JACK'S BLOG
|
|
BloggingI USE EMBEDDED LINKS in my website/weblog as little as possible. They're a lot of trouble to maintain. You either have to check them out occasionally to make sure that they're still valid or wait for emails from your visitors complaining that they are broken. I don't have time for the first method, and I don't like annoying my visitors using the second. The idea for this posting came from a novice blogger who visited my website recently and asked me to take a look at his. His website, The Bear's Den, is full of links. Keep in mind that he hasn't yet committed to a content formula. He may have removed the links by the time you read this and visit his website to see for yourself. However, he inspired me to think about whether or not embedding links in a personal website/weblog is a good idea or not.
Let me pause to make clear what I am talking about. A curator is a person who collects things. Not randomly, but with a purpose. For example, a curator at a museum may present a collection of artifacts associated with a specific era and/or place. Without a purpose, a collection is disorganized. It doesn't make sense. The individual items may be interesting but not viewed together. A well-curated collection tells a story that appeals to the likes, needs, or interests of a clearly defined audience. Links that we embed in Tweets aren't collections. They're merely pointers to something that caught our fancy, that we want to share with our followers. We don't have to worry about maintaining them. Whereas links embedded in content in a website/weblog is virtually permanent, links embedded in Tweets are extremely transitory, some lasting mere minutes. I realize that some people scan Twitter almost constantly, using it primarily as a medium for conversation. I doubt if they scan Tweets as far back as even a few minutes. Personally, I scan Tweets just a few times a day and never look back at any older than an hour. A lot of Tweets can accumulate in just an hour when you are following a few thousand Tweeple. There are many links as well as photos, videos, etc. embedded in Facebook and Google+ pages. Again, I don't consider this curating and the links don't need to be maintained. Like Twitter, its content is transitory. Friends and family may scan their boards as far back as the beginning of the current day. I doubt if they go further. Thus, we can assume that the links you find there are still valid. Pinterest is designed to create collections of links. It allows you to organize your collections on boards. Like your website/weblog, the content is virtually permanent and links may become broken when the content they connect to is either moved or deleted. As I wrote this posting, I was inspired to scan my boards of accumulated pins. All of the links there still seemed valid. Actually, this surprised me. Even though I have only been pinning links for a few months, I thought for sure that some of my links might have been broken. Online newspapers have become very popular in recent months for curating web content. The content in most that I have seen is collected to satisfy the interests or needs of a narrowly defined audience, and is generally current. I suppose that someone might be motivated to search past issues. So far I haven't. Thus, online newspapers are collections that are curated for the benefit of a very transitory audience, and there isn't any need to maintain the links. When I responded to the host of The Bear's Den, I mentioned two online newspapers: The Indie Trumpet, published by Venture Galleries, and The Pop Junkie, published by a fellow author. They represent two extremes in the amount of content probably occurring because the former is the work product of multiple editors and the latter, I believe, is one man's work. I chose them as examples for the selfish reason that both frequently feature links to content that I publish on my weblog. Aside from that, The Indie Trumpet has a clearly defined editorial policy (it curates content of interest especially to independent and aspiring authors). The Pop Junkie reflects the interests of its editor. Both are valid. I may begin publishing an online newspaper of my own some day, just as soon as I figure out how to squeeze more than twenty-four hours in each one. Until then, I have more than enough to keep me busy writing blog postings and flash fiction, curating collections of short stories into books, and writing my next novel. That, plus a couple hours spent each day sorting through the social media to promote my website/weblog and being an attentive husband, father, and grandfather, doesn't leave much time. And, yes, I'm sure that you noticed that there are six embedded links in this posting. I'm also sure that I'll be paying a price for them.
