Warren Bull's Blog, page 4
January 6, 2017
Boston Blackie
Boston Blackie by Jack Boyle: A Review by Warren Bull
Image from the New York Times
First published in 1919, Boston Blackie generated radio programs, a television and numerous movies. Since the character entered the public domain, at least two graphic novels about him have been published. The author was a former newspaper reporter who became addicted to opium and fell into crime. While in San Quentin for writing bad checks he wrote the first Boston Blackie story. A series of stories published in magazines were strung together into a novel.
The hero of the first stories and the novel was an unapologetic jewelry thief who committed crimes for the excitement and challenge. In his later portrayals, he went straight after a stint in prison. In the original stories Blackie lives by a code that he respects much more than the police and prison staff respect the law.
I found the novel to be a fun, quick read. I recommend it on that level.
Image from the New York Times
First published in 1919, Boston Blackie generated radio programs, a television and numerous movies. Since the character entered the public domain, at least two graphic novels about him have been published. The author was a former newspaper reporter who became addicted to opium and fell into crime. While in San Quentin for writing bad checks he wrote the first Boston Blackie story. A series of stories published in magazines were strung together into a novel.
The hero of the first stories and the novel was an unapologetic jewelry thief who committed crimes for the excitement and challenge. In his later portrayals, he went straight after a stint in prison. In the original stories Blackie lives by a code that he respects much more than the police and prison staff respect the law.
I found the novel to be a fun, quick read. I recommend it on that level.
January 4, 2017
Was Abraham Lincoln a Racist??
Was Abraham Lincoln a Racist?
One of the strongest arguments that Abraham Lincoln was a racist is based upon his own words during the Lincoln-Douglas Debates of 1858. In the debates at Charleston, Illinois and Quincy, Illinois Lincoln expressed his belief in the superiority of the white race.
In Lincoln’s words, “I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and the black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon a foot of perfect equality, and in as much as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position.”
If a candidate for the Senate used those words today, the candidate would be accused of and, in fact, guilty of, racism. Stephen A. Douglas in the debates in those cities accused Lincoln of having “...his friend, The Negro, Fred Douglass,” campaigning for him. The Senator from Illinois sarcastically referred to Frederick Douglass as Lincoln’s “brother.” He accused the “Black Republican Party” of consorting with Abolitions and “other scoundrels” who wanted to end slavery.
If a physician today practiced what was the most advanced medicine of 1858, he or she would be guilty of malpractice. For example, he or she would be ignorant about germs and unable to save anyone whose appendix burst. Even the most skillful and creative blacksmith of 1858 would be unable to service and repair a modern automobile. If medicine and engineering advance in 150 years, should we be surprised that our ideas about human rights have changed?
In 1856 the Supreme Court issued the Dred Scott decision. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney wrote …A negro [whether free or enslaved]…can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges the instrument [the Constitution of the United States] provides and secures to citizens of the United States.” The decision meant that no territory could legislate against slavery within its border. No black person had any rights a white person needed to pay attention to. Stephan A. Douglas agreed with the court. Lincoln also said, “There is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence — the right to life liberty and he pursuit of happiness. I hold he is as much entitled to these as the white man.”
A second argument that Lincoln was a racist is based on he fact that he did not advocate the immediate abolition of slavery. In assessing this point we need to consider the legal context of the time and, for that matter for our time. For most of his adult life Lincoln was a practicing attorney. In fact, he was unusual at that time in that he derived all of his income from his law practice. Most attorneys also worked at jobs like newspaper editors or businessmen.
As an attorney, Lincoln knew very well that the United States Constitution had legalized slavery at its inception. By the time of the Lincoln — Douglas debates, slavery had been a legal enterprise in the United States for seventy years. Lincoln knew there was no legal way to stop slavery except through the complicated and time-consuming process of amending the constitution. He was unwilling to bypass the basic structure of laws in the United States even to end slavery even though he clearly saw it as an evil. Lincoln once said, “If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong.”
It is charged, correctly, that for a time Lincoln advocated the voluntary re-settlement of African-Americans in Africa. He stated that he believed that former slaves and former slaveholders could not live peacefully side-by-side. Apparently he believed former slaveholders would attack the formerly enslaved. He later changed his mind and his position.
A number of arguments that Lincoln was racist appear to me to be emotionally based reactions to finding out that history as it is often taught in schools is simplistic and generic. Lincoln did not single-handedly “free the slaves.” He was not the first, the most vocal or the most ardent abolitionist. He was not the only person to die because of his opposition to the “peculiar institution.”
There is no doubt that the contributions of many brave and dedicated people who worked for emancipation are routinely overlooked while Lincoln contributions, although substantial, are exaggerated. The role of Black soldiers fighting and dying for a country that viewed them as significantly less than human is another glaring omission from most teaching about American history.
Admittedly 1858 Lincoln did not view the races as equal. Unlike Douglas, who compared enslaved people to farm produce, Lincoln saw enslaved people as human, not property. For that time he was more devoted to human rights than the great majority of Americans.
Fortunately for all Americans, Lincoln lived beyond 1858 and served as president during the Civil War. He preserved the Union, and over time, transformed the country and his own thinking. His critics correctly point out at the start of the war Lincoln said he would support anything that would keep the country united including the continuation of slavery. He worked hard and cleverly to include some of the states where slavery existed on the union side of the war. Only after years of bloodshed did he gradually come to believe that the end of slavery was essential for the continuation of the nation.
