Battle of the Alamo 1836 CE (February 23 – March 6, 1836)

The Alamo was built as a mission, not a fort. So, the Texans had to work hard to build higher and thicker walls, add cannons, and add high fences made of stakes.

The belligerents were the Mexican Republic—under command of Antonio López de Santa Anna—versus the newly declared Republic of Texas—under command of William Barret Travis.

In December 1835 after the Battle of San Antonio, many Texans thought that the centralist threat to Texas had ended.

On Tuesday, February 23, 1836, General Antonio López de Santa Anna arrived in San Antonio that afternoon with the vanguard of his army. Mexican forces quietly occupy San Antonio and begin surrounding the Alamo.

A bloodred banner was raised atop the bell tower of San Fernando Church, signifying that no prisoners would be taken. Colonel William B. Travis ordered a cannon fired in response. Santa Anna was outraged. The Mexican soldiers fired back.

The Texans were unaware that Santa Anna had decided to lead his army into Texas. They believed that he would wait until spring to launch an attack. As a result, the Texas forces remained unorganized and scattered. Their lack of preparation would ultimately cost them at their next encounter with Mexican troops, the Battle of the Alamo.

The siege of the Alamo had begun. Mexican artillery began to bombard the fort. Santa Anna wanted to smash down the walls. It was to last 13 days. All but a few of the 200 defenders of the Alamo are killed in battle. The prisoners are executed. Santa Anna reports 70 of his men killed, while reports claim as many as 400 men killed.
Battle of the Alamo 1836 CE (February 23 – March 6, 1836)

Battle of Princeton on January 3, 1777

In 1777 the Americans cut short a British plan to divide and conquer the colonies. The British surrendered a large force to the Continental Army after the battles of Saratoga in New York, but were able to capture the patriot capital at Philadelphia.

In December, an optimistic, but weary Continental Army marched into winter quarters at Valley Forge. On January 3, 1777 George Washington follows up triumph at Trenton with a victory at the Battle of Princeton, New Jersey. Some 40 Americans were killed or wounded in the battle, while the British suffered 85 killed and wounded, and lost another 200 prisoners.

The American victory at the Battle of Princeton was one of the most consequential of the American Revolution. George Washington and his soldiers marched north from Trenton and attacked a British force south of the town.
Battle of Princeton on January 3, 1777

American Civil War (1861-65)

The Civil War was rooted in the civil societies of Northern and Southern states, based in uneven national modernization. Deracinated populations sought political and cultural solutions.

It was a social and military conflict between the United States of America in the North and the Confederate States of American in the South.

Both sides had advantages and weaknesses. The North had a greater population, more factories, supplies and more money than the South. The South had more experienced military leadership, better trained armies, and the advantage of fighting on familiar territory.

Combat began on 12 April 1861 at Fort Sumter in Charleston, South Carolina, and intensified as 4 more states joined the South. Although many Confederate and Unionist leaders believed the war would be short, it dragged on until 26 May 1865, when the last major Confederate army surrendered.
American Civil War (1861-65)

 

Battle of Fort Pillow

It is an engagement in which Confederate soldiers allegedly murdered defenseless African American troops.

On March 16, 1864, Confederate major general Nathan Bedford Forrest began a raid by some 7 cavalry into Kentucky that reached as far as Paducah in March 25.

From nearby Jackson, Tennessee, the Confederate cavalry General Nathan Forrest detached a division under Gen, James Chalmers, with some 1500 -2000 men, to attack the Fort Pillow, defended by 262 Negro and 295 white soldiers. Fort Pillow was built on the eastern bank of the Mississippi River about 4 miles north of Memphis in 1861.

 Chalmers began an investment of Fort Pillow at dawn on April 12. The Confederates quickly drove the Union pickets in and then occupied hills that allowed sharpshooters to begin engaging the fort’s defenders.

Fort Pillow’s defenders fought bravely but were overwhelmed by sheer force of numbers. The Federal commander, Maj. Lionel Booth was killed by a sniper and replaced by Maj, William Bradford. Many were shot down as they attempted to flee to the river; others were shot in the river or drowned.

In Mid -afternoon Bradford refused a surrender ultimatum from Forrest, who had arrived to take personal charge of the attack. The Confederate then assaulted the fort and captured it with a loss of only 14 killed and 86 wounded. The garrison, however, suffered 231 killed, 100 serious wounded and 226 captured (including 58 Negroes).
Battle of Fort Pillow

Battle of the Little Bighorn

The date 25 June 1876 marks the anniversary of the Battle of the Little Bighorn, the anniversary of the day George Armstrong Custer led approximately 268 men to their deaths in Montana wilderness.

The battle was the dramatic beginning of the end for the Indian Wars of the plains and the final closing of the reservations.

The battle epitomizes the clash of cultures – the Native American and the Euro-American. On the morning of the 25th, Custer and his 7th Cavalry read the divide between Rosebud and the Little Bighorn rivers. From a spot known as the Crow’s Nest, they observed a large Indian camp.

The Lakota and Cheyenne warriors, although surprised by the army’s attack, quickly rallied and put all elements of the Seventh Cavalry’s attack on the defensive. The Indians fought in small, loosely affiliated groups.