4 Comments
Election 2012I STILL HAVE doubts that Romney is truly committed to becoming President of the United States. He didn't display any real passion for it until his first debate with President Obama. The Republican debates during the primary season found Romney awash in conflicting ideas on how to best deal with America's issues. He didn't so much win the nomination of his party, but rather outlasted his opposition as, one-by-one, they fell by the wayside. Mitt Romney's résumé is impressive. He has a long history of resuscitating lost causes: businesses, governments, and the modern Olympics. Some may cry foul at the mention of the Olympic Games inasmuch as he took public funding to help finance them. So what? Some will have to explain to me how that diminishes his accomplishment. The Winter Olympic Games in Salt Lake City that he managed was well organized and the city didn't go bankrupt by hosting them. Now, look at how many businesses have received public funding through Obama, and gone bankrupt. Yes, some businesses that Romney took on ultimately failed, and there are those who quickly point to these failures as reason to discredit his other accomplishments. However, those making this case are only belying their own ignorance of entrepreneurship. Most new businesses fail, as many as ninety percent of them. Romney is remarkable in having a far higher rate of success. The President's record of picking losers is stunning. Does experience as a business executive qualify anyone to be a government executive? Hardly. We can find many examples of successful businessmen and women failing when they attempted to translate their business skills to governing. Arnold Schwarzenegger is a prime example. Many don't realize just how intelligent Arnold is, or how successful he was in business. Unfortunately, he had no experience in politics prior to becoming governor of California. Mitt Romney has no such problem. He has been a successful governor as well as a successful businessman. One thing worries me about Romney. He was challenged in the second debate with President Obama to differentiate himself from former President Bush, and was fairly successful in his response. However, there is one weakness that he shares with Bush. He is equally deluded in the belief that he can “reach across the aisle” to create bipartisan consensus. Both men had experience working with state legislatures dominated by Democrats. Bush came to Washington thinking he could do the same in dealing with Congress. I can still see in my mind's eye, the image of Bush, shortly after his inauguration, standing arm-in-arm with Senator Teddy Kennedy, who quickly began inserting knives into Bush's back at every opportunity. I can imagine the same happening if the Democrats retain control of the Senate, and Romney attempts to get a budget through Congress. . As the candidates discuss government spending during the debates, I can't help but think how futile it all will be if the Democrats continue to stand in the way of any budget that the Republicans attempt to craft. They even rejected the budget plan that Obama submitted. Why would any sane person want to deal with that mess?
Ultimately, Romney probably will fail to deliver on his campaign promises if he is saddled with the Democrats in control of the Senate. He won't be able to rescind Obamacare, revise the tax code, or get government spending under control. Unless, of course, Romney is able to marshal the American electorate to apply enough pressure on the Senate to approve his proposals. Few Presidents have had this ability, and I'm not sure that I see it in Romney as yet. He may surprise me. First, he will have to convince me that he really wants the job 10/18/2012 1 Comment Another U.S. President, Grover Cleveland, fails to resolve the Cuba issue opening the door to war with SpainCubaSPAIN QUICKLY APOLOGIZED for their gunboat firing on the American-flagged mail steamer Aliçana in Cuban waters, and paid an indemnity to its owners, thus reflecting the growing economic and political power of the United States. Grover Cleveland, the first Democratic incumbent in the White House since the Civil War, happily accepted. However, the Republican-dominated Congress used the incident to again agitate for annexation of Cuba. The year of the Aliçana incident, 1895, also saw the resurrection of armed insurgency in Cuba. Indeed, the depredations committed on both sides, were equal to those of the Ten Years War. The Spaniards tried to convince the world that they had the situation well in hand, that the insurgency was not popularly supported, and that it would be crushed in a matter of months if not weeks. But, word reached Congress that ninety percent of the Cuban population was behind the revolt and that it could grind on for years, prompting Senator Frye, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, to proclaim that “I had almost hoped that Spain would assume such an arrogant tone that it would be necessary for the United States to go over and take possession of Cuba.”