Lincoln enforced anti-slave trading laws. He abolished slavery in the District of Columbia. He wrote the Emancipation Proclamation, introducing the idea of freeing enslaved people en mass.
Critics accurately state that the Emancipation Document itself did not free a single person immediately. As president of the country at a time of war, Lincoln wrote the presidential edict to deprive the states then attempting to secede from the union of a war resource, namely the labor of slaves by freeing enslaved people in those states. Of course he had no way to enforce the edict. Lincoln was a master of written American English and the order was purposefully written with all the flair of a list of groceries, seemingly to make it sound like a conventional presidential edict. But the implication of the document was immense.
Early in the Civil War Lincoln opposed the use of Black troops. Apparently, he feared conflict between Black recruits and the regular Union Army soldiers. Later on her changed his mind and took the lead in recruiting Blacks for the army. An estimated 200,000 served and 30,000 died. Lincoln insisted that black soldiers receive equal pay with white soldiers. He cited their bravery as another reason to end of slavery and a reason they should be given the right to vote.
It has been suggested that Lincoln was assassinated not for what he had done but for what he planned to do to extend rights to people regardless of race.
Lincoln was a man of his times and a man for all times. He was not perfect. He did not escape the prejudices of the general populations. On the other hand, he learned from his mistakes. He had a heart and mind that, once fixed upon a goal, remained steadfast in spite of all opposition.
As I noted before, Lincoln was not the first or the loudest in calling for the abolition of slavery but he was the man who had the political skills to judge the changing views of the nation. Pushing for emancipation too hard and too soon might have alienated supporters who helped save the union. But he envisioned the end of slavery. Step after cautious step he sought and ultimately achieved it.
Perhaps abolitionist Frederick Douglass who knew Lincoln personally expressed it best on the occasion of his Oration In Memory of Abraham Lincoln in 1876.
“I have said that President Lincoln was a white man, and shared the prejudices common to his countrymen towards the colored race. Looking back to his times and to the condition of his country, we are compelled to admit that this unfriendly feeling on his part may be safely set down as one element of his wonderful success in organizing the loyal American people for the tremendous conflict before them, and bringing them safely through that conflict. His great mission was to accomplish two things: first, to save his country from dismemberment and ruin; and, second, to free his country from the great crime of slavery. To do one or the other, or both, he must have the earnest sympathy and the powerful cooperation of his loyal fellow-countrymen. Without this primary and essential condition to success his efforts must have been vain and utterly fruitless. Had he put the abolition of slavery before the salvation of the Union, he would have inevitably driven from him a powerful class of the American people and rendered resistance to rebellion impossible. Viewed from the genuine abolition ground, Mr. Lincoln seemed tardy, cold, dull, and indifferent; but measuring him by the sentiment of his country, a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to consult, he was swift, zealous, radical, and determined.”
By Warren Bull, author of Abraham Lincoln For the Defense http://tinyurl.com/jsugrd2
and Abraham Lincoln in court & campaign http://tinyurl.com/hyjq7v2
One of the strongest arguments that Abraham Lincoln was a racist is based upon his own words during the Lincoln-Douglas Debates of 1858. In the debates at Charleston, Illinois and Quincy, Illinois Lincoln expressed his belief in the superiority of the white race.
In Lincoln’s words, “I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and the black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon a foot of perfect equality, and in as much as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position.”
If a candidate for the Senate used those words today, the candidate would be accused of and, in fact, guilty of, racism. Stephen A. Douglas in the debates in those cities accused Lincoln of having “...his friend, The Negro, Fred Douglass,” campaigning for him. The Senator from Illinois sarcastically referred to Frederick Douglass as Lincoln’s “brother.” He accused the “Black Republican Party” of consorting with Abolitions and “other scoundrels” who wanted to end slavery.
If a physician today practiced what was the most advanced medicine of 1858, he or she would be guilty of malpractice. For example, he or she would be ignorant about germs and unable to save anyone whose appendix burst. Even the most skillful and creative blacksmith of 1858 would be unable to service and repair a modern automobile. If medicine and engineering advance in 150 years, should we be surprised that our ideas about human rights have changed?
In 1856 the Supreme Court issued the Dred Scott decision. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney wrote …A negro [whether free or enslaved]…can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges the instrument [the Constitution of the United States] provides and secures to citizens of the United States.” The decision meant that no territory could legislate against slavery within its border. No black person had any rights a white person needed to pay attention to. Stephan A. Douglas agreed with the court. Lincoln also said, “There is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence — the right to life liberty and he pursuit of happiness. I hold he is as much entitled to these as the white man.”
A second argument that Lincoln was a racist is based on he fact that he did not advocate the immediate abolition of slavery. In assessing this point we need to consider the legal context of the time and, for that matter for our time. For most of his adult life Lincoln was a practicing attorney. In fact, he was unusual at that time in that he derived all of his income from his law practice. Most attorneys also worked at jobs like newspaper editors or businessmen.
As an attorney, Lincoln knew very well that the United States Constitution had legalized slavery at its inception. By the time of the Lincoln — Douglas debates