In the battle the 7th Cavalry suffered 268 men dead, which was nearly 40 percent of the regiment’s prebattle strength. The Battle of the Little Bighorn shocked the army and the entire nation. Washington immediately sent out reinforcements to the Northern Plains, and by the spring of 1877 virtually all the renegade Sioux, including Crazy Horse and Sitting Bull, had been hunted down and removed to reservations.

The victors could hardly have predicted what followed: Crazy Horse’s assassination, the Wild West Show stardom of Sitting Bull, the allotment of the India lands under the Dawes Act and the final killing of Minneconjou Sioux over the Ghost Dance resistance.
Battle of the Little Bighorn

Why Comparing Cost of Living is Hard - 1978 Edition

Right - this is the sort of thing that makes me irritable when people talk about history.  I decided to being with the truck.  I used a base of a Ford F-150 as the model remains in production and dug up, through the NADA guides, a Ford F-150 model in 1978 that came as close as I could to $6800 in 1978 bucks.

It is a base model price of $5,300 (high retail) and comes with 4 wheel drive, a 460 V8 engine (man grunting noises can be inserted here), and factory installed air conditioning.  It looks like this:

Now, I had to dig a bit to find a Ford F-150 today that actually cost $40,000 MSRP but I did find one, and it comes with some interesting features that probably aren't in the F-150 above, including:  power windows, brake assist, power door mirrors, front fog lights, a low tire pressure warning system, a security system, 6 disc CD player, remote keyless entry, speed-sensing steering, a front anti-roll bar, electronic stability control, power steering, traction control, and enough airbags to snuggle you on all sides if you hit something.

Now if we use the Consumer Price Index Inflation calculator the buying power of $6800 in 1978 translates into about $25,326.77.

For pretty close to that price you CAN get the truck pictured above, sans the boat - a base model Ford F-150 which only comes with a single-row cab, rear wheel drive, an aluminum body, and a base 2.7 liter EcoBoost V6.  If you are willing to go up to $29,000 roughly, you can get the man-grunting V8.  So comparing the man-grunting V8s you find that in reality the price difference is the man-grunting V8 costs about 14% more today than it did in 1978.  (But I'd add you still get a lot of nice features for that markup, including the snuggle-bundle of airbags.)

But, I can hear you saying, gasoline is pretty consistent and look at how much THAT has gone up in price since 1978.  Well, again gasoline is no longer gasoline, thanks to the additions of scrubbing detergents, more precision blending, and synthetics but we'll go along and say "gas is gas."  The 1978 base price per gallon:  $0.60.  Translated into today's dollars per gallon: $2.23.  (Again, Consumer Price Index Inflation calculator.)

Per CNN Money and its gas price index there are spots in the U.S. were the average price for standard octane gasoline per gallon is above $2.23 - California ($2.47), Alaska ($2.34), and Hawaii ($2.63).  Congratulations, if you live in those three states you can bitch that the price of gasoline is above inflation from 1978!  For everyone else in the United States guess what, gas is cheaper in 2017 per gallon, adjusted, than it was in 1978.  (For the record according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics the actual average price of unleaded gasoline in 1978 in the U.S. ranged from $0.65 to $0.71 per gallon, which translated to modern dollars means only Hawaii can still complain.)

Yeah but the wage gap, now that is valid, he made $10 per hour in 1978 and now he makes $17 an hour, that is hardly fair.  In that our meme is correct, in 2017 dollars a wage of $10 per hour would translate to an inflation adjusted wage of $37.25.  You'd see a worker with that wage making $74,500 per year (2000 hour work year) against $34,000 at $17 per hour.  But comparing those wages isn't quite fair, so lets do minimum wage.

1978 minimum wage, per the U.S. Department of Labor (covered professions) - $2.65 per hour.  In modern buying power:  $9.87 per hour.  Current U.S. federal minimum wage:  $7.25 per hour.  (About 36% below where it should be if the minimum wage had kept up with inflation.)

But the wage he mentioned above is almost half the modern wage, so what happened?

To really understand we need a product that is not limited by shipping/spoilage issues, that requires relatively low-skill to assemble, is non-capital equipment heavy to produce, and has remained relatively consistent in design since 1978.  Meet Wrangler Jeans, made by the same company, to roughly the same quality specifications, since 1978.

Price of one pair of Men's Wrangler Jeans circa 1978:  $5.98 per pair
Price of one pair of Men's Wrangler Jeans circa 2017 adjusting 1978 bucks for inflation:  $22.27
Actual price per Walmart 2017:  $16.77

The difference is about 33% and that difference covers several sins:  higher corporate profits, transportation for foreign assembly, and cheaper labor.

See since the 1980s onward the United States has pretty much embraced the idea that consumers don't want to pay the level of costs for goods necessary to ensure that low-skill factory workers could afford nice three bedroom homes and shiny new Ford F-150 trucks.

You may not agree with it, you may not like it, and I've been reading up recently on why it has happened in several different books, but that cornerstone lesson seems in place.  If you want a United States where a guy who sews jeans can afford a 3 bedroom house and a nice truck, you are going to be spending about 32% per unit for that pair of lovely jeans you see above you.