The “word” that reached Congress came from American landowners in Cuba. They were convinced that Spain never would be able to administer the island properly, at least not to their economic advantage, and that the Cubans were incapable of self-government. It's interesting to note at this point that Britain's former colonies, almost without exception, transitioned to self-rule successfully. The United States, Canada, India, Australia, New Zealand, et al, were models of democratic ideals. However, former colonies of Spain, France, and other European nations, struggled with self-rule. Indeed, many still struggle. The success of Britain's former colonies lay in the fact that they had been prepared for nationhood. Although the British always retained executive authority within their colonies, they always provided their subjects with some degree of legislative power to decide local issues and craft laws that answered local problems in ways that were consistent with local customs. Thus, Cuba's best self-interest might have been best served had it been annexed by Britain, but that nation had far too many problems with its European neighbors during the 18th, 19th, and 20th Centuries to take a Caribbean island under its wing. It was obvious that Cuba's only hope lay to the north. This view played on José Martí's fear of the “beast”, as he called the United States. He went to Cuba to help lead the fight and win the insurgency before America mustered its resolve. Unfortunately, he died there while leading a charge against the Spaniards. Martí's final thought must have been a prayer for the Cubans to win their independence before the Americans could intervene. His writings belie the fact that he had no faith in the Americans to be as judicious as the British appear to have been. It's not that he believed the Americans to be evil. Rather, it seems that he feared that Cuban customs and identity likely would be lost in the aggressive energy of the Yankees. He need not have feared. His calls for Cuban independence had taken hold, and they would echo throughout the decades to follow. Annexation was never again popular in Cuban political thought. The option to purchase Cuba which had surfaced repeatedly in the past was summarily dismissed. Fitzhugh Lee, dispatched to Havana by the Cleveland Administration to determine if the insurrectionists had a de facto government. His reports left the President and his Secretary of State with serious doubts that the Cubans would be able to govern themselves. Once again, Cuba became the center of attention for the American public. Public rallies were organized by ministers and politicians to decry the inhumanity of the fighting on the island. American newspapers fanned the flames of indignation with lurid articles. Congress began passing resolutions demanding belligerent status for Cuban insurrectionists so that they could negotiate for arms, supplies, and ammunition. President Cleveland expressed his agreement with public sentiment but held out hope for Spain to resolve the issue peacefully. He demanded that they deliver the reforms promised in the Treaty of Zanjón that ended the Ten Years War. Cleveland delayed and temporized as the debate raged about him until the end of his Administration in 1897, when he was replaced by William McKinley, a Republican. It seemed that only war with Spain was going to resolve the issue of Cuban independence or annexation. 10/17/2012 2 Comments Cuban revolutionaries found their voice in José Martí & Castro heard it echoing through the agesCubaFOLLOWING CASTRO'S REVOLUTION, displaced Cubans invaded Miami. Following the Ten Years War, they invaded New York City. These Cuban exiles placed little faith in the Treaty of Zanjón wherein Spain promised political reform. General Martínez Campos, appointed captain-general in 1879, was just another peninsulare villain in the eyes of the insurrectionists. Freedoms of speech, the press, and assembly existed only at his whim. The exiles harbored no illusions of ever adjusting to Spanish rule. “Cuba Libre”, free Cuba, became their battle cry. One man emerged as the intellectual leader of the Cuba Libre movement, José Martí. Martí established the Cuban Revolutionary Party, and he helped other exiles found more groups dedicated to the dissemination of revolutionary propaganda. José Martí, a fierce Cuban patriot, believed himself to be a citizen of the world. He was renowned as a teacher, journalist, poet and revolutionary who captured and ignited the spirit of the Americas with his speeches and writings. Although he focused on freeing all of Latin America from Spanish rule, he saw danger in the growing economic and political power of the United States. He declared that “Cuba must be free of the United States as well as Spain.” He referred to the nation of the Yankees as the “monster” writing, “I have lived inside the monster, and I know its entrails.” Those who attempt to explain the fissures in US-Cuban affairs solely as a result of the Cold War are overlooking the groundwork laid by Martí long before communism and the Soviet Union. Indeed, José Martí's influence is easily recognized in much of Castro's own speeches and writings, especially in the days long before the attack he led on the army barracks at Moncada near Santiago de Cuba, long before his imprisonment and exile to Mexico, long before his return to lead a successful revolution to depose America's friend, Fulgencio Batista, and long before he ever avowed loyalty to communism or the Soviet Union. Martí is also the author of the words to Cuba's most popular song, Guantánamera: The early efforts of Martí and his fellow exiles were stymied by an autonomist party in Cuba. These men and women feared the death and destruction that a fresh outbreak of armed insurrection would bring. They hoped to craft a peaceful solution in which the island would gain self rule as an autonomous member of the empire. Martí worked assiduously to negate the autonomist's influence in America. Although he distrusted the American's expansionist proclivities, he knew that he needed to wield the new world power as a weapon in his fight against Spain. Against this backdrop, the Spanish government in Cuba committed another diplomatic blunder. Once again, it involved an American steamship, this time the Aliança. I read much of José Martí's writings long before I began writing Rebels on the Mountain, my novel set in the time of Castro's insurgency. It provided me with the philosophical backdrop of that revolution, and helped me better understand its political underpinnings. Interestingly, three monuments to Latin American heroes stand at the Artist's Gate to Central Park in New York City. Among them are Simon Bolivar, José de Martin, and José Martí.
