June 6th, 2007
Slave Ancestor
Using Internet genealogical tools, Adriana has found out that one of my great-great-great grandparents was a slave-owner. My father's mother's mother's father's father trafficked in people. He lived in North Carolina and had close to thirty slaves by the 1860 census. They ranged to all ages, with a number of infants and children, and a mostly equal sex ratio. Fewer than one in three of the human beings he owned in 1860 were males 18-55, so I guess the women, the infants and the elderly did other jobs.
I don't feel personally responsible for his despicable actions. Not only did I never meet the guy, but he died a decade or two before my grandmother was even conceived - and may have died even before my great grandmother was born, certainly before she was ten years old. I'm not guilty for his horrible acts; even still, it's unfortunate that he survived through the Civil War and through Reconstruction to die sometime between the 1880 and 1890 censuses.
He was born at the end of the 18th century, making him a little old for all but officer service in the Civil War, but you'd at least hope that the shock of his former property voting Republican would have killed him from shock. Alas, he lived on to see the right to vote revoked from black people.
I don't feel personally responsible for his despicable actions. Not only did I never meet the guy, but he died a decade or two before my grandmother was even conceived - and may have died even before my great grandmother was born, certainly before she was ten years old. I'm not guilty for his horrible acts; even still, it's unfortunate that he survived through the Civil War and through Reconstruction to die sometime between the 1880 and 1890 censuses.
He was born at the end of the 18th century, making him a little old for all but officer service in the Civil War, but you'd at least hope that the shock of his former property voting Republican would have killed him from shock. Alas, he lived on to see the right to vote revoked from black people.
ANZAC Day
Wednesday was ANZAC Day, commemorating the service of the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps in the World War I Battle of Gallipoli. Ninety-two years ago, the ANZACs went to the Dardanelles in a bold move to quickly eject the Ottomans from the conflict. The result was a stalemate battle that would last roughly eight months. Casualties were high and the strategic objective was not achieved.
The battle marks the first significant time that Australia and New Zealand made war as coherent entities and not as mere colonies or geographic subdivisions of the British Empire. The battle helps form the common history that helped the two countries reinforce their identities as newly post-colonial countries. The performance of Kemal Ataturk in Gallipoli and in the war gave him the stature necessary to take control of Turkey in 1920 and remake it in a secular, pro-Western image.
The battle marks the first significant time that Australia and New Zealand made war as coherent entities and not as mere colonies or geographic subdivisions of the British Empire. The battle helps form the common history that helped the two countries reinforce their identities as newly post-colonial countries. The performance of Kemal Ataturk in Gallipoli and in the war gave him the stature necessary to take control of Turkey in 1920 and remake it in a secular, pro-Western image.
Then and Now: Progress and Stasis
In the time of John Quincy Adams' presidency and Henry Clay's candidacies, those favoring economic growth, social progress and national achievement were in favor of limited public investment to attain those goals. This included a nationally-chartered Bank of the US, investments in canals and highways (known as 'internal improvements'), tariffs set protectively higher than the level needed for basic government funds, and even endowments for science and the useful arts (like the Smithsonian, or an American astronomical observatory).
Those who opposed these measures, most notably Andrew Jackson, generally did so from a perspective of being anti-growth, anti-business, anti-paper money, anti-banks and to some degree anti-capitalist.
It's interesting and confusing to us in modern times to see that the pro-capitalism politicians wanted government intervention to help push along their economic vision and the anti-capitalism politicians wanted to limit the size of government itself. The roles are reversed today, probably because technology and capitalism have worked together so well. Those against economic change want the government to come in and slow things down, as opposed to the Clay-Adams National Republicans who wanted government to speed things up.
The tactics may have changed, but the Democrats are still much more cautious of economic freedom and change than the Republicans.
Those who opposed these measures, most notably Andrew Jackson, generally did so from a perspective of being anti-growth, anti-business, anti-paper money, anti-banks and to some degree anti-capitalist.
It's interesting and confusing to us in modern times to see that the pro-capitalism politicians wanted government intervention to help push along their economic vision and the anti-capitalism politicians wanted to limit the size of government itself. The roles are reversed today, probably because technology and capitalism have worked together so well. Those against economic change want the government to come in and slow things down, as opposed to the Clay-Adams National Republicans who wanted government to speed things up.
The tactics may have changed, but the Democrats are still much more cautious of economic freedom and change than the Republicans.
Defeatist Democrats
I've been reading in a theme pattern lately. This week I read and finished American Slavery by Kolchin (edited by Eric Foner) and the week before I read and finished Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution by Foner. I'd also read Foner's more famous Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men. Now I'm just beginning Death of Reconstruction by an author whose name escapes me (she's female and has three names, I recall). So the theme is generally books covering the fight and struggle over black civil rights and slavery.
What's interesting is the parallels I can draw between the Republicans and (Northern) Democrats regarding the Civil War and the Republicans and Democrats in the War on Terror (plus the Cold War Republicans and Democrats, for fun). In all three comparisons, the Republicans are:
- supporting greater military action and preparedness
- pushing patriotism as a key part of their arguments
- placing liberty and democracy as the ultimate justification for military action
- on the winning side (forgive my assumption that the West will win the War on Terror, but come on, we're freakin' rich and we're morally right)
And in all three, the Democrats are:
- complaining at every setback that the fight must be surrendered
- consistently trying to diminish or reduce the reformist goals and tendencies of the Republicans
- trying to defend and prove their patriotic credentials
- pandering to nativism and to cost, rather than patriotism, as a reason to halt the fighting
Of course, it breaks down a little with post-WWI and pre-Pearl Harbor comparisons, but three critical struggles of this nation and the Republicans dragged whiny Democrats to victory and greater liberty.
What's interesting is the parallels I can draw between the Republicans and (Northern) Democrats regarding the Civil War and the Republicans and Democrats in the War on Terror (plus the Cold War Republicans and Democrats, for fun). In all three comparisons, the Republicans are:
- supporting greater military action and preparedness
- pushing patriotism as a key part of their arguments
- placing liberty and democracy as the ultimate justification for military action
- on the winning side (forgive my assumption that the West will win the War on Terror, but come on, we're freakin' rich and we're morally right)
And in all three, the Democrats are:
- complaining at every setback that the fight must be surrendered
- consistently trying to diminish or reduce the reformist goals and tendencies of the Republicans
- trying to defend and prove their patriotic credentials
- pandering to nativism and to cost, rather than patriotism, as a reason to halt the fighting
Of course, it breaks down a little with post-WWI and pre-Pearl Harbor comparisons, but three critical struggles of this nation and the Republicans dragged whiny Democrats to victory and greater liberty.
Happy Fourth of July
America is two-hundred-thirty years old today.
Enjoy the fireworks, and remember that we fought to get our freedom and we fight to keep it. Enjoy the food and cookouts, and remember that freedom is the engine of our unparalleled prosperity. Most of all, enjoy your right to be who you want to be, and remember that it's a rarity in world history.
Good luck to those around the world fighting the cause America champions: those fighting for elections and transparency in Lebanon, Egypt, Uzbekistan, Belarus and elsewhere; those fighting for dignity and freedom of belief in Iraq, Israel, Afghanistan and the Philippines.
Enjoy the fireworks, and remember that we fought to get our freedom and we fight to keep it. Enjoy the food and cookouts, and remember that freedom is the engine of our unparalleled prosperity. Most of all, enjoy your right to be who you want to be, and remember that it's a rarity in world history.
Good luck to those around the world fighting the cause America champions: those fighting for elections and transparency in Lebanon, Egypt, Uzbekistan, Belarus and elsewhere; those fighting for dignity and freedom of belief in Iraq, Israel, Afghanistan and the Philippines.
THESE are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated.Thomas Paine, December 1776
Webster's Dictionary Turns 200
The first major American dictionary celebrates its 200th anniversary this year. Merriam-Webster is celebrating the bicentennial of Webster's Dictionary with a press tour and spelling bees.
The importance of the dictionary is in how it advanced and standardized American English. Webster didn't use the British U in words like honor or the British RE in words like center. While the US Constitution and Declaration have some weird spellings like 'chuse' for 'choose' and extraneous U usage in words like 'behavior' and 'neighboring,' Webster helped standardize the language away from these habits. Thank goodness for that.
The importance of the dictionary is in how it advanced and standardized American English. Webster didn't use the British U in words like honor or the British RE in words like center. While the US Constitution and Declaration have some weird spellings like 'chuse' for 'choose' and extraneous U usage in words like 'behavior' and 'neighboring,' Webster helped standardize the language away from these habits. Thank goodness for that.
D-Day
Sixty-two years ago the Allies landed on Utah, Omaha, Gold, Sword and Juno beaches in Normandy. The invasion of Nazi Europe began.
Though the combined forces of the US and its allies outweighed the Nazis in the large-scale, the military forces of the Allies were outnumbered in France. It was through top-notch counter-espionage, misinformation, and Hitler's stupidity that the invasion was able to continue.
The determination and drive of the soldiers who fought in occupied Europe needs to be continually remembered and admired. Their victories were hard-won, well-deserved, and by no means assured. Their sacrifices and hardships bought the freedom of millions.
Though the combined forces of the US and its allies outweighed the Nazis in the large-scale, the military forces of the Allies were outnumbered in France. It was through top-notch counter-espionage, misinformation, and Hitler's stupidity that the invasion was able to continue.