Sources:  Consumer Price Index inflation adjuster (US Department of Labor), NADA guides entry on 1978 Ford F-150, 2013 TED Economics presentation on gasoline prices, U.S. Department of Labor table of minimum wage rates, 1978 guide to prices by the Morris County library, Wikipedia entry on Wrangler Jeans (timeline of corporate events)

Trump's Address, Lincoln, and Protectionism

After reading President Trump's full address to the United States Congress on 28 February 2017, I was struck by a particular quote he included:

"abandonment of the protective policy by the American Government [will] produce want and ruin among our people."  President Trump was quoting President Abraham Lincoln, who he described as "the first Republican President."  What is interesting about this is that both are technically correct, Lincoln did indeed pen that quote, and Lincoln was the first Republican President of the United States.  However linking those two made it sound like that quote was representing a policy of President Lincoln in office, and that is not exactly the case.

President Lincoln in the 1860s did support a higher United States tariff, however the quote was taken from his writing on the subject in 1846, when he was about to enter Congress.  During his election for the Presidency Lincoln was a great deal more circumspect on the issue of the tariff, due to regional political issues and also the rising tension with the southern states, which remained broadly opposed to tariff protections.  More critically though, although the tariff was a means of protecting domestic United States industry at the time, it played a more critical role to the federal government in the early to mid 19th century - mainly as the primary source of revenue for the United States government.

Meet Hiram Barney, the Collector of the Port of New York from 1861 to 1864, President Lincoln's appointee to handle one of the key revenue points in the United States' federal revenue stream.  Prior to the legalization of direct income tax one of the key sources of non-borrowing revenue for the United States was tariff revenues, which were broadly collected across all goods imported into the United States.  The various tariff bills in the 1850s onward were oriented towards collecting uniform revenues whose purpose was to fund the federal government without favoring one area of the economy over another.

To put it more bluntly, the kind of tariff system designed to generate federal revenue, not to shield the United States economy from foreign competitive trade.  Because the economy of the United States in the 1860s was very different than the United States economy of the 1840s, when the quote President Trump is citing was written.

The debate on United States trade policy and the value of tariffs is a fine topic for debate and discussion, economists around the world have varying positions on the subject.  But it certainly should not be justified by a quote from 1840s Abraham Lincoln, talking about a fundamentally different way to organize the United States economy and its sources of federal revenue.

Sources:  Wikipedia entries on Hiram Barney and U.S. Tariff policy, Abraham Lincoln classroom on Lincoln and the Tariff, the University of Michigan library collected works of Abraham Lincoln (and quote source), and the transcript of President Trump's speech

Cold War 1958 - the Second Taiwan Crisis and a possible Nuclear War

Some of the more common known flash points of the Cold War in the United States are the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 and the Berlin Crisis of 1958, well known because they directly impacted the United States or involved a European nation.  However I was surprised to learn in 1958 there was another major Cold War flash point in Asia, specifically the Second Taiwan Straits Crisis.  Furthermore in some ways this particular crisis point appears to have been one of the closest ones to sparking an actual use of atomic weapons by the United States in a conventional conflict.

In 1958 Mao Zedong, China's leader, remained determined to bring the Republic of China, located on Taiwan island, under the control of the People's Republic of China.  Previously Mao had launched attacks on small islands controlled by Taiwan, usually through naval shelling, and in 1958 he made a second attempt to do so.  However in 1958 the United States was in a unique position to threaten excessive belligerence in response - in 1954 the United States and the Republic of China had signed a defensive agreement, binding the United States to come to the aid of Taiwan if attacked.  Furthermore in 1955 Eisenhower had persuaded Congress to pass the "Formosan Resolution" - an authorizing agreement allowing Eisenhower to use whatever force he deemed necessary to defend Taiwan without further consulting Congress.

Eisenhower initially responded to Mao's actions with traditional forces, deploying naval units to the Taiwan Straits and ordering protection of convoys bringing supplies to Taiwan.  However the Soviet Union, wanting to avoid an actual conflict between the United States and China, sent diplomats to negotiate a settlement to the crisis.  They were horrified to find that Mao, and other top Communist Chinese leaders, were ready for a conflict with the United States and appeared ready to accept possible nuclear weapons attacks against China.  Eisenhower, in turn, had accepted defending Taiwan from Communist China would require the use of nuclear weapons and had accepted a United States military plan to use nuclear weapons if needed.  Eisenhower even authorized deploying additional nuclear weapons to the region to ensure if they were required they were ready for immediate deployment.

Nikita Khrushchev, leader of the Soviet Union, added to the crisis further on 19 September 1958 when he sent a letter to Eisenhower stating that the Soviet Union had "nuclear and hydrogen bombs as well" and strongly implying if China was attacked, the Soviet Union would respond.  The United States at this time though had a massive strategic lead in atomic weapons, in both number and delivery capacity over the Soviet Union, and Eisenhower and the United States military were comfortable with this risk.  Eisenhower kept the nuclear forces in Taiwan and refused to back down.

The crisis was ultimately defused by Mao backing down and simply allowing the situation to deescalate.  Communist and Republic Chinese forces ended up exchanging shells with each other, filled with propaganda, on alternating days for several months.  Communist China kept up its shelling of propaganda shells until 1979 due to this confrontation.