CubaAMERICAN CAPITALISTS LEARNED to deal with the graft and corruption of the Spanish administrators in Cuba. They were tired of every successive U.S. Administration failing to either help Cubans win their independence or annex the island. It was time to get down to business. The natural resources and climate of the island promised prosperity. Its proximity to America, as well as its natural harbors, facilitated communication and transportation. With the end of slavery, the only thing standing in the way were the hands of Spanish administrators itching for cash. Spanish peninsulares, tired of the death and destruction of the Ten Years War, decided to sell out before the Cubans threw them out. Americans moved in with fistfuls of cash and bought up millions of hectacres of lush plantations at a fraction of their value. They bought out prime business properties in every major city. Cubans traded their Spanish masters for American jefes (chiefs). Edward Atkins of Boston became the new sugar baron of Cuba. In the beginning, American businesses in Cuba flourished. In 1892 alone, almost $78 million in products were shipped from the island to markets in America, more than all other nations in Latin America combined. However, exports of products from the American heartland failed to reach even $18 million. The Spanish imposed heavy tariffs on American goods that the Cubans could not afford to pay. The government also imposed a heavy tax on all foreign owned businesses, and cables began to flood across the Atlantic from Washington to Madrid complaining about unfair treatment. Business owners from European nations suffered equally, but the Americans had acquired the lion's share of assets in Cuba. Revenue of American-owned businesses dropped every year thereafter until 1898, when Cuban exports amounted to little more than $15 million. Imports were less than $10 million. Spanish interference was taking its toll. Like modern politicians, island officials didn't understand that increased taxation stifles commerce, and a large percentage of a small pie is less satisfying than a small percentage of a large pie. The Spanish government exacerbated the problem by referring all disputes to courts in Madrid, thereby delaying resolution of commercial disputes. America responded by insisting on most-favored nation trading status. It was, after all, importing 75% of all Cuban exports of sugar, 50% of all tobacco, and 50% of its manufactured products. American businessmen seemed to know something that no one else knew. Despite the lack of any resolution to these problems, they continued to invest in the island. They sent engineers and contractors to the island to improve its agricultural and industrial efficiency. They built modern sugar mills to replace less efficient smaller mills that processed the sugar cane on each plantation, as well as railroads to move the product quickly and economically to the ports. American capital financed these hacendados, or central mills. Small farmers took the risks and had nowhere else to sell their product except to the hacendado manager. Social-economic problems arose from this system that would continue until Castro's revolution and the land reform that followed. Castro didn't resolve these problems so much as replace them with new ones.