The determination and drive of the soldiers who fought in occupied Europe needs to be continually remembered and admired. Their victories were hard-won, well-deserved, and by no means assured. Their sacrifices and hardships bought the freedom of millions.
Protests in Iran; Press the Contrast
Iran has been experiencing a lot of protests in the last week. The US ought to act quickly to capture the initiative in the inter-disciplinary struggle with Ahmadinejad. Giving active support to the reformist groups (offering them tons of air-time, both in the US through copious press conferences about them and with them, and regionally (maybe through US-backed media like Radio Sawa and Al Hurra tv).
The theocracy's opponents ought to be directly supported, because they show the lie of Ahdmadinejad's vision of Islam as the virtuous alternative to liberal democracy. If he can't even rally his own co-nationals to support the system they've had for over two and a half decades, how can he put forth Iran as the aegis for the Islamization of the West?
Ahmadinejad is, by his own choosing and design, a figure in the War on Terror. He hopes to be the main figure (kind of how Hitler was the main figure of World War II or Napoleon the main figure of the Napoleonic Wars). And the War on Terror, before anything, is an ideological struggle on par with the Cold War and other global conflicts. The US must be the promoter of freedom, individualism, and representative government - to contrast with the apparent Islamo-fascist values of nihilism, bigotry, misogyny and of course fear.
They stand directly opposed to freedom, including freedom of religion, of speech, of protest, of occupation, of residence, and of so many other things. Our job as supporters of freedom is to press the contrast.
Pressing the contrast means we show ourselves in support of freedom and our other values like tolerance and democracy. We must celebrate democracy and democracies by rhetorically and actively supporting new and emerging democracies and by chastising and excluding nascent dictatorships. We need to show the world the contrast so that they can see what the choices are.
Either you can be led by horribly violent and hateful people that will ban music, clothing, dancing, parties and entertainment they find distasteful (as has happened recently when terrorist-affiliated groups get influence of localities) or you can live your life as you please.
We pressed the contrast in the Cold War. Berlin was the best example, and a microcosm of the East-West German split, itself a microcosm of the East-West World split. West Berlin and the FRG (BRD) enjoyed an economic 'miracle,' democratic reformation and high levels of technology, safety and luxury by the 1960s. East Berlin and the GDR (DDR) were mired in comparative depression, horribly authoritarian politics that competed with the Nazi-era for Most Repressive Ever, and effectively stagnant levels of technology and luxury. Safety was widespread in the GDR, except for the omnipresent abuses of the Stasi secret police.
Pressing the contrast between East and West was what led to a huge stream of refugees escaping East Germany into West Berlin, until the Wall went up. The Wall itself was an amazingly clear example of pressing the contrast, one the East German leaders stupidly lobbied for themselves. To paraphrase Reagan addressing the House of Commons: in Europe the West's armies faced East to defend from invasion, while the Communist forces also faced East to stop their people from fleeing to the West.
The contrast between freedom and tyranny is the motivating power of the conflict. It explains to everybody why we fight, to ourselves, to our soldiers, to the people we're fighting, and to the people we fight to save. It should always be our policy to press the contrast in the War on Terror. Being the good guys is more important than actually killing the bad guys in a conflict like the war on terror.
They're already weak, that's why they use terrorism instead of armies, and remote training camps instead of countries. We need to stem the tide of terrorist creation, and a great way to do that is to press the contrast.
If I had my way, we'd also get our allies (UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, etc.) to agree to a joint statement that any person in a Muslim-majority country that isn't making satisfactory steps toward liberal democracy can apply for refugee status to live in one of these free countries. That should put a little fire under 'em. Of course, that wouldn't happen because too many people are unable to separate the terrorists from the other Muslims (and the Japanese aren't terribly thrilled with the idea of Korean migrants, let alone other migrants). But it would be effective overall; it would show these authoritarian countries we mean business, it would show people around the world we're serious in our commitment to liberal democracy, and it would provide lives of wealth and education to countless people (many of whom could return to their countries and join the reformist movements).
Ahmadinejad's letter to the President was defining the terms of an ideological struggle. The Islamists have seen themselves on the level of a global ideology at least since Qutb argued it in Milestones. He placed Islam on par with Western democracy and Eastern socialism. He characterized Islam as an ideology and not a religious or ethnic distinction. Ahmadinejad pretends to believe the same thing, challenging Bush to convert the US to a Muslim country.
If he wants an ideological struggle, then let's give him one. Let's press the contrast. Give aid to democrats and reformers who want it; keep up a continuous rhetorical defense of freedom and democracy; publicly and loudly praise Muslim advocates of liberty; emphasize in press conferences every instance of honor killing, every small-time thug band that breaks up a coed party, every person blown to pieces by a Palestinian suicide bomb; don't let up the heat.
The difference between sides is what animates a conflict.
We knew the South was wrong, socially and economically, and we knew that slavery was the heart of it all. The conflict was easier because slavery was the degrading difference (even well before the war, the vast majority of Northerners were opposed to slavery, they just didn't want to take it from the South - but to say the strong majority of Yankees were anything less than anti-slavery is mistaken). This is the best stanza from battle Hymn of the Republic:
The contrast in WWII was especially clear, with new democracies falling left and right before fascist tyranny. Ike had this to say in the D-Day order:
The theocracy's opponents ought to be directly supported, because they show the lie of Ahdmadinejad's vision of Islam as the virtuous alternative to liberal democracy. If he can't even rally his own co-nationals to support the system they've had for over two and a half decades, how can he put forth Iran as the aegis for the Islamization of the West?
Ahmadinejad is, by his own choosing and design, a figure in the War on Terror. He hopes to be the main figure (kind of how Hitler was the main figure of World War II or Napoleon the main figure of the Napoleonic Wars). And the War on Terror, before anything, is an ideological struggle on par with the Cold War and other global conflicts. The US must be the promoter of freedom, individualism, and representative government - to contrast with the apparent Islamo-fascist values of nihilism, bigotry, misogyny and of course fear.
They stand directly opposed to freedom, including freedom of religion, of speech, of protest, of occupation, of residence, and of so many other things. Our job as supporters of freedom is to press the contrast.
Pressing the contrast means we show ourselves in support of freedom and our other values like tolerance and democracy. We must celebrate democracy and democracies by rhetorically and actively supporting new and emerging democracies and by chastising and excluding nascent dictatorships. We need to show the world the contrast so that they can see what the choices are.
Either you can be led by horribly violent and hateful people that will ban music, clothing, dancing, parties and entertainment they find distasteful (as has happened recently when terrorist-affiliated groups get influence of localities) or you can live your life as you please.
We pressed the contrast in the Cold War. Berlin was the best example, and a microcosm of the East-West German split, itself a microcosm of the East-West World split. West Berlin and the FRG (BRD) enjoyed an economic 'miracle,' democratic reformation and high levels of technology, safety and luxury by the 1960s. East Berlin and the GDR (DDR) were mired in comparative depression, horribly authoritarian politics that competed with the Nazi-era for Most Repressive Ever, and effectively stagnant levels of technology and luxury. Safety was widespread in the GDR, except for the omnipresent abuses of the Stasi secret police.
Pressing the contrast between East and West was what led to a huge stream of refugees escaping East Germany into West Berlin, until the Wall went up. The Wall itself was an amazingly clear example of pressing the contrast, one the East German leaders stupidly lobbied for themselves. To paraphrase Reagan addressing the House of Commons: in Europe the West's armies faced East to defend from invasion, while the Communist forces also faced East to stop their people from fleeing to the West.
The contrast between freedom and tyranny is the motivating power of the conflict. It explains to everybody why we fight, to ourselves, to our soldiers, to the people we're fighting, and to the people we fight to save. It should always be our policy to press the contrast in the War on Terror. Being the good guys is more important than actually killing the bad guys in a conflict like the war on terror.
They're already weak, that's why they use terrorism instead of armies, and remote training camps instead of countries. We need to stem the tide of terrorist creation, and a great way to do that is to press the contrast.
If I had my way, we'd also get our allies (UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, etc.) to agree to a joint statement that any person in a Muslim-majority country that isn't making satisfactory steps toward liberal democracy can apply for refugee status to live in one of these free countries. That should put a little fire under 'em. Of course, that wouldn't happen because too many people are unable to separate the terrorists from the other Muslims (and the Japanese aren't terribly thrilled with the idea of Korean migrants, let alone other migrants). But it would be effective overall; it would show these authoritarian countries we mean business, it would show people around the world we're serious in our commitment to liberal democracy, and it would provide lives of wealth and education to countless people (many of whom could return to their countries and join the reformist movements).
Ahmadinejad's letter to the President was defining the terms of an ideological struggle. The Islamists have seen themselves on the level of a global ideology at least since Qutb argued it in Milestones. He placed Islam on par with Western democracy and Eastern socialism. He characterized Islam as an ideology and not a religious or ethnic distinction. Ahmadinejad pretends to believe the same thing, challenging Bush to convert the US to a Muslim country.
If he wants an ideological struggle, then let's give him one. Let's press the contrast. Give aid to democrats and reformers who want it; keep up a continuous rhetorical defense of freedom and democracy; publicly and loudly praise Muslim advocates of liberty; emphasize in press conferences every instance of honor killing, every small-time thug band that breaks up a coed party, every person blown to pieces by a Palestinian suicide bomb; don't let up the heat.
The difference between sides is what animates a conflict.