What was surprising to me though was this crisis seemed MUCH more likely to lead to the use of nuclear weapons, Eisenhower and the United States Congress were comfortable with it, China was apparently fine with it, and the Soviet Union would probably have let the exchange take place.  Although the Cuban Missile Crisis was closer to an actual launch, this seems more terrifying because the participants seemed far more comfortable with it breaking loose than other crisis points in the Cold War.

Sources:  Wikipedia articles on the Second Taiwan Straits Crisis and Eisenhower, and The Cold War - A Very Short Introduction by Robert J. McMahon

Cold War 1958 - the Second Taiwan Crisis and a possible Nuclear War

Some of the more common known flash points of the Cold War in the United States are the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 and the Berlin Crisis of 1958, well known because they directly impacted the United States or involved a European nation.  However I was surprised to learn in 1958 there was another major Cold War flash point in Asia, specifically the Second Taiwan Straits Crisis.  Furthermore in some ways this particular crisis point appears to have been one of the closest ones to sparking an actual use of atomic weapons by the United States in a conventional conflict.

In 1958 Mao Zedong, China's leader, remained determined to bring the Republic of China, located on Taiwan island, under the control of the People's Republic of China.  Previously Mao had launched attacks on small islands controlled by Taiwan, usually through naval shelling, and in 1958 he made a second attempt to do so.  However in 1958 the United States was in a unique position to threaten excessive belligerence in response - in 1954 the United States and the Republic of China had signed a defensive agreement, binding the United States to come to the aid of Taiwan if attacked.  Furthermore in 1955 Eisenhower had persuaded Congress to pass the "Formosan Resolution" - an authorizing agreement allowing Eisenhower to use whatever force he deemed necessary to defend Taiwan without further consulting Congress.

Eisenhower initially responded to Mao's actions with traditional forces, deploying naval units to the Taiwan Straits and ordering protection of convoys bringing supplies to Taiwan.  However the Soviet Union, wanting to avoid an actual conflict between the United States and China, sent diplomats to negotiate a settlement to the crisis.  They were horrified to find that Mao, and other top Communist Chinese leaders, were ready for a conflict with the United States and appeared ready to accept possible nuclear weapons attacks against China.  Eisenhower, in turn, had accepted defending Taiwan from Communist China would require the use of nuclear weapons and had accepted a United States military plan to use nuclear weapons if needed.  Eisenhower even authorized deploying additional nuclear weapons to the region to ensure if they were required they were ready for immediate deployment.

Nikita Khrushchev, leader of the Soviet Union, added to the crisis further on 19 September 1958 when he sent a letter to Eisenhower stating that the Soviet Union had "nuclear and hydrogen bombs as well" and strongly implying if China was attacked, the Soviet Union would respond.  The United States at this time though had a massive strategic lead in atomic weapons, in both number and delivery capacity over the Soviet Union, and Eisenhower and the United States military were comfortable with this risk.  Eisenhower kept the nuclear forces in Taiwan and refused to back down.

The crisis was ultimately defused by Mao backing down and simply allowing the situation to deescalate.  Communist and Republic Chinese forces ended up exchanging shells with each other, filled with propaganda, on alternating days for several months.  Communist China kept up its shelling of propaganda shells until 1979 due to this confrontation.

What was surprising to me though was this crisis seemed MUCH more likely to lead to the use of nuclear weapons, Eisenhower and the United States Congress were comfortable with it, China was apparently fine with it, and the Soviet Union would probably have let the exchange take place.  Although the Cuban Missile Crisis was closer to an actual launch, this seems more terrifying because the participants seemed far more comfortable with it breaking loose than other crisis points in the Cold War.

Sources:  Wikipedia articles on the Second Taiwan Straits Crisis and Eisenhower, and The Cold War - A Very Short Introduction by Robert J. McMahon

Independent Automakers, Post-World War II, and Labor Unrest

Within the United States for a long period of time automobile production was dominated by "The Big Three" - General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler.  This dominance led to a nearly crushing control of the United States automobile market, however with the end of World War II an unusual combination of forces came together to create a strange temporary niche for smaller automobile manufacturers to break into the domestic United States market.  This fed a short early period in the 1950s where American consumers suddenly saw a collection of unusual and innovative cars appearing in the United States marketplace, until the Big Three were able to reassert their dominance.

From 1942 to 1945 the major labor unions within the United States entered into an informal bargain with the United States government, in exchange for no sanctioned strikes the federal government would support the "closed shop" model throughout the United States.  This compromise was seen as necessary to support the war production effort and unions throughout the United States worked to keep strikes to a minimum.  Workers however did go out on strike, usually small wildcat strikes that were not approved and not supported by the unions.  With the end of World War II in 1945 however President Truman decided that the United States economy needed to get back to normal as quickly as possible.  He drastically cut federal military spending and pushed for the United States domestic economy to transition back to civilian production.