10/15/2012 2 Comments The end of slavery in Cuba failed to defuse the spirit of rebellion on the islandCubaSPANISH SLAVE OWNERS in Cuba used the same tired arguments that were proven wrong in the American South after the Civil War. They feared industrial depression and chronic interracial strife if their slaves were freed. However, under mounting international pressure from every quarter, and bankrupt and exhausted from the Ten Years War, fighting to preserve slavery and their domination of the island, the Spaniards were ready to give up. Still, the Spaniards held out for gradual emancipation while the Cubans demanded immediate manumission. The law that finally passed the Spanish Cortes (Congress) in 1880 favored the slave owners and provided for an interim eight-year period of patronato (patronage) during which the former owner would care for his slaves. The absurdity of this system was finally recognized and slavery was formally abolished by royal decree in 1866.
Cubans, especially the former slaves, were not mollified by the end of human bondage. The Guerra Chiquita or Little War, continued unabated until island expatriates living in America and Europe could drum up enough support to mount another major offensive against the peninsulares and their Spanish overlords. Just as the end of slavery didn't bring racial equality in America, Cuba's former slaves had their rights severely restricted. They were relegated to the balconies of theaters, and most hotels and restaurants wouldn't serve them. Surprisingly, they were admitted to public schools, but the white students were withdrawn to private ones. Trade unions refused to admit them thereby precluding them from employment requiring skilled workers. Racial discrimination continued in Cuba up until the time that Castro ascended to power. Ironically, Fulgencio Batista, himself a mulato of mixed heritage, often visited the Havana Yacht Club as a guest but could never qualify for membership even though he was President and supreme dictator of the government of the island until Castro forced him to flee. Under Castro's regime, all traces of racial discrimination were eradicated. However, as in all other communist countries, a new class arose, the bureaucracy. Equality in Cuba allowed everyone except for a privileged few, to descend into poverty. Castro himself took possession of the Presidential palace while the homes of the bourgeoisie were commandeered by the communist bureaucrats, or converted into government offices. The former members of the middle class who failed to escape the island were forced to live as peasants, if they survived the pogroms following the revolution. Interestingly, interracial marriage was tolerated following the end of slavery in Cuba. Unlike most states in America that enacted anti-misogyny laws, mixed marriages and mulatto children were common in the island's cities and countryside. I chose to incorporate the story of race relations in Cuba in my novel, Rebels on the Mountain, by having my Caucasian hero, Nick Andrews, court and marry a Cuban mulata, Lucia Comas. TelevisionCAN YOU SEPARATE your politics from your humanity? I can. Call the Midwife is a BBC production being aired in America on PBS that touches my soul despite the fact that so many aspects of it conflict with my core beliefs. However, none of that matters when I am presented with good people doing good in an ugly world. Few can argue that London's East End in the 1950s was any ugly place. Far too many people living on low wages and crammed together in meager shelters. Little of beauty finds its way into this neighborhood. An occasional weed pushing up between the cobblestones provides a rare glimpse of green in a gray world, and it is soon crushed by humanity flooding and ebbing in its narrow streets, drawn by the alternating gravity of work and respite. The people aren't so much miserable as they are bereft of hope that their lives or their children's lives might amount to something more. Still, they produce children as though it is the only creative act permitted them.
