnecessary items. One stevedore commented about the piles of goods, “Nothings lacking but the piano!” The boats were never put into service because they were far too heavy for portages, and the expedition was reduced to using cumbersome dugouts.

A Catholic priest, Father John Zahm, who was inexplicably added to the expedition, casually mentioned to Roosevelt that perhaps he should “…go down an unknown river…” Thus the River of Doubt was chosen. Many thought the selection was far too dangerous, and Roosevelt’s backers wanted the plan changed. Roosevelt wanted to do something dangerous that would test him physically and mentally, and he responded “…if it is necessary for me to leave my bones in South America, I am quite ready to do so.”

There is fascinating information in the book about Roosevelt and his son, but I’m going to focus Colonel Rondon, and his troops. His camaradas were dedicated to Rondon and were the backbone of the expedition. Rondon and his men faced frequent danger with skill, bravery, discipline, and stamina. They lived on starvation ratios and completed the many portages while under onslaught from swarms of a variety of biting and disease-carrying insects. They moved through a jungle so massive, dark, and silent that it was said to drive strong men near or to insanity.

Candido Rondon was born to parents who were of mixed Indian and European descent. Both died of smallpox; his father died before he was born and his mother died when he was two. He was raised by grandparents and went to a military school when he was sixteen. He was so poor he couldn’t afford books, and no one noticed he was slowly starving to death until he collapsed. He survived and became a “Positivist” with a primary goal of gaining better treatment for the Indians of Brazil. He led many expeditions into territories where there were Indians willing and able to kill outsiders. All but one of his men complied with his command, “Die if you must, but never kill.”Many of the scattered tribes of the Amazon dared to trust Rondon. Roosevelt was the figurehead of the expedition, but Rondon was the commander.

The cannibalistic Cinta Larga Indian tribe allowed the expedition to pass down the River of Doubt. Some future expeditions were apparently wiped out. Rondon’s ritual of leaving gifts in clearings might have resulted in the survival of Roosevelt and his companions.

There is considerable attention given to Roosevelt’s struggle to survive a leg injury and infection. Roosevelt implored his companions, “You can get out. I will stop here.” He was not left to die because he had demonstrated thoughtfulness to Rondon and his men.

There are descriptions of the fish and animals of the Amazon. One man made the mistake of sticking a piranha stunned by a dynamite blast in his mouth as he gathered others with his hands. He nearly bled to death after the piranha bit his tongue. There is also the candirus fish, which swims up an orifice such as the anus, vagina, or urethra. It then feeds and is unable to detach, which causes intense difficulty for the victim. The man-eating priaba can grow up to nine feet long, and are so dangerous people would build stockades in the water where they could bathe in safety. Some of the fifty species of coral snakes in the Amazon do not follow the adage “Red touching yellow, dangerous fellow.” The anacondas and caimans were seen, but didn’t cause a problem. The expedition was too noisy to often be able to harvest food from the jungle despite the large numbers animals that were able to blend into the jungle.

The expedition lost one camarada to drowning and another to murder by one of his fellows who ran into the jungle and was eventually abandoned to what was likely to have been a quick death. The ones who survived to make it through were nearly starved and wearing little but rags. Roosevelt survived because of the care he received and probably because he was robust when he began the trip. He never fully recovered from the leg infection other maladies. He was however, able to give a triumphant speech about the expedition after some questioned the validity of the story. The river was renamed Rio Roosevelt.

Read the book. You are likely to enjoy the wealth of interesting detail I haven’t included.

Killing Lincoln, the Shocking Assassination that Changed America Forever

Posted on by

This book by Bill O’Reilly and Martin Dugard (tell people the second author if you don’t want to admit reading a book by O’Reilly) have written an excellent book. The Prologue begins with Lincoln’s oath of office for his second term. Andrew Johnson gave a drunken speech followed by Lincoln appealing for reunification. He said, “With malice toward none and charity for all…to bind up the nation’s wounds, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace…” John Wilkes Booth was standing only a few feet from Lincoln. He actually lunged at Lincoln, was restrained by Officer John Westfall, and explains he stumbled.

Lincoln was on the decks of the steamboat River Queen about four weeks later watching “the rolling thunder of heavy metal” as Union artillery pounded the Confederate defenses at Petersburg. The book elegantly describes the horrors of war as the Union Army works to drive Lee and the Confederates out of Petersburg after a long and brutal siege. Lee abandons the city and begins a retreat with Grant’s huge army in pursuit. There is a description of Lincoln riding through what had just recently been a battlefield “…littered with hundreds of dead soldiers, their unburied bodies swollen by death, and sometimes stripped bare by scavengers.” Continue reading →

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 →