Part of this shift to a post-war economy involved ending the high wages paid to workers that had been fueled by United States military spending.  This, in turn, provoked a massive wave of strikes that roiled the United States between 1945 to 1947.  This led to a period of unprecedented federal action against striking workers, including President Truman seizing entire industries and putting them under federal control to keep the economy functioning, using special emergency powers granted to fight World War II.  Hundreds of thousands of workers left their jobs, including mass strikes by organized automobile employees and steelworkers.  This, in turn, created shortfalls of domestic automobile production right after World War II, a period in which Americans were hungry for new cars, having just lived through a three year civilian car production drought and having ample funds saved from wartime higher rates of pay.

Where there is a shortage and a high level of demand, new suppliers will appear.  During the late 1940s even smaller independent car manufacturers had trouble shifting in new models, but the Big Three faced the same challenges.  So when the early 1950s rolled around an assortment of small manufacturers could offer a car hungry public something "different" at the same time the Big Three rolled out their new lines.  Sales numbers never came close to the Big Three but for a few magical years in the late 1940s and early 1950s, small car companies began to command noticeable market share.

Even some truly new ideas appeared, like the Tucker Torpedo above, which never really got off the ground but did catch a great number of people's eye.

A particularly odd addition to this early line-up, and a missed opportunity due to timing not being quite right, was the Nash Rambler.  This adorable little car was produced between 1950 to 1955 and captured a small segment of the American domestic market.  It occupied a new niche in the American market, fuel efficient, compact, economic cars built to high quality.  Unfortunately the majority of American car purchasers were looking for larger, more powerful, and more feature-laden automobiles at the time and the Nash Rambler didn't make the impact that was hoped.  Even after 1955, with the American Motors Corporation keeping the line alive for several more years, it just missed the mark.

That market segment didn't really explode until the 1960s, you might recognize that iconic car above as the major winner of that change in United States domestic car tastes.  Further challenges appeared in the 1970s with the oil price spikes and a shift to interest in Japanese compact cars.  It is interesting to note though that the Nash Rambler would have been ready for that market opening, if the timing had just been right. 

A niche carved out due, in large part, to the economic turmoil from 1945 to 1947 combined with a public crazy for new cars and willing to give the unusual a spin.

Sources:  Wikipedia articles on the Volkswagen Beetle, the Tucker 48 Torpedo, the Nash Rambler, the Strike Waves of 1945-1946, the Presidency of Harry S Truman, and Automotive History of the United States post-World War II, this article on World War II and post-World War II labor unrest, and American 'Independent' Automakers, AMC to Willys 1945 to 1960 part of the "Those Were The Days" series by Veloce Books.

Independent Automakers, Post-World War II, and Labor Unrest

Within the United States for a long period of time automobile production was dominated by "The Big Three" - General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler.  This dominance led to a nearly crushing control of the United States automobile market, however with the end of World War II an unusual combination of forces came together to create a strange temporary niche for smaller automobile manufacturers to break into the domestic United States market.  This fed a short early period in the 1950s where American consumers suddenly saw a collection of unusual and innovative cars appearing in the United States marketplace, until the Big Three were able to reassert their dominance.

From 1942 to 1945 the major labor unions within the United States entered into an informal bargain with the United States government, in exchange for no sanctioned strikes the federal government would support the "closed shop" model throughout the United States.  This compromise was seen as necessary to support the war production effort and unions throughout the United States worked to keep strikes to a minimum.  Workers however did go out on strike, usually small wildcat strikes that were not approved and not supported by the unions.  With the end of World War II in 1945 however President Truman decided that the United States economy needed to get back to normal as quickly as possible.  He drastically cut federal military spending and pushed for the United States domestic economy to transition back to civilian production.

Part of this shift to a post-war economy involved ending the high wages paid to workers that had been fueled by United States military spending.  This, in turn, provoked a massive wave of strikes that roiled the United States between 1945 to 1947.  This led to a period of unprecedented federal action against striking workers, including President Truman seizing entire industries and putting them under federal control to keep the economy functioning, using special emergency powers granted to fight World War II.  Hundreds of thousands of workers left their jobs, including mass strikes by organized automobile employees and steelworkers.  This, in turn, created shortfalls of domestic automobile production right after World War II, a period in which Americans were hungry for new cars, having just lived through a three year civilian car production drought and having ample funds saved from wartime higher rates of pay.

Where there is a shortage and a high level of demand, new suppliers will appear.  During the late 1940s even smaller independent car manufacturers had trouble shifting in new models, but the Big Three faced the same challenges.  So when the early 1950s rolled around an assortment of small manufacturers could offer a car hungry public something "different" at the same time the Big Three rolled out their new lines.  Sales numbers never came close to the Big Three but for a few magical years in the late 1940s and early 1950s, small car companies began to command noticeable market share.

Even some truly new ideas appeared, like the Tucker Torpedo above, which never really got off the ground but did catch a great number of people's eye.

A particularly odd addition to this early line-up, and a missed opportunity due to timing not being quite right, was the Nash Rambler.  This adorable little car was produced between 1950 to 1955 and captured a small segment of the American domestic market.  It occupied a new niche in the American market, fuel efficient, compact, economic cars built to high quality.  Unfortunately the majority of American car purchasers were looking for larger, more powerful, and more feature-laden automobiles at the time and the Nash Rambler didn't make the impact that was hoped.  Even after 1955, with the American Motors Corporation keeping the line alive for several more years, it just missed the mark.