We knew the South was wrong, socially and economically, and we knew that slavery was the heart of it all. The conflict was easier because slavery was the degrading difference (even well before the war, the vast majority of Northerners were opposed to slavery, they just didn't want to take it from the South - but to say the strong majority of Yankees were anything less than anti-slavery is mistaken). This is the best stanza from battle Hymn of the Republic:
In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,We knew the Central Powers were undemocratic, and it was in part the fall of the Czar that helped the US into World War I. The Germans were imperialist and anti-democratic, threatening peaceful, democratic countries like Belgium, France and the UK. Granted, the conflict was hardly clear-cut because it didn't seem to be about anything, but the clear moral difference was there for most Americans. Even before entering the war was a possibility, the US population was largely rooting for the republics to prevail against the empires.
With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me:
As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free,
While God is marching on.
The contrast in WWII was especially clear, with new democracies falling left and right before fascist tyranny. Ike had this to say in the D-Day order:
The eyes of the world are upon you. The hopes and prayers of liberty loving people everywhere march with you. In company with our brave Allies and brothers in arms on other fronts, you will bring about the destruction of the German war machine; the elimination of Nazi tyranny over the oppressed peoples of Europe; and security for ourselves in a free world... The tide has turned. The free men of the world are marching together to victory. I have full confidence in your courage, devotion to duty, and skill in battle. We will accept nothing less than full victory. Good luck, and let us all beseech the blessings of Almighty God upon this great and noble undertaking.The Cold War, of course, has a great model for pressing the contrast. Reagan knew perhaps more than any other President that we had to press the contrast with the USSR, and I have tons of quotes, lengthy and articulate, of Reagan and Shultz pressing the contrast. But I think this one from Reagan is especially appropriate here:
Above all, we must realize that no arsenal or no weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today's world do not have. It is a weapon that we as Americans do have. Let that be understood by those who practice terrorism and prey upon their neighbors.
25 Best and 25 Worst Moments in US History
Right Wing News compiled two top 25 lists of the best and worst moments in US history. Here's the best:
I don't really think that the Panama Canal should be on the 25 worst list. Granted, it was a bad move to deal with the Panamanian regime at the time, being the undemocratic product of a coup, and since we now know they would have used Noriega to sabotage the Canal if we hadn't given it over. But the fact that Panama has it doesn't strike me as all that big of a deal, especially since the US still maintains the right to guarantee the neutrality of the Canal.
Maybe the Panama Canal loss should be replaced with the date in 1933 that the National Industrial Recovery Act passed, establishing the National Recovery Administration - an unconstitutional project so odious it manages to be both fascist in the Mussolini style and Communist in the Stalin style. On that note, I'd put the date in 1935 when the Supreme Court invalidated those parts of the New Deal on the best list, though it'd be hard to decide what to replace (maybe the Battle of Trenton or San Jacinto).
I think I also might have kicked Alexander Hamilton's death off the worst list and replaced it with the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which instituted popular sovereignty for new states on slavery. Hamilton made some important contributions to the economic beginnings of the country, but I don't think his death was itself a stunning national tragedy - especially since he chose to cross state lines to duel. Or perhaps the disastrous end to Reconstruction, precipitated by the electoral dispute of 1876, should also be on the worst list.
For the best list I also would probably have added one of the achievements of the Radical Republicans or Grant Administration onto the list, like the Civil Rights Act of 1871 or more likely the 14th Amendment. And the joining of the railroad lines near Promontory Point, Utah might be important enough to bump either the Model T or the Wright Brothers off the best list.
All in all, a very interesting and enjoyable subject to discuss.
1776: The Declaration of Independence is signed. Americans officially begin their fight for freedom.And the worst:
1776: Washington's surprise strike and victory at Trenton increases morale, heartens his troops, and provides enough of a recruiting boost to keep his army from melting away in the Spring, which would have meant an end to the war.
1781: Washington's victory at Yorktown, with the help of the French, seals the victory for America over the Brits.
1789: The Constitution is ratified.
1791: The Bill of Rights is ratified.
1803: The Louisiana Purchase: Roughly 1/5 of modern day America was purchased by Thomas Jefferson from Napoleon for about 15 million dollars.
1805: The members of the Lewis and Clark expedition become the first Americans to reach the Pacific ocean.
1814: Andrew Jackson defeats the British forces at the Battle of New Orleans in a fight that took place after the war had already ended. Had the British controlled New Orleans, which was a vital American port at the time, they might have wrung more concessions out of America or even taken a large swath of what is today American territory for Canada.
1836: Sam Houston and a group of Texans, outnumbered 2 to 1 by the Mexican Army, got revenge for the Alamo in the Battle of San Jacinto. Their victory and the capture soon after of Santa Anna secured the freedom of Texas and cleared the way for them to eventually join the United States.
1846:The Oregon Treaty, made with Britain, officially brings Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and parts of Montana and Wyoming into the US.
1848: After being defeated in the Mexican-American war, Mexico was forced to sign the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo which granted America control of "Texas as well as California, Nevada, Utah, and parts of Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, and Wyoming" in return for about $18 million dollars.
1863: Abraham Lincoln frees the slaves in the South, technically at least, with the Emancipation Proclamation.
1864: Sherman's victory in Atlanta not only helped hasten the end of the war, it likely was the key factor that led to Abraham Lincoln defeating George McClellan in the November elections. Had McClellan won, he made it clear that he intended to cut and run rather than press on to victory.
1898: America crushes the Spanish fleet in the Philippines, which cemented our position as a world power.
1903: The Wright Brothers are the "first in flight."
1908: The Model-T Ford, the first car cheap enough for the general public to afford, becomes available.
1914: The 48 mile long Panama Canal is completed.
1918: WW1 ends in victory for the Allied forces after the Germans surrender.
1920: For the first time, American women are allowed to vote.
1945: WW2 ends in victory for the Allied forces after the Japanese surrender.
1947: America helps rebuild Europe after WW2 with the Marshall Plan.
1950: In what was perhaps the most brilliant military maneuver in American history, Douglas MacArthur lands behind the North Korean lines at Inchon. The subsequent strikes against the Norks broke their army and only the entry of the Chinese into the war kept Korea from being reunited.
1964: The Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlaws discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
1969: Neil Armstrong is the first man to walk on the moon -- An amazing feat that showcased American ingenuity and technology.
1989: The Berlin Wall came tumbling down which symbolized the break-up of the Soviet Union and the victory of the United States in the Cold War.
1804: Aaron Burr kills one of the greatest figures in American history, Alexander Hamilton, in a duel.Somebody involved in making the list is interested in the Korean War; aside from getting a mention on both lists, the North Koreans are called 'norks.'
1814: British forces burn down the White House during the War of 1812.
1838: The Trail of Tears. 4000 Cherokees die during a forced relocation to the West.
1857: The Dred Scott Decision. The Supreme Court essentially rules that black people are nothing more than property like a chair or couch.
1861: The bombardment of Fort Sumter was the beginning engagement of the Civil War.
1862: The battle of Antietam was the single bloodiest day in American history with 25,000 soldiers killed, wounded, or missing.
1865: Abraham Lincoln was assassinated. One of our greatest Presidents, if not our greatest President, was murdered soon after the beginning of his second term.
1900: A hurricane strikes Galveston, Texas killing 6000 in the worst disaster in American history.
1917: The Zimmerman Telegraph. Germany's Foreign Secretary Arthur Zimmermann sends a telegram to Mexico encouraging them to attack the United States. The British intercepted the telegram and sent it to the United States where it led to America's entry into WW1.
1918: The influenza pandemic begins at Fort Riley, Kansas. By the time it was over, 25% of the US population would become sick and by some estimates, well over half a million Americans died as result.
1929: A massive drop in value of the stock market helped trigger the Great Depression which lasted until the increased economic activity spurred by WW2 got us going back in the right direction.
1941: Pearl Harbor. "A date which will live in infamy" indeed.
1942: The US government came to the conclusion that interning Japanese-American citizens was the best of a number of bad options. Roughly a hundred thousand Japanese-Americans ended up in camps.
1949: The Soviet Union tests an atomic bomb. For the next 50 years, Americans fear the Cold War will end in a nuclear holocaust.
1950: As American and Rok forces appear poised to finish off the Norks and reunite Korea, a Chinese offensive caught them completely by surprise and drove them back, nearly into the sea before they regrouped, pushed back, and managed to fight them to a stalemate.
1961: The Bay of Pigs invasion. Kennedy's decision to go forward with the invasion and then deny them air support doomed the entire enterprise to failure. Today, 44 years later, Fidel Castro, a diehard enemy of the United States, is still in power.
1963: In an event that scarred the American psyche and produced countless conspiracy theories, John F. Kennedy is assassinated.
1968: The Tet Offensive was a crushing defeat for North Vietnamese forces but was incorrectly portrayed as a huge victory for them by the American media. This was a key event in destroying the American public's support for the war.
1968: America's greatest civil rights leader, Martin Luther King, is assassinated.
1973: The Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision leads to the legalization of abortion nation wide and the deaths of countless millions of innocent children.
1974: Richard Nixon resigns after being disgraced by Watergate, a scandal which shook American faith in the government.
1975: After the Democrats in Congress cut off aid and promised air support, South Vietnam was doomed. When Saigon actually fell, that symbolized what a disaster the Vietnam War turned out to be.
1977: Jimmy Carter hands over control of the Panama Canal to Panama mainly because they asked for it.