Into this morass strides Jennie Lee, a trained nurse and midwife. She seems so out of place. Of possibly lower middle class origins, she has the look and poise that might have been assets to a model or an airline stewardess. She is a splash of color surrounded by dull brutes, their care-worn wives, and their teeming urchins. Jennie joins a group of midwives sponsored by the Catholic Church. She and three other lay persons work alongside a small cloister of nuns, providing free health care to pregnant women. Many will be surprised and some perplexed to learn that I watch anything on PBS. I not only refuse to contribute to it, but also refuse to endorse any politician who votes to continue supporting it with public funds. PBS served its purpose in the early days of television. It provided an outlet for quality programming that the commercial broadcasters would not air. However, in these days of narrow casting, with many hundreds of cable networks airing quality programming, PBS is no longer needed, nor can we afford it. I wouldn't object if the public treasury still overflowed with the wealth of our nation. Unfortunately, our government has stifled the creativity and enterprise of the people thus lowering tax revenue, and squandered the treasure that was handed to them by their predecessors. I am certain that if PBS were shut down today, programming like Call the Midwife would find another home tomorrow, and Big Bird would be the object of a bidding war by the purveyors of children's programming. Produced in Britain, it is no surprise that this program extols the virtue of that nation's free public health care system. We saw evidence of that pride recently during the opening ceremonies of the Olympic Games. Supporters of Obamacare in this country most likely will be gratified by these references. Unfortunately, for every benefit derived from free public health care in Britain, there are countless devils in its details. For example, I happened to be corresponding electronically with an acquaintance in England as the opening ceremonies were being broadcast. She complained bitterly that she hadn't been able to schedule an appointment with a doctor for months for the sole purpose of obtaining a new prescription for her pain medication. Yes, this is only an anecdote. However, it is representative of the fact that the health system in Britain works far better for the healthy than the unhealthy. Call the Midwife is narrated by Vanessa Redgrave as the voice of an older Jennie Lee, reflecting on the life and experiences that we see unfolding on the screen. I take great care in avoiding Ms Redgrave inasmuch as I am greatly offended by her politics. I would fight to the death to defend her right to any political ideology that she chooses. However, I will not pay one cent to support her or her causes. I also am offended by those who cast her in the role of Fania Fénelon, a Jewish classical musician interred at Auschwitz during World War II, in Playing For Time. Having Ms Redgrave portray a Jew when she has vehemently attacked every Jew's most basic desire to live in peace in their own homeland is reprehensible. She has used her prominence as a respected actress to foister the lies crafted by the Arabs who want to annihilate those who live in Israel. You may agree with her. I don't. Still, I will not allow her participation in this production to cause me to turn away from it. Despite all this, I recommend this show highly. There is no “bang-bang” action or torrid love scenes. It is simply a good story, well told. I suspect women will be more inclined to view it. However, they should encourage their men to watch it with them. Drag them kicking and screaming if need be. It will do them good. Election 2012YOU MAY HAVE missed it as you watched the Vice Presidential debate. Behind all that laughter, Joe Biden was angry. Go ahead, Google the event, and look at the images that were captured. Most of those that focus on Vice President Biden clearly show microexpressions displaying anger. Granted, the study of microexpressions is a controversial theory that we betray our real emotions involuntarily in brief flashes during stressful situations, especially when we are under intense scrutiny. There's no question that was the case during the Vice Presidential Debate. Obama was beaten in his opening debate with Romney; he's admitted as much. The smart money was on Ryan to beat Biden inasmuch as he is much better prepared to argue the economy, and Biden has a well-earned reputation for putting his foot in his mouth when he gets excited. Yes, Joe Biden was under a lot of stress and his microexpressions were definitely revealing his discomfort. But, it wasn't just his face that gave Biden away. He also laughed almost constantly, inappropriately, as serious topics were discussed. He was rude. He interrupted his opponent and the moderator repeatedly, more than 80 times in 90 minutes. Joe Biden isn't that type of person ordinarily. Vice President Biden is, by my calculation, one of the most decent men serving in elected office today. He is gracious and considerate to a fault. What else but anger could drive him to react improperly in the midst of a public forum? I'm not so much concerned with who won or lost the debate as I am in unraveling this mystery: Why was Joe Biden so angry? We could argue until the cock crows in the morning over who won or lost. There are plenty of pundits already focusing on that issue. The polls seem to favor Ryan in measures of likability and clarity, and yet there are plenty who are proclaiming