That market segment didn't really explode until the 1960s, you might recognize that iconic car above as the major winner of that change in United States domestic car tastes.  Further challenges appeared in the 1970s with the oil price spikes and a shift to interest in Japanese compact cars.  It is interesting to note though that the Nash Rambler would have been ready for that market opening, if the timing had just been right. 

A niche carved out due, in large part, to the economic turmoil from 1945 to 1947 combined with a public crazy for new cars and willing to give the unusual a spin.

Sources:  Wikipedia articles on the Volkswagen Beetle, the Tucker 48 Torpedo, the Nash Rambler, the Strike Waves of 1945-1946, the Presidency of Harry S Truman, and Automotive History of the United States post-World War II, this article on World War II and post-World War II labor unrest, and American 'Independent' Automakers, AMC to Willys 1945 to 1960 part of the "Those Were The Days" series by Veloce Books.

1920 National Defense Act, Tank Developments, and World War II (Why U.S. WW II tanks kind of sucked)

One of the unusual stories from the interwar period (1919 - 1941 for the United States) is the passing of the National Defense Act of 1920.  Sponsored by Julius Kahn this piece of legislation reorganized the United States Army and modified the rules on procurement and acquisitions, aiming to decentralize the process.  The National Defense Act of 1920, to my eye, has its greatest impact in how it influenced the development of tanks in the United States between World War I and World War II, due to a key technical requirement of the bill, that tanks were to be subordinated to the needs of the Army.  During World War I the United States had played with the idea of a separate Tanks Corps but after the war decided to focus in on tanks serving in an infantry support roll.

This, frankly, annoyed two leading United States military figures, Patton and Eisenhower, because it would strip tanks of their mobility potential and instead put them on the path of being rolling infantry support vehicles.  Congress however was firm on this point and also reduced the available budget for tank development to a bare minimum, forcing the army to pour its development dollars in the 1920s into vehicles like the one pictured above, the M2, a slow, under armed, mobile gun platform with an emphasis on machine guns to cut down advancing infantry over heavy cannons to destroy other tanks.

However Douglas MacArthur was made Chief of Staff of the United States Army and MacArthur wanted the United States Army to focus on being a faster, more mobile, and more nimble force.  He also wanted to develop tanks that focused on mobility and anti-tank capacity over lumbering along behind the infantry with a wad of machine guns.  But Congress had forbidden any development of tanks except by the Army, so what was a newly appointed general to do?

As it turns out, engage in some legal trickery.  The top image, and the one just above, are of respectively the T7 Combat Car and the M1 Combat Car.  Nearly identical to tanks they were developed by the United States Cavalry and use of development dollars was permitted because MacArthur told the Congress, with a straight face, that these weren't tanks.  No, these were "combat cars" - use they had armor, they had treads, and they had guns, but they were "cars" not tanks.  In fact the T7 Combat Car pictured at the top was built so it could be converted from treads to rubber tires, so it could flexibly roll along paved roads and then switch to an off-road tracked configuration.

This focus by Congress on cost-savings, and pinching military development funds during the interwar period, did help reduce the federal budget but it also led to the United States entering World War II with some, speaking frankly, really shitty tanks.  What you see above is the M3 Medium Tank, the Grant, which was obsolete at the start of the war and featured the terrible design flaw of many western tanks of the period, putting the heavy armament in a fixed side turret because fully rotating top turrets were hard to make work well.  The problem with this design is if your enemy happens to have a tank with a moving turret they have a better chance of lining up your non-cannon side for a kill shot.  (Note the awesome side mounted machine guns though.)

The United States did eventually hammer the issues out, with the design of the M4 Sherman, but it was made under pressure of war.  The United States also never really got into the business of real heavy tanks until World War II was nearly over, leading to some very lopsided tank engagements in 1944 through 1945 with the German army.

But I remain convinced it all hinges on the 1920 National Defense Act and how Congress shifted the focus of the United States military towards a fun-sized cost-saving military plan.

Sources:  Wikipedia articles on U.S. Tank Development History, the 1920 National Defense Act, the T7 Combat Car, the M1 Combat Car, and U.S. Army Military history journal entry on the Birth of the Armored Forces

The Great Stagflation and Modern America

The United States has faced a series of major economic issues in its history, the two most commonly discussed are the Great Depression (1929 to 1942 arguably) and the Great Recession (2008 – 2009 officially) but between those two is a lumpy, difficult to fathom, general economic decline that ran from 1971 until roughly 1982 which could be considered the Great Stagflation.  It was the hallmark of the 1970s United States economy, with a solid impact on the British economy as well.  Within the United States it was caused by an intersection of several different policy issues, economic impacts, and major events, such as the two oil shocks that took place in that decade as OPEC reduced oil production in response to the United States’ position towards Israel.