1995: Oklahoma City Bombing. 168 people die as the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building is destroyed by domestic terrorists.
2001: 9/11. Terrorist madmen attack the Twin Towers and Pentagon, kill nearly 3000 Americans, and set off a war on terrorism.
I don't really think that the Panama Canal should be on the 25 worst list. Granted, it was a bad move to deal with the Panamanian regime at the time, being the undemocratic product of a coup, and since we now know they would have used Noriega to sabotage the Canal if we hadn't given it over. But the fact that Panama has it doesn't strike me as all that big of a deal, especially since the US still maintains the right to guarantee the neutrality of the Canal.
Maybe the Panama Canal loss should be replaced with the date in 1933 that the National Industrial Recovery Act passed, establishing the National Recovery Administration - an unconstitutional project so odious it manages to be both fascist in the Mussolini style and Communist in the Stalin style. On that note, I'd put the date in 1935 when the Supreme Court invalidated those parts of the New Deal on the best list, though it'd be hard to decide what to replace (maybe the Battle of Trenton or San Jacinto).
I think I also might have kicked Alexander Hamilton's death off the worst list and replaced it with the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which instituted popular sovereignty for new states on slavery. Hamilton made some important contributions to the economic beginnings of the country, but I don't think his death was itself a stunning national tragedy - especially since he chose to cross state lines to duel. Or perhaps the disastrous end to Reconstruction, precipitated by the electoral dispute of 1876, should also be on the worst list.
For the best list I also would probably have added one of the achievements of the Radical Republicans or Grant Administration onto the list, like the Civil Rights Act of 1871 or more likely the 14th Amendment. And the joining of the railroad lines near Promontory Point, Utah might be important enough to bump either the Model T or the Wright Brothers off the best list.
All in all, a very interesting and enjoyable subject to discuss.
Day of Infamy
A full 64 years ago today, the Japanese launched a surprise attack on the US that took the lives of more than 3,500 Americans. In response to the British and American embargo on Japan of scrap metal and oil, and cutting the japanese off from the Panama Canal, the Japanese could either halt and scale down their war in China or seek alternative energy sources in Asia. They chose to continue the war, and since conflict with the US seemed to them more or less a foregone conclusion (which is not accurate, given the uneasiness of Americans pre-Pearl Harbor to the idea of foreign wars) they decided to strike while they had surprise and to cripple the US fleet.
Fortunately for us and for history, the carriers were not in Hawaii at the time, and survived, as did critical fuel storage, machine shops and drydocking facilities. Had the Japanese been able to launch a third strike that day, instead of just the two, then they might have destroyed those all-important supply and repair facilities. That would have forced the Americans to use California to replace Hawaii, giving the Japanese a significant advantage. Even that, though, would merely have delayed the near-inevitable US domination of the Japanese fleet.
Fourteen Americans received the Medal of Honor for actions during the attack on Pearl Harbor, ten of them posthumously. Many of them had destroyers or other ships named in their honor.
Captain Bennion of the USS West Virginia was mortally wounded but continued to direct his men in fighting and safety, protesting vigorously when they took him from the bridge.
Ensign Flaherty on the USS Oklahoma remained onboard in a turret after the order was giving to evacuate the Battleship. He stayed behind to his certain death in order to hold a flashlight so that others could get off the ship before it capsized.
Sam Fuqua of the USS Arizona was nearly killed when a bomb landed almost on top of him on the quarterdeck. After regaining consciousness, and despite explosions, strafing runs, chaos and his own near-demise, Fuqua directed the fighting of multiple fires, the evacuation of dead and wounded, and later the abandonment of the ship. He survived, his calm demeanor under the worst of situations inspiring the men under his command.
Both Rear Admiral Kidd and Captain van Valkenburgh were killed on the USS Arizona at different times, each trying to command the response to the attack.
Chief Watertender Tomich of the USS Utah was a Croatian born in Austria, who at the time of the attack had been a US Navy man for over 20 years. When the order to abandon the Utah went out, Tomich sacrificed himself by staying on boiler duty, securing the boilers and thus allowing others more time to escape.
Commander Young of the Vestal personally took over an antiaircraft gun and began firing back on the Japanese aircraft. An explosion on the Arizona blew him right off the Vestal, after which he swam back onboard and moved his ship away from the Arizona. He saved the Vestal from being destroyed along with the Arizona, and beached it, thus making sure it could later be salvaged.
Others received medals as well, and heroism was in abundance. Although the history of the situation leaves much to be angry about, let's instead remember the heroes of that day.
Fortunately for us and for history, the carriers were not in Hawaii at the time, and survived, as did critical fuel storage, machine shops and drydocking facilities. Had the Japanese been able to launch a third strike that day, instead of just the two, then they might have destroyed those all-important supply and repair facilities. That would have forced the Americans to use California to replace Hawaii, giving the Japanese a significant advantage. Even that, though, would merely have delayed the near-inevitable US domination of the Japanese fleet.
Fourteen Americans received the Medal of Honor for actions during the attack on Pearl Harbor, ten of them posthumously. Many of them had destroyers or other ships named in their honor.
Captain Bennion of the USS West Virginia was mortally wounded but continued to direct his men in fighting and safety, protesting vigorously when they took him from the bridge.
Ensign Flaherty on the USS Oklahoma remained onboard in a turret after the order was giving to evacuate the Battleship. He stayed behind to his certain death in order to hold a flashlight so that others could get off the ship before it capsized.
Sam Fuqua of the USS Arizona was nearly killed when a bomb landed almost on top of him on the quarterdeck. After regaining consciousness, and despite explosions, strafing runs, chaos and his own near-demise, Fuqua directed the fighting of multiple fires, the evacuation of dead and wounded, and later the abandonment of the ship. He survived, his calm demeanor under the worst of situations inspiring the men under his command.
Both Rear Admiral Kidd and Captain van Valkenburgh were killed on the USS Arizona at different times, each trying to command the response to the attack.
Chief Watertender Tomich of the USS Utah was a Croatian born in Austria, who at the time of the attack had been a US Navy man for over 20 years. When the order to abandon the Utah went out, Tomich sacrificed himself by staying on boiler duty, securing the boilers and thus allowing others more time to escape.
Commander Young of the Vestal personally took over an antiaircraft gun and began firing back on the Japanese aircraft. An explosion on the Arizona blew him right off the Vestal, after which he swam back onboard and moved his ship away from the Arizona. He saved the Vestal from being destroyed along with the Arizona, and beached it, thus making sure it could later be salvaged.
Others received medals as well, and heroism was in abundance. Although the history of the situation leaves much to be angry about, let's instead remember the heroes of that day.
Veteran's Day
Formerly Armistice Day, Veteran's Day is a time for critical reflection and speechifying. Lincoln's words seem most appropriate here.
Americans veterans -successfully or not, surviving or not- fought to free whole peoples and to cow selfish tyrants, and in so doing to alter the course of history for the better; thank you to you all.
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.No words can hope to match the acts of sacrifice and heroism performed by our veterans, past, present and future. I'll leave it with this:
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate—we can not consecrate—we can not hallow—this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
Americans veterans -successfully or not, surviving or not- fought to free whole peoples and to cow selfish tyrants, and in so doing to alter the course of history for the better; thank you to you all.
Reformation Day
Today is the 488th anniversary of Martin Luther nailing his 95 theses to the door of a Church in Wittenberg, Germany (or, at least, on this day Luther mailed his theses to the Pope, an Archbishop and frienmds and scholars). His points marked the beginning the Protestant Reformation and a continent-wide shift in thinking about religion and humanity's relation to the universe, to morality, to tradition, to the divine, to rationality, and to progress. It was also either the incitement or the pretense (depending upon your point of view) to many wars, conflicts and disagreements since.
It's also impossible to fully understand the colonization of the New World, the American Revolution, or the early American Republic without some cognizance of the Reformation and the ensuing religious disputes in Europe.
Luther most famously argued against indulgences, but the theses were also related to Papal authority, penance and other Christian practices and beliefs. Plenary and partial indulgences were formalized to recognize the good works of a person, and to translate good works into 'credit' in place of the actual penance. It didn't get your sins forgiven; it meant you spent less time in Purgatory and got into heaven earlier (if that was where you were going).
Venality and power allowed Church leaders at different levels to use the indulgences in questionable, controversial or blatantly manipulative ways. Urban II offered indulgences to those who fought in the Crusades (or who died getting there). Leo X offered indulgences for those who gave alms for the building of St. Peter's Basilica in Rome. The practices of Johann Tetzel in selling Leo X's indulgences ('selling' in terms of both finance and persuasion) left the tradition wide open to criticism from Martin Luther.
There were already controversies and conflicts in Christianity, of course. The Earth Orthodox Church and the Coptics split off centuries earlier. The Hussite Wars a century earlier fought Church authority. Martin Luther offered a very specific theological argument, though, not just a power struggle or a cultural-geographical split. The 16th century Reformation, unlike the 'radical Reformation' coinciding with the Hussite Wars, was supported by princes and magistrates, meaning it had a real chance of success.
The Reformation is also linked to the broadest historical trends of Europe, and other hallmark events. The black plague and the rise of the urban middle class were both major prescursors to the social changes of the Reformation. The printing press, invented by Gutenberg and others, allowed the speedy dissemination of ideas associated with Luther, Zwingli, Calvin and their followers that was not possible for the radical reformers earlier. Gutenberg's printing press made possible the vernacularization of Christianity - German, English and other Bibles were printed. The printing press was the beginning of the end for Latin, and made possible the rise of a unified Protestant theology even though parallel Protestant movements began in different places across Europe at around the same time.