Biden the winner. Those who listened to the debate on the radio scored it in Ryan's favor. They didn't see the maniacal expression on Biden's face. I have my own opinion, but it fades to insignificance as I study Biden's emotional reactions. Obviously, Ryan's verbal punches hurt. When President Obama debated Governor Romney, he reacted to his opponent's jabs by looking down and flinching away as though he were physically struck. In this debate between the Vice Presidential candidates, Joe Biden's reaction was similarly painful. He too flinched but masked it with a smile. When the pain became unbearable, he began talking over Ryan. How could they not be hurt? They have no factual evidence to refute the claims that their policies have failed. More than once, Biden accused Ryan of lying. You may agree. However, that assertion is in and of itself more evidence of anger, especially when he cast his anger at the moderator. Everyone lies. People seem to accept lying by politicians as the norm. However, I don't think that either Biden or Ryan lie more than the average person. I didn't hear Ryan lie. He is renowned for his storehouse of facts and figures, and he used them appropriately. Unfortunately, Joe Biden was forced to lie. It was painfully obvious when he announced that the Administration didn't provide adequate security for the American Embassy in Benghazi because of faulty intelligence. Both the State Department and the White House admitted almost two weeks ago that they knew the Ambassador and three others were murdered in a terrorist attack. Sadly for Biden, his Commander-in-Chief has been repeating the lie despite his own staff's revelations. Biden's loyalty overcame his honor and he parroted Obama's lie. Of course, it made him angry. Joe Biden is a decent man. I have no question that is true. Unfortunately, the Administration in which he has been participating over the past four years, was elected on nothing more than good intentions. Yes, I know, they and their supporters have compiled lists of accomplishments for your consideration. But, the objective truth is that the economy has shrunk in every one of the past four years. Unemployment has only shown a gasp of recovering in the last month, and only after the Labor Department adjusted the method of calculation. All of which goes to prove that good intentions aren't enough. They result is bad outcomes when good intentions are not accompanied by wise decisions. That's why I think that Joe Biden is angry. He wanted to help fix America's problems. He wanted to get people back to work. He wanted the economy to grow. Like the rest of us, he was led to believe that Barack Obama would lead us to prosperity, and he supported his Commander-in-Chief to the best of his ability. Unfortunately, the President led us the wrong way and, despite all his good intentions, Joe Biden is complicit in the results.
Yes, Biden was under great pressure to score one for his team after last week's embarrassing loss by Obama to Romney, a loss even the President has been forced to concede. However, as Ryan observed, his repeated interruptions interfered with the event. Even worse, it left him appearing, as one pundit commented, “looking like a drunken lout.” I wouldn't go that far, but I don't believe Biden helped himself or his team. Whether he won or lost is insignificant. 10/11/2012 1 Comment Could Americans have done more to stop the blood bath in Cuba? Some tried and they diedTHE DOGS OF WAR began nipping at the heels of the Grant Administration when Spanish officials began executing the captain and crew as well as the passengers of the Virginius, an American flagged merchant ship, in Santiago de Cuba. A few were saved when Captain Lorraine of the British warship HMS Niobe sailed into Santiago harbor and threatened to level the town if the executions were not halted immediately. The Virginius was a former Civil War blockade runner that had been leased to the Cuban revolutionary junta in New York to transport weapons and supplies to the rebels in Cuba. Long a target of the Cuban authorities, it was finally seized on October 31, 1873, by the Spanish warship Toronado and sailed to Santiago where all aboard were imprisoned. Thirty-six crewmen and sixteen passengers, including Pedro Cespédes, son of the rebel general, were ordered to be shot to death. The Virginius affair involved two separate issues: the law of the sea and the law of humanity. Regardless of the legal status of the ship, the United States condemned the executions as barbaric and another example of Spanish brutality. As a matter of maritime law, the captain of the Toronado made the mistake of seizing the Virginius on the high seas. It was actually captured near Jamaica. He should have waited until it entered Cuban territorial waters. But the Spanish had been frustrated in their attempts to take the smuggler because the ship was built to dart in and out of coves and inlets where most seagoing ships, especially warships, were ill-suited. Even Hamilton Fish, Grant's Secretary of State, was caught up in the moment. Even though he had worked assiduously to avoid confrontation with Spain and thwart the plans of his Minister to Spain as well as the Secretary of War, both of whom were anxious to pursue annexation or purchase of Cuba, Fish dashed off a demand for reparations in which he stipulated: (1) Restoration of the Virginius; (2) Immediate release of the American prisoners; (3) Salute of the American flag in Santiago; and (4) Punishment of the Spanish officers responsible for the executions.