Nixon, who had a very loose concern for domestic economic issues, made the problems worse when facing the gold crisis of 1971.  Briefly the United States pegged the dollar to a fixed conversion rate and other currencies were fixed to the United States dollar.  During the early 1970s the dollar ended up being worth less in actual goods and services than its fixed gold value, leading to other nations beginning to convert their dollar holdings into gold.  Nixon nipped that problem by simply ending the gold conversion of dollars “temporarily” and then imposing price controls to take the sting out of the sudden devaluing of the United States dollar as foreign governments dumped their now non-convertible dollars.  This was fine for Nixon, he was facing re-election in 1972 and he simply wanted domestic voters to feel that their paychecks remained the same, it didn’t matter to him what happened to the economy post-1972 as much, he simply planed to fix it then.

One of the impacts of this, and other factors such as rising foreign competition that cut the United States share of global trade, spiked inflation rates.  This combined though with an unusual factor, as rising inflation eroded the buying power of domestic wages in the United States, organized labor was powerful enough to demand wage increases from companies to offset the inflation.  This reduced the amount of capital available for investment and the economic instability and uncertainty that rising inflation caused discouraged many businesses from entering into any major investments.  This led to economic stagnation, the production of goods and services simply didn’t expand to meet the growing money supply, which caused shocking inflation rates.  (During the height of the crisis inflation rates of 10% were not uncommon in a single year.)

Normally economic cycles tweak the system, but the events of the 1970s reshaped the United States economic and political landscape.  First, rising inflation pushed up the tax brackets which working and middle class employees were taxed at, as the brackets were not indexed in the 1970s to inflation.  So although the relative buying power of a paycheck remained the same, the bite taken out by state and local taxes went up for many workers, reducing their overall net pay.  This combined with many states reporting record surpluses due to the revenues taken in, and a resistance by those state governments to return the surpluses to the voters.  (California was notorious for this, socking away much of the surplus for future anticipated shortfalls or new programs once the economy settled down.)  Property taxes shot up as well, as the paper value of homes skyrocketed due to inflation and people saw their property tax bills rocket upwards, further reducing their buying power.

The result was a general tax revolt across the United States as citizens, in state elections and in 1980 with the election of Ronald Reagan and a Republican Congress, demanded their tax burden be lowered.  What made this shift particularly unique though was that prior to the late 1970s and early 1980s the United States populous had been less leery of inflation, and higher taxes, and more leery of the government reducing its safety nets.  By the height of this crisis the United States citizenry had changed their demands, inflation control and lower taxes were more critical to them than safety nets, especially safety nets that seemed to re-route funds from middle class pockets to the poor, minorities, and immigrants.

Which state governments, and the federal government, responded to with great gusto.  The federal government, and state governments, slashed social welfare programs aggressively and changed the regulatory client to make the government more pro-business.  This combined with a focused effort to reduce the power of organized labor and allowing unemployment to spike, and a sharp early 1980s recession, to crush inflation.  In many ways since then the United States as a nation has not looked back, and other nations have followed its model, focusing on tight government services, reduced social support for the lowest portions of society, and keeping the tax burden controlled.

Sources:  Wikipedia articles on stagflation, the Nixon Shock, and the 1973-1975 recession, Investopedia article on the Great Inflation of the 1970s, Dollars and Sense article on the 1970s economic crisis, and chapters from The Seventies:  The Great Shift in American Culture, Society, and Politics by Bruce J. Schulman

Battle of Corinth (October 3 - 4, 1862)

The Battle of Corinth was part of a large scale Confederate counteroffensive in the early autumn of 1862 that included simultaneously invasion of Pennsylvania, Kentucky and western Tennessee.

In the Battle of Corinth, the Confederates hope to size the railroad junction and then undertake an invasion of Tennessee.

On October 3, 1862, Maj. Gen. Earl Van Dorn and Maj. Gen. Sterling Price hurled their combined force of 22,000 men against 21,000 Union troops under Maj. Gen. William Rosecrans manning works at Corinth.

The Confederate force marched northward and entered Tennessee. Then the cavalry began to destroy the railroads leading to Corinth, thus preventing the rapid reinforcement of the Union troops there.

The coordinates attack by Confederates turned the Union defenders out of extensive earthworks north of Corinth, then drove the Union troops back some two miles into the city’s inner defenses by late afternoon on October 3.

At 6 pm, Van Dorn calls a halt to the day’s fighting, stating that his men were exhausted. Van Dorn is certain victory can be won the following day.
 
Van Dorn renewed the battle in earnest the next morning, but after initial gains his troops succumbed to exhaustion, thirst and a well times Union counterattack that decisively frustrated the Confederate effort.

Van Dorn is forced to abandon the field. By early afternoon, Union troops were cutting up the Southerners all along the line, and the Confederates withdrew southward to Ripley. Rosecrans however failed to pursue.

In two days bloody battle of Corinth, Union forces suffered some of 2,500 casualties, while the Confederates lost 2460 killed or wounded and another 1763 missing or deserted in the withdrawal to Ripley.

Van Dorn was forced to undergo a court of inquiry, including a charge of being drunk during the battle, but he was ultimately exonerated.

Rosecrans is lauded in the Northern press, and on October 23 U.S President Abraham Lincoln rewards him with command of XIV Corps.
Battle of Corinth (October 3–4, 1862)

Pentagon

Pentagon
Pentagon, headquarters for the Department of Defense and of the army, the navy and the air force.

