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