As an interesting tangent, the printing press was invented in China centuries earlier. It was not ultimately as successful as the European printing press because China and Korea had character languages with thousands of characters in many texts. European alphabet languages had a few dozen characters, so it was easy for printers to simply create all the characters and rearrange them as needed. To compensate for the enormous demand on character printing blocks, Asian printers often used wooden blocks which were cheaper.
But for Europe, the Reformation is a mark of the modern age, and the backdrop to events in Europe for centuries.
Also, today is the anniversary of Adriana's baptism.
It's also impossible to fully understand the colonization of the New World, the American Revolution, or the early American Republic without some cognizance of the Reformation and the ensuing religious disputes in Europe.
Luther most famously argued against indulgences, but the theses were also related to Papal authority, penance and other Christian practices and beliefs. Plenary and partial indulgences were formalized to recognize the good works of a person, and to translate good works into 'credit' in place of the actual penance. It didn't get your sins forgiven; it meant you spent less time in Purgatory and got into heaven earlier (if that was where you were going).
Venality and power allowed Church leaders at different levels to use the indulgences in questionable, controversial or blatantly manipulative ways. Urban II offered indulgences to those who fought in the Crusades (or who died getting there). Leo X offered indulgences for those who gave alms for the building of St. Peter's Basilica in Rome. The practices of Johann Tetzel in selling Leo X's indulgences ('selling' in terms of both finance and persuasion) left the tradition wide open to criticism from Martin Luther.
There were already controversies and conflicts in Christianity, of course. The Earth Orthodox Church and the Coptics split off centuries earlier. The Hussite Wars a century earlier fought Church authority. Martin Luther offered a very specific theological argument, though, not just a power struggle or a cultural-geographical split. The 16th century Reformation, unlike the 'radical Reformation' coinciding with the Hussite Wars, was supported by princes and magistrates, meaning it had a real chance of success.
The Reformation is also linked to the broadest historical trends of Europe, and other hallmark events. The black plague and the rise of the urban middle class were both major prescursors to the social changes of the Reformation. The printing press, invented by Gutenberg and others, allowed the speedy dissemination of ideas associated with Luther, Zwingli, Calvin and their followers that was not possible for the radical reformers earlier. Gutenberg's printing press made possible the vernacularization of Christianity - German, English and other Bibles were printed. The printing press was the beginning of the end for Latin, and made possible the rise of a unified Protestant theology even though parallel Protestant movements began in different places across Europe at around the same time.
As an interesting tangent, the printing press was invented in China centuries earlier. It was not ultimately as successful as the European printing press because China and Korea had character languages with thousands of characters in many texts. European alphabet languages had a few dozen characters, so it was easy for printers to simply create all the characters and rearrange them as needed. To compensate for the enormous demand on character printing blocks, Asian printers often used wooden blocks which were cheaper.
But for Europe, the Reformation is a mark of the modern age, and the backdrop to events in Europe for centuries.
Also, today is the anniversary of Adriana's baptism.
Janet Reno and the Miami Method
This post on Coyote Blog about prosecutorial overzealousness in relationt o child abuse cases mentioned the role Janet Reno played in starting the trend. I'd like to offer more on just what she did, with help from a book by Judge Andrew Napolitano. The book Constitutional Chaos: What Happens When the Government Breaks Its Own Laws was a Christmas present last year.
The rise of daycare in the 1980s (accompanying a rise in working moms) left people vulnerable to fears that their children were being mistreated by their caregivers. Janet Reno was the Florida state attorney for Dade County when she created the Miami Method, a way to prosecute child abuse based more on persuading the jury than on solid physical evidence.
In 1984, Grant Snowden won Police Office of the Year. The next year a 3-year-old for whom his wife cared, accused him of abuse. The police investigated and dropped the case for lack of any evidence. Reno reopened the case months later and then filed charges for an alleged touching in 1977. There was still no physical evidence, and the young girl had made allegations before that were in fact false - in fact, at the time of the alleged touching, canceled checks showed a different babysitter had been coring for her. He was acquitted. Reno got five children to accuse Snowden again, on the theory that though none of the children was individually credible, together it created an impression of guilt; it seemed as though they couldn't all five be lying. Snowden was convicted. It was overturned 12 years later, in 1998.
Reno made substantial use of Laurie Braga, calling her a child abuse expert even though she wasn't. Braga essentially brainwashed the children through lengthy use of hypotheticals, hypnosis, make-believe and continuous suggestions and leading. She fabricated the testimony, in other words.
The conviction was overturned because Braga was overused. Instead of simply being an expert, she tried to tell the jurors that the testimony had to be credible. She asserted that children could never lie and can never be tricked or brainwashed. That's for the jurors to decide. [Moreover, the defense was never allowed to question the medical evidence, even though the evidence was weak (the tests used were very imprecise and the evidence itself was destroyed).] But it violated due process by using Braga to artificially aid the testimony of the children in that way.
More horribly, Reno used torture and interrogation methods on Ileana Fuster to plead guilty to abusing a few dozen children with her husband Frank Fuster. Ileana was isolated in a dark jail cell naked, periodically held down and given a cold shower. Eventually she was taken out of the prison to fancy restaurants, then told if she ever wanted to leave the prison and go to restaurants like that again, she would implicate her husband. She refused, and resisted a series of psychologists and hypnotists. Eventually Reno hired a pair of psychologists from behavior Changers, Inc. who brainwashed the 17-year-old Ileana. She implicated her husband only with both psychologists present and Janet Reno squeezing her hand. She has since retracted her testimony and confession, and recounted her interrogation. Frank Fuster is serving life.
The physical evidence against Fuster was based on one child, even though there was accusations from more like 20 children. Laurie Braga (and her husband) used the same techniques from the Snowden snowjob to get the kids to testify. The physical evidence, though, was that a single child tested positive for gonorrhea of the throat. Just like in the Snowden case, the test was imprecise (it tested for the family of bacteria, which includes many commonplace bacteria found in people and children without sexual overtones) and the evidence was tossed out immediately afterwards.
Bobby Fijnje was 14 when he was accused of molesting 21 kids. He was acquitted for a lot of reasons, but mostly because the kids had outrageous allegations to make against Fijnje. They accused him of sexual molestation, of course, but alleged others things as well - like driving a car (he was 14), being in places where Fijnje had never been seen, of killing a baby, breaking a cat's neck, turning into a clown, taking the kids to a place with witches, making the kids jump nude on a trampoline with Fijnje and his family watching from the roof of his house, stories of cannibalism, stories about Freddy Krueger, and one boy claimed that he turned into Superman and tied up Fijnje before flying out the window to call the police. Kids.
Fijnje confessed when the police arrested him, but there was no recording of the confession, no stenographer or taping, no sworn statement at all, and the interviewing detective had supposedly thrown his notes away (yeah right, he probably took none in the first place). Moreover, Fijnje was 14 but interrogated without his parents or a lawyer. Additionally, Fijnje was diabetic and had dramatically low blood sugar at the time, impairing mental ability. Fijnje admitted to confessing, but said he did it to get out the interrogation room and be with his parents. Even though 21 kids had accused him, the prosecutors had to drop some of the kids for their fantastically ridiculous charges, and eventually only charged Bobby Fijnje with seven counts against two little girls. He was acquitted.
Though personally I think the possiblity of the death penalty ought to be there for some of the worst child molestation charges, it's just sick that Janet Reno and other prosecutors would be so blatantly abusive. We fear for our children, and Reno started a brief but vicious wave of such prosecutions, using strongly-suggested child-testimony, weak or no physical evidence, and an extensive focus on emotional and jury-based appeals rather than actual evidence. The system largely survived and regained its balance as jurors recalled the duty to presume innocence.
The rise of daycare in the 1980s (accompanying a rise in working moms) left people vulnerable to fears that their children were being mistreated by their caregivers. Janet Reno was the Florida state attorney for Dade County when she created the Miami Method, a way to prosecute child abuse based more on persuading the jury than on solid physical evidence.
In 1984, Grant Snowden won Police Office of the Year. The next year a 3-year-old for whom his wife cared, accused him of abuse. The police investigated and dropped the case for lack of any evidence. Reno reopened the case months later and then filed charges for an alleged touching in 1977. There was still no physical evidence, and the young girl had made allegations before that were in fact false - in fact, at the time of the alleged touching, canceled checks showed a different babysitter had been coring for her. He was acquitted. Reno got five children to accuse Snowden again, on the theory that though none of the children was individually credible, together it created an impression of guilt; it seemed as though they couldn't all five be lying. Snowden was convicted. It was overturned 12 years later, in 1998.
Reno made substantial use of Laurie Braga, calling her a child abuse expert even though she wasn't. Braga essentially brainwashed the children through lengthy use of hypotheticals, hypnosis, make-believe and continuous suggestions and leading. She fabricated the testimony, in other words.
The conviction was overturned because Braga was overused. Instead of simply being an expert, she tried to tell the jurors that the testimony had to be credible. She asserted that children could never lie and can never be tricked or brainwashed. That's for the jurors to decide. [Moreover, the defense was never allowed to question the medical evidence, even though the evidence was weak (the tests used were very imprecise and the evidence itself was destroyed).] But it violated due process by using Braga to artificially aid the testimony of the children in that way.