Before the attack on Pearl Harbor, the Department of War and the Department of the Navy were housed at the President’s right hand, in what is now known as Eisenhower Executive Building at 17th and Pennsylvania in Washington.

Planners decided to bring the War and Navy Departments and 15 other military agencies together in one place for the sake of efficiency. The building they designed is remarkable even 60 years later.

Located in Arlington, Virginia across the Potomac River from Washington, D.C, the Pentagon is a five story, five sided building.

Covering an area of thirty-four caress and 3.7 million square feet of office space it is one of the largest offices building in the world.

It is twice as large as the Merchandise Mart in Chicago and has three times the office space of Empire State Building in New York.

Completed in 1943, it is though to be one of the most efficient office buildings in the world.

Despite 17.5 miles of corridors it takes only seven minutes to walk between any two points in the building.

Working within this famous building is a very large number of employees with great talent, resilience, and dedication.

Most insiders refer to the Pentagon simply as the “Building” or a more affectionately as the Puzzle Palace.

One side of the Pentagon was damaged by the September 11, 2001, Terrorist Attack when a hijacked airplane was intentionally crashed into building

The crash and subsequent fore killed 184 people, including the passengers and crew of the jetliner.

The attack was coordinated with similar one on the twin towers of the World Trade Center.
Pentagon

Battle of Gettysburg (July 1-3 in 1863)

The people of the United States clashed over slavery from the start. Many Northern States insisted that constitution ban slavery throughout the country. In the South, however, slavery was growing.

In 1860, Abraham Lincoln was elected the sixteenth president of the United States. He opposed the spread of slavery. Soon after Lincoln’s election, 11 states seceded or withdraw from the United States.

They form their own country, the Confederates States of America.

On April 12, 1862, Confederate troops attacked and took control of Fort Summer in South Carolina. Most civil war battles were fought in the South because North want to take back Southern cities and land for the Union.

By 1863, the armies of the North and the South fought in the small town of Gettysburg. Pennsylvania. It became the bloodiest battle of the entire civil war with 30,000 soldier were either injured or killed.

Both North and South had advantages in the war. The North had more manufacturing and better railroad system.

The South, especially at the beginning of the warm had better military leaders. They also knew they only had to fight long enough for the North to give up hope of bringing the states that had seceded or left the Union, back in.

The two forces collided at the town of Gettysburg in the morning of July 1, 1863. The battle lasted three days. The streets of the little town were all dabbled with blood. The tidings of the victory at Gettysburg came to the Northern people on the 4th of July.
Battle of Gettysburg (July 1-3 in 1863)

Book Review: The Man Who Sold The World

Title: The Man Who Sold The World: Ronald Reagan and the Betrayal of Main Street America
Author: William Kleinknecht
Publisher: Nation Books

I read this book about a month ago and I’ve been meaning to post a brief review of it, I purchased it a year ago because it promised to examine the legacy of Ronald Reagan and the actions of his administration and how Reagan’s actions as President of the United States undermined the culture, economy, and political system of the United States.  The author attempts to prove nothing less then Ronald Reagan, or at least those he put in power, deliberately engaged in a series of policies that were intentionally designed to transfer wealth into a smaller pool of hands within the United States, destroy the environment of the United States, and undermine economic organizations and regulations that protected small businesses, small towns, and individual consumers within the United States.  One of the major central arguments the author puts forward is that culturally Reagan undermined the idea of government competence with any sphere of society in the United States and also undermined the idea of community as a guiding force within the United States culturally.  Specifically Kleinknecht argues that Ronald Reagan, in his campaign for the Presidency as well as his administration, emphasized the ideal of the individual over the community, personal gain over societal gain, “me ahead of you” to put it crudely.

The problem however is that Kleinknecht in his book dabbles more in politics and in crafting an opinion then in actually reporting the history of the domestic policies of the Ronald Reagan administration, more critically he misses the target of his subject and instead drifts over a wide range of accusations against various conservative forces that took a leading role in the federal government while Reagan was in office.  Kleinknecht though does not limit his proof to that period, instead he draws upon events that happened while Reagan was in office, George W. Bush Sr. was in office, and William Clinton was in office, attempting to use all of these to prove a more broad hypothesis that conservative elements in the United States, since 1981, have engaged in a constant series of policies that have undermined what Kleinknecht argues are core values of the United States.  Specifically Kleinknecht argues in favor of federal regulation of markets and business, federal control and limitations on the economy, and returning the United States politically towards a system of federal control closer to that of the 1960s and 1970s then the system the United States currently operates under.

All valid outlooks to hold and argue but not matters of history – they are matters of policy and politics.  The line may seem a fine one to draw but Kleinknecht avoids dealing with the history of the Reagan administration directly and instead grapples with the ideology of the Reagan years, but even that task is not attempted in a neutral tone.  Kleinknecht has a point to argue, that Reagan and those Reagan brought into power undermined Kleinknecht’s ideal vision of the society of the United States.  If you are looking for a book documenting the history of the United States in the 1980s and the massive cultural revolution it underwent, a topic of considerable complexity and breadth, this is not a book I can recommend as a starting point.