Spain was insulted by the American demands. They responded officially that they acted legally and with honor. Their press took up the cry claiming that the whole affair was nothing more than an expression of the anti-Spanish biases of the American Minister, Daniel Sickles. They dismissed the executions as merely “an unfortunate occurrence” and that the shootings had stopped under orders from the governor-general in Havana. No mention was made of the threat from a British warship. America responded by recalling its diplomats from Spain, ordinarily a prelude to war. The Spaniards were surprised by the resolve shown by the United States government and quickly backpedaled. They soon acceded to American demands, asking only to delay punishment of the Spanish officials in Cuba until they had sufficient time to investigate further. The surviving crew were released to American custody and war was averted. The Ten Years War ended in Cuba three years after the blowup over the Virginius. All sides simply ran out of energy and resources. The Spanish had lost more than 150,000 soldiers and spent more than 700 million pesos. All of the rebel commanders except for Maceo and Vicente Garcia had surrendered their weapons. Fighting had been reduced to an occasional raid on a plantation. A treaty was signed at Zanjón promising more autonomy for the Cubans and granting amnesty to the rebels. One rebel leader, Calixto García, rejected the terms of the treaty and was exiled to France. He returned to continue the fight against the hated Spanish in what became known as the Guerra Chiquita or “Little War.” It kept the spirit of rebellion alive until the next chapter in Cuban-American relations unfolded. CubaSECRETARY OF STATE Hamilton Fish had to act. President Grant was anxious to provide the Cuban revolutionaries with belligerent status. This would allow the revolutionaries to negotiate and trade with the United States on an equal footing with the Spanish. The House of Representatives passed a resolution supporting it. Without this status, American officials would be obligated to remain neutral in the bloodbath in Cuba known as the Ten Years War. If Grant fumbled this delicate diplomatic ploy, and Fish was convinced that he would, it was likely that the United States would end up at war with Spain. In June, 1969, while President Grant toured the country, Fish initiated his own plan. He drafted a proposal and appointed a special envoy to Spain, Paul Forbes, to accompany the Minister to Spain, Daniel Sickles, to present the plan in Madrid. Fish proposed (1) Spain was to recognize Cuban independence; (2) Slavery was to be abolished in Cuba; (3) Cuba would indemnify Spain in the amount of $100 million (to be guaranteed by the United States); and (4) Each side was to recognize an immediate cease fire. In a letter to Sickles, Fish enumerated his rationale. Besides the fact that the United States should be committing to support all legitimate struggles for independence, the violence on the island was threatening American as well as Spanish business holdings there. He encouraged the Spanish to acquiesce to his terms by threatening belligerent status for the rebels if the government in Madrid failed to agree.
In truth, Fish had no intention of granting belligerent status to the rebels. He could always find another excuse to delay if Spain procrastinated. Spain agreed to Fish's proposals provided that the rebels observe the cease fire first. Spanish pride got in the way again. The Spaniards were willing to leave only after everyone agreed that they could defeat the rebels if they wanted. By laying down their arms, the Spaniards could accept their “surrender” and then sail home with their heads held high. The rebels, of course, had no assurance that the Spaniards would honor the other terms of the agreement once they laid down their arms. They were at an impasse. Fish had no choice but to withdraw the American proposals. There ensued a series of communiques between Spain and America, containing offers and counteroffers, threats and counter threats. It was obvious that neither side was prepared for war thus, the status quo was insured and the blood bath in Cuba continued unabated. Diplomats from both countries were at a loss to find a solution until one was thrust upon them when an American ship, the Virginius was seized by the Spanish navy. |
More than 500 postings have accumulated since 2011. Some categories (listed below) are self explanatory, others require some explanation (see below):
CategoriesAll America Army Life Blogging Cuba Election 2012 Election 2014 Election 2016 Entrepreneurs Food Good Reads History Humor Infantry School In The News Korea Middle East Oh Dark Thirty Opinion Sea Scouts Short Story Sponsored Survey Technology Television Terrorism Today's Chuckle Veterans Vietnam Writing Explanations |
Copyright © 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022 Jack Durish All rights reserved
|
Web Hosting by iPage
|