More horribly, Reno used torture and interrogation methods on Ileana Fuster to plead guilty to abusing a few dozen children with her husband Frank Fuster. Ileana was isolated in a dark jail cell naked, periodically held down and given a cold shower. Eventually she was taken out of the prison to fancy restaurants, then told if she ever wanted to leave the prison and go to restaurants like that again, she would implicate her husband. She refused, and resisted a series of psychologists and hypnotists. Eventually Reno hired a pair of psychologists from behavior Changers, Inc. who brainwashed the 17-year-old Ileana. She implicated her husband only with both psychologists present and Janet Reno squeezing her hand. She has since retracted her testimony and confession, and recounted her interrogation. Frank Fuster is serving life.
The physical evidence against Fuster was based on one child, even though there was accusations from more like 20 children. Laurie Braga (and her husband) used the same techniques from the Snowden snowjob to get the kids to testify. The physical evidence, though, was that a single child tested positive for gonorrhea of the throat. Just like in the Snowden case, the test was imprecise (it tested for the family of bacteria, which includes many commonplace bacteria found in people and children without sexual overtones) and the evidence was tossed out immediately afterwards.
Bobby Fijnje was 14 when he was accused of molesting 21 kids. He was acquitted for a lot of reasons, but mostly because the kids had outrageous allegations to make against Fijnje. They accused him of sexual molestation, of course, but alleged others things as well - like driving a car (he was 14), being in places where Fijnje had never been seen, of killing a baby, breaking a cat's neck, turning into a clown, taking the kids to a place with witches, making the kids jump nude on a trampoline with Fijnje and his family watching from the roof of his house, stories of cannibalism, stories about Freddy Krueger, and one boy claimed that he turned into Superman and tied up Fijnje before flying out the window to call the police. Kids.
Fijnje confessed when the police arrested him, but there was no recording of the confession, no stenographer or taping, no sworn statement at all, and the interviewing detective had supposedly thrown his notes away (yeah right, he probably took none in the first place). Moreover, Fijnje was 14 but interrogated without his parents or a lawyer. Additionally, Fijnje was diabetic and had dramatically low blood sugar at the time, impairing mental ability. Fijnje admitted to confessing, but said he did it to get out the interrogation room and be with his parents. Even though 21 kids had accused him, the prosecutors had to drop some of the kids for their fantastically ridiculous charges, and eventually only charged Bobby Fijnje with seven counts against two little girls. He was acquitted.
Though personally I think the possiblity of the death penalty ought to be there for some of the worst child molestation charges, it's just sick that Janet Reno and other prosecutors would be so blatantly abusive. We fear for our children, and Reno started a brief but vicious wave of such prosecutions, using strongly-suggested child-testimony, weak or no physical evidence, and an extensive focus on emotional and jury-based appeals rather than actual evidence. The system largely survived and regained its balance as jurors recalled the duty to presume innocence.
Toba Party!
Toba is a caldera in Indonesia, on the large western island Sumatra. The caldera was formed when the Toba volcano theoretically had such a tremendous explosion that it virtually emptied the magma inside the mountain part of the volcano; the weight of the emptied volcano was no longer supported by the magma, and so it collapsed into a crater, or caldera (Spanish for 'cauldron'). The Toba caldera filled with water, as many calderas do, becoming Lake Toba.
But the Toba explosion - roughly 70,000 years ago - was tremendous, allegedly lowering world temperatures by over 3 degrees Celsius. It would have been one of the largest volcano explosions in human history, and probably the most important.
The "bottleneck" theory that developed as a result of the Toba eruption is that all but a few thousand humans died from the after-effects of Toba. According to the theory, every human alive today is descended from those few thousand survivors. Genetic research plays a major part in the theory. The relative lack of mutation in human genes, especially in the Y chromosome, suggests a bottleneck event of some type. And mitochondrial DNA so far fits with the idea that we're all descended from a group of humans less than 10,000 that would've lived approximately 70-75 thousand years ago.
Of course it's still just a theory, but an interesting one, nevertheless. Population bottlenecks have happened in animal species during recorded history. The American Bison population dropped to under 1,000 in 1890, but today there are 350,000 bison all descended from that small group. The European Bison ('Wisent') population dropped far lower, to 12 animals in the first half of the 20th century, all of them in captivity. The population has since grown to several thousand animals, some of them wild, but with weaknesses due to inbreeding.
So homo sapiens have a relatively limited number of genetic variations and mitochondrial DNA that tells us we all come from a group of less than 10,000 people. Whether the Toba explosion did it or not, that has yet to be proven. But it really does appear that for some geological, social or ecological reason humanity very nearly died out near the end of the Stone Age.
But the Toba explosion - roughly 70,000 years ago - was tremendous, allegedly lowering world temperatures by over 3 degrees Celsius. It would have been one of the largest volcano explosions in human history, and probably the most important.
The "bottleneck" theory that developed as a result of the Toba eruption is that all but a few thousand humans died from the after-effects of Toba. According to the theory, every human alive today is descended from those few thousand survivors. Genetic research plays a major part in the theory. The relative lack of mutation in human genes, especially in the Y chromosome, suggests a bottleneck event of some type. And mitochondrial DNA so far fits with the idea that we're all descended from a group of humans less than 10,000 that would've lived approximately 70-75 thousand years ago.
Of course it's still just a theory, but an interesting one, nevertheless. Population bottlenecks have happened in animal species during recorded history. The American Bison population dropped to under 1,000 in 1890, but today there are 350,000 bison all descended from that small group. The European Bison ('Wisent') population dropped far lower, to 12 animals in the first half of the 20th century, all of them in captivity. The population has since grown to several thousand animals, some of them wild, but with weaknesses due to inbreeding.
So homo sapiens have a relatively limited number of genetic variations and mitochondrial DNA that tells us we all come from a group of less than 10,000 people. Whether the Toba explosion did it or not, that has yet to be proven. But it really does appear that for some geological, social or ecological reason humanity very nearly died out near the end of the Stone Age.
Michael Moore Redux
I had a couple additional comments on Michael Moore that have been rattling around in my head.
First of all, it's ridiculous to assert - as in his American History cartoon for one undefended dependent clause in one sentence of Bowling for Columbine - that slavery is what made America the richest country in the world.
If anything slavery was economically detrimental for 95% of the non-slaves living in the South. It kept the Southern economy agrarian and feudalistic far longer than might otherwise have happened, by making plantation-style farming more profitable. It perpetuated this backwards economy while the West and North were growing and expanding and industrializing. It stunted Southern growth by skewing the economy; making feudalism profitable delayed the inevitability of capitalist expansion and industrialization. Slavery also cost a lot of Southerners jobs that would've otherwise gone to them - the claim that had the most resonance with otherwise pro-slavery minds.
We like to focus on the moral cause around free soil and abolitionism because today everybody accepts that slavery was a great moral evil. But back when slavery was the subject of much debate and conflict, economic arguments were often more important than anything else. Slavery was cast, by free soil and abolition advocates, as an economic curse upon any land it touched. It would corrupt and destroy an economy, drive out competition and ambition, and leave the non-slave population generally reduced to poverty, ignorance and sloth. This was one of the main characterizations of the South and Southerners by Yankees, and the general image persists to this day (think "trailer trash" and "redneck").
It was the slave-free North and West that were really booming beginning in the early to mid-1800s, not the South. And the South didn't really start taking off until the 1950s - the same time that commercially available air-conditioning facilitated mass migration of Northerners to the balmy South (the migration also laid the pre-conditions for moving the South into a Republican stronghold).
Sorry Moore, but slavery if anything made this country worse-off economically. It was a tremendous obstacle to economic growth in addition to being the great moral evil of the 19th century.
The other thing that was pissing me off is how all his movies HAVE to have references Flint and the blue-collar, hard-working, working-class, honest-living, simple-hearted, good-natured, and non-rich people living there. In Bowling for Columbine he uses different parts of Michigan to illustrate the points he wants to make. In Roger and Me the movie itself is about the closing of GM manufacturing in Flint, and the same subject comes back in his movie The Big One. In Fahrenheit 9/11, he manages to somehow make the war in Iraq really about families in Flint who have sons that join the army and are shocked to find that there's sometimes fighting involved in the military.
I have to wonder if maybe Moore's bumbling, fumbling, mishandled populism and nativism is a precursor to a more general populism on the left. After all, a lot of Democrats in 2004 got nativist about free trade and outsourcing, xenophobic about reconstructing Iraq, and nationalist when discussing the war on terror. Of course it's hardly credible since we're talking about the same people who generally love the UN, think France was right, and many of whom wondered loudly in December, 2004 about fleeing to Canada. It's obviously an incompetent attempt to out-flagwave the GOP (since Democrats think the Republicans are a bunch of idiotic flagwavers, rather than the only party with a coherent and credible foreign policy philosophy) but it's disturbing nonetheless.
And I can't finish this post without once again just pointing out that Michael Moore has always had a lot of trouble with facts and the truth whenever it might even indirectly complicate his telling a nice left-wing drama.
First of all, it's ridiculous to assert - as in his American History cartoon for one undefended dependent clause in one sentence of Bowling for Columbine - that slavery is what made America the richest country in the world.
If anything slavery was economically detrimental for 95% of the non-slaves living in the South. It kept the Southern economy agrarian and feudalistic far longer than might otherwise have happened, by making plantation-style farming more profitable. It perpetuated this backwards economy while the West and North were growing and expanding and industrializing. It stunted Southern growth by skewing the economy; making feudalism profitable delayed the inevitability of capitalist expansion and industrialization. Slavery also cost a lot of Southerners jobs that would've otherwise gone to them - the claim that had the most resonance with otherwise pro-slavery minds.
We like to focus on the moral cause around free soil and abolitionism because today everybody accepts that slavery was a great moral evil. But back when slavery was the subject of much debate and conflict, economic arguments were often more important than anything else. Slavery was cast, by free soil and abolition advocates, as an economic curse upon any land it touched. It would corrupt and destroy an economy, drive out competition and ambition, and leave the non-slave population generally reduced to poverty, ignorance and sloth. This was one of the main characterizations of the South and Southerners by Yankees, and the general image persists to this day (think "trailer trash" and "redneck").
It was the slave-free North and West that were really booming beginning in the early to mid-1800s, not the South. And the South didn't really start taking off until the 1950s - the same time that commercially available air-conditioning facilitated mass migration of Northerners to the balmy South (the migration also laid the pre-conditions for moving the South into a Republican stronghold).
Sorry Moore, but slavery if anything made this country worse-off economically. It was a tremendous obstacle to economic growth in addition to being the great moral evil of the 19th century.
The other thing that was pissing me off is how all his movies HAVE to have references Flint and the blue-collar, hard-working, working-class, honest-living, simple-hearted, good-natured, and non-rich people living there. In Bowling for Columbine he uses different parts of Michigan to illustrate the points he wants to make. In Roger and Me the movie itself is about the closing of GM manufacturing in Flint, and the same subject comes back in his movie The Big One. In Fahrenheit 9/11, he manages to somehow make the war in Iraq really about families in Flint who have sons that join the army and are shocked to find that there's sometimes fighting involved in the military.
I have to wonder if maybe Moore's bumbling, fumbling, mishandled populism and nativism is a precursor to a more general populism on the left. After all, a lot of Democrats in 2004 got nativist about free trade and outsourcing, xenophobic about reconstructing Iraq, and nationalist when discussing the war on terror. Of course it's hardly credible since we're talking about the same people who generally love the UN, think France was right, and many of whom wondered loudly in December, 2004 about fleeing to Canada. It's obviously an incompetent attempt to out-flagwave the GOP (since Democrats think the Republicans are a bunch of idiotic flagwavers, rather than the only party with a coherent and credible foreign policy philosophy) but it's disturbing nonetheless.
And I can't finish this post without once again just pointing out that Michael Moore has always had a lot of trouble with facts and the truth whenever it might even indirectly complicate his telling a nice left-wing drama.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Michael Moore Redux
- Bowling for Columbine on Bravo
England Expects That Every Man Will Do His Duty
Friday is October 21st, meaning the 200th anniversary of the Battle of Trafalgar. The battle effectively ended any major threat of land invasion of England during the Napoleonic Wars.
Admiral Nelson decided to forgo the customary two opposing lines and instead formed the British ships into two close parallel lines moving perpendicular against the French & Spanish line of ships. His strategy allowed faster communication among the fleet, and even though slow winds meant the British ships were at first outmatched and outdistanced, the battle quickly developed into ship-to-ship combat. The British ships, though outnumbered, outclassed and outgunned the French and Spanish in straight matchups. The innovative, simplistic battle plan eliminated traditional strategy and maneuvers to capitalize on superior training and motivation of the British.
But the story's incomplete without Admiral Nelson himself. A heroic leader, lionized to this day by many English, it was Nelson's pre-battle signal that survives as the inspirational moment of the entire war (from the British perspective).
Before the battle, Nelson ordered signal flags to communicate to his fleet: "England Expects That Every Man Will Do His Duty." The message is still repeated in great Britain today, especially the first two words.
Though the British of 1805 were enemies of America, happy anniversary for a stunning victory in defense against invaders.
Admiral Nelson decided to forgo the customary two opposing lines and instead formed the British ships into two close parallel lines moving perpendicular against the French & Spanish line of ships. His strategy allowed faster communication among the fleet, and even though slow winds meant the British ships were at first outmatched and outdistanced, the battle quickly developed into ship-to-ship combat. The British ships, though outnumbered, outclassed and outgunned the French and Spanish in straight matchups. The innovative, simplistic battle plan eliminated traditional strategy and maneuvers to capitalize on superior training and motivation of the British.
But the story's incomplete without Admiral Nelson himself. A heroic leader, lionized to this day by many English, it was Nelson's pre-battle signal that survives as the inspirational moment of the entire war (from the British perspective).
Before the battle, Nelson ordered signal flags to communicate to his fleet: "England Expects That Every Man Will Do His Duty." The message is still repeated in great Britain today, especially the first two words.
Though the British of 1805 were enemies of America, happy anniversary for a stunning victory in defense against invaders.
Bowling for Columbine on Bravo
Apparently because the programmers think Bowling for Columbine is on par with The Godfather, they're both being shown this month on Bravo.
The movie is infuriating. It's not just Michael Moore's style of thinking his overly-hoarse narration adds drama, or his need to over-dramatize and over-generalize everything, or his sociopathic ability to pass off lies and quarter-truths as probing investigations. It's not even the completely disingenuous way that he interviewed one of the South Park creators (who grew up in Littleton) then followed it with an anti-gun cartoon that looked decidedly South Parkish (this attempt to make it seem like the South Park creators endorsed his view of guns earned him the role of a suicide bomber in THEIR movie Team America: World Police).
What's really aggravating is the way he conflates every issue with his own brand of socialism. As though enough social security, works projects and welfare are the alternative to gun violence, outsourcing, or the war in Iraq.
But one thing I really have to get straight is a cartoon segment about the history of America. The cartoon sarcastically accuses the NRA and the KKK of being related (the evidence? they were both founded 1871). I've blogged on this before, but I have to repeat: the NRA was founded in New York by Union soldiers - the same men who fought and nearly died freeing the slaves and subduing the pro-slavery secessionists - in order to teach good riflery skills and encouraging shooting and hunting as sports. They were also useful in training police, often mostly-volunteer at the time, to be better with their weapons.
The NRA was from the start actively encouraging gun ownership, including the right of freed slaves and black people to own guns. In fact, sometimes Southern chapters of the NRA would be mostly or wholly comprised of black members, often freedmen. The NRA's first President was General Burnside, former commander of the Army of the Potomac. And former President Grant - a man who had an outstanding record on black rights - was President of the NRA in the 1880s.
The KKK of the 1870s, meanwhile, was largely composed of former Confederate soldiers and sympathizers, not to mention former slaveholders. Their main purpose was to protect white people (especially white women) from the freed slaves and to fight the Reconstruction. They were effectively terrorists. During the 1860s, the men who would join the NRA and the KKK in 1871 would possibly have fought each other in the Civil War and in the Reconstruction.
To put it simply, the two groups are not linked, were founded in different places by different people with different agendas - in fact, they were founded by opposing people with opposing agendas.
Conflating the people who freed the slaves with the people who lynched the freed slaves is unforgivably stupid and deceitful.
The movie is infuriating. It's not just Michael Moore's style of thinking his overly-hoarse narration adds drama, or his need to over-dramatize and over-generalize everything, or his sociopathic ability to pass off lies and quarter-truths as probing investigations. It's not even the completely disingenuous way that he interviewed one of the South Park creators (who grew up in Littleton) then followed it with an anti-gun cartoon that looked decidedly South Parkish (this attempt to make it seem like the South Park creators endorsed his view of guns earned him the role of a suicide bomber in THEIR movie Team America: World Police).
What's really aggravating is the way he conflates every issue with his own brand of socialism. As though enough social security, works projects and welfare are the alternative to gun violence, outsourcing, or the war in Iraq.
But one thing I really have to get straight is a cartoon segment about the history of America. The cartoon sarcastically accuses the NRA and the KKK of being related (the evidence? they were both founded 1871). I've blogged on this before, but I have to repeat: the NRA was founded in New York by Union soldiers - the same men who fought and nearly died freeing the slaves and subduing the pro-slavery secessionists - in order to teach good riflery skills and encouraging shooting and hunting as sports. They were also useful in training police, often mostly-volunteer at the time, to be better with their weapons.
The NRA was from the start actively encouraging gun ownership, including the right of freed slaves and black people to own guns. In fact, sometimes Southern chapters of the NRA would be mostly or wholly comprised of black members, often freedmen. The NRA's first President was General Burnside, former commander of the Army of the Potomac. And former President Grant - a man who had an outstanding record on black rights - was President of the NRA in the 1880s.
The KKK of the 1870s, meanwhile, was largely composed of former Confederate soldiers and sympathizers, not to mention former slaveholders. Their main purpose was to protect white people (especially white women) from the freed slaves and to fight the Reconstruction. They were effectively terrorists. During the 1860s, the men who would join the NRA and the KKK in 1871 would possibly have fought each other in the Civil War and in the Reconstruction.
To put it simply, the two groups are not linked, were founded in different places by different people with different agendas - in fact, they were founded by opposing people with opposing agendas.
Conflating the people who freed the slaves with the people who lynched the freed slaves is unforgivably stupid and deceitful.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Michael Moore Redux
- Bowling for Columbine on Bravo
Central Park
Central Park, the large human-designed and -maintained woodland area in the middle of Manhattan, was created in the 1850s through an exercise of eminent domain. At the time, the area was relatively rural in character. The Seneca Village community was uprooted by eminent domain in the process.
Seneca Village was the first settlement founded by free blacks on Manhattan Island, dating back to 1825. In 1855 Seneca Village had a few hundred residents, several churches and cemeteries, and a school. It was largely populated by free blacks, as well as Irish and German immigrants. The village was razed in 1857 after it was taken by eminent domain.
The Park was designed by contest, believe it or not. The same method has been used to do many other public properties, including the Vietnam memorial and the Flight 93 memorial. It has separate paths for walkways, carriages and commercial traffic, including shrubbery and sunken roads to hide the traffic somewhat. There are three dozen different bridges, no two of them the same.
In the 1930s the rise of 'Hoovervilles' full of homeless people gave Central Park a reputation for being riddled with crime, especially after dark. The general drop in crime in NYC has been accompanied by the perception that the park is safer; however, there are fewer than a hundred assaults in the park annually, most of those between people who know each other. The park is pretty safe, especially by urban park standards.
Properties overlooking Central Park, especially on the western side, can be outrageously expensive. What I find interesting is that parks are so valuable to urban-dwellers. They're common in large cities, like the Bois de Boulogne and London's Hyde Park, even though they're maintained and controlled. I'm not sure if it's the open space or the quiet or nature itself, but it's clear that urbanites put a premium on whatever Central Park has to offer.
Seneca Village was the first settlement founded by free blacks on Manhattan Island, dating back to 1825. In 1855 Seneca Village had a few hundred residents, several churches and cemeteries, and a school. It was largely populated by free blacks, as well as Irish and German immigrants. The village was razed in 1857 after it was taken by eminent domain.
The Park was designed by contest, believe it or not. The same method has been used to do many other public properties, including the Vietnam memorial and the Flight 93 memorial. It has separate paths for walkways, carriages and commercial traffic, including shrubbery and sunken roads to hide the traffic somewhat. There are three dozen different bridges, no two of them the same.
In the 1930s the rise of 'Hoovervilles' full of homeless people gave Central Park a reputation for being riddled with crime, especially after dark. The general drop in crime in NYC has been accompanied by the perception that the park is safer; however, there are fewer than a hundred assaults in the park annually, most of those between people who know each other. The park is pretty safe, especially by urban park standards.
Properties overlooking Central Park, especially on the western side, can be outrageously expensive. What I find interesting is that parks are so valuable to urban-dwellers. They're common in large cities, like the Bois de Boulogne and London's Hyde Park, even though they're maintained and controlled. I'm not sure if it's the open space or the quiet or nature itself, but it's clear that urbanites put a premium on whatever Central Park has to offer.
Elections of 1884 and 1892
The Prohibition Party's most notable contributions to US political history, aside from a national ban on various alcohol-related activities, were made in 1884 and 1892. Those were the only two elections between the Civil War and Woodrow Wilson where a Democrat won office.
In 1884, Cleveland edged out Blaine for the White House. James G. Blaine of Maine, who had been a Representative, Speaker of the House, Senator and twice Secretary of State, was a tremendously influential figure considering he was never President.
His most lasting achievement still persists to this day in the form of Blaine Amendments. This amendment, intended to further the separation of church and state, would have prevented money intended for public schooling from being controlled by a religious sect or organization. This wasn't taken to mean religious instruction was banned in public schools, however, so long as it was not controlled a particular sect or organization. The amendment passed overwhelmingly in the House and narrowly failed in the Senate.
Blaine had many other views and achievements, of course, but he failed to win the Presidency. This was because of the Prohibition Party. In 1884, Cleveland took 48.5% of the vote to Blaine's 48.25% and the Electoral College was 219 to 182. John St. John, the Prohibition Party candidate, was fourth place in the popular vote with 1.47% but he probably pushed Connecticut, New Jersey and New York into Cleveland's column.
There were six states where the winner took less than half the votes - Connecticut, Indiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York. Blaine won Massachusetts, Cleveland won the rest. St. John's votes exceeded the margin of Blaine's loss in CT, NJ and NY for a total of 51 electoral votes. That would have been easily enough to give Blaine the electoral college.
There's an argument to be made that the Greenback candidate Benjamin Butler took votes from Cleveland, but the only state where that could have made a difference in the victory, Massachusetts, would not have been enough to undo the hypothetical Blaine victory. It's also worth noting that Butler was Governor of Massachusetts when he ran for President.
So in this way Blaine of Maine, an interesting character in his own right, was prevented from winning the White House.
The 1888 election saw Benjamin Harrison (grandson of president William Henry Harrison) win the electoral college but lose the popular vote to Cleveland. Cleveland won 48.62% to Harrison's 47.82% with Prohibition candidate Clinton Fisk taking 2.2%.
In 1892 Cleveland ran a third time for president. He won 46.02% to Harrison's 43.01%, while Populist James Weaver won 8.51% and Prohibitionist John Bidwell won 2.24%. In the electoral college, the score was 277 to 145 to 22 for Weaver. The Populists clearly threatened Harrison more than Cleveland; states that went GOP in 1888 like Nevada, kansas and Colorado, went to Weaver in 1892. Other states were lost by Harrison where Weaver took more votes than the margin of the loss. There's a very strong likelihood that the Populists gave this election to Cleveland.
However, the states of California, Indiana and Wisconsin saw Cleveland win by fewer votes than Bidwell took. Although the extra 35 electoral votes wouldn't have won the election for Harrison, the Prohibitionists affected the Republican outcome.
By consistently siphoning Republican voters from the GOP candidate for President, the Prohibition Party exerted more influence than its votes alone would warrant. They threatened the Republicans and thus forced the GOP to advance the cause of Prohibition. It was a strongly Republican Congress that passed the Volstead Act over Wilson's veto.
Even though the Prohibition Party never elected a President, they transmitted their signature issue to the main parties by making them lose elections until they paid attention.
In 1884, Cleveland edged out Blaine for the White House. James G. Blaine of Maine, who had been a Representative, Speaker of the House, Senator and twice Secretary of State, was a tremendously influential figure considering he was never President.
His most lasting achievement still persists to this day in the form of Blaine Amendments. This amendment, intended to further the separation of church and state, would have prevented money intended for public schooling from being controlled by a religious sect or organization. This wasn't taken to mean religious instruction was banned in public schools, however, so long as it was not controlled a particular sect or organization. The amendment passed overwhelmingly in the House and narrowly failed in the Senate.
No State shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; and no money raised by taxation in any State for the support of public schools, or derived from any public fund therefor, nor any public lands devoted thereto, shall ever be under the control of any religious sect; nor shall any money so raised or lands so devoted be divided between religious sects or denominations.The amendment was at the time primarily a vehicle for protestants to try and hold back the influence of the Roman Catholic Church; Irish and Catholic immigration had been high in the previous decades and would continue to rise, and the Blaine Amendment was seen as a way to prevent publicly-funded Catholic schools. Most state constitutions have Blaine amendments or clauses in them, or passed as statutes.
Blaine had many other views and achievements, of course, but he failed to win the Presidency. This was because of the Prohibition Party. In 1884, Cleveland took 48.5% of the vote to Blaine's 48.25% and the Electoral College was 219 to 182. John St. John, the Prohibition Party candidate, was fourth place in the popular vote with 1.47% but he probably pushed Connecticut, New Jersey and New York into Cleveland's column.
There were six states where the winner took less than half the votes - Connecticut, Indiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York. Blaine won Massachusetts, Cleveland won the rest. St. John's votes exceeded the margin of Blaine's loss in CT, NJ and NY for a total of 51 electoral votes. That would have been easily enough to give Blaine the electoral college.
There's an argument to be made that the Greenback candidate Benjamin Butler took votes from Cleveland, but the only state where that could have made a difference in the victory, Massachusetts, would not have been enough to undo the hypothetical Blaine victory. It's also worth noting that Butler was Governor of Massachusetts when he ran for President.
So in this way Blaine of Maine, an interesting character in his own right, was prevented from winning the White House.
The 1888 election saw Benjamin Harrison (grandson of president William Henry Harrison) win the electoral college but lose the popular vote to Cleveland. Cleveland won 48.62% to Harrison's 47.82% with Prohibition candidate Clinton Fisk taking 2.2%.
In 1892 Cleveland ran a third time for president. He won 46.02% to Harrison's 43.01%, while Populist James Weaver won 8.51% and Prohibitionist John Bidwell won 2.24%. In the electoral college, the score was 277 to 145 to 22 for Weaver. The Populists clearly threatened Harrison more than Cleveland; states that went GOP in 1888 like Nevada, kansas and Colorado, went to Weaver in 1892. Other states were lost by Harrison where Weaver took more votes than the margin of the loss. There's a very strong likelihood that the Populists gave this election to Cleveland.
However, the states of California, Indiana and Wisconsin saw Cleveland win by fewer votes than Bidwell took. Although the extra 35 electoral votes wouldn't have won the election for Harrison, the Prohibitionists affected the Republican outcome.
By consistently siphoning Republican voters from the GOP candidate for President, the Prohibition Party exerted more influence than its votes alone would warrant. They threatened the Republicans and thus forced the GOP to advance the cause of Prohibition. It was a strongly Republican Congress that passed the Volstead Act over Wilson's veto.
Even though the Prohibition Party never elected a President, they transmitted their signature issue to the main parties by making them lose elections until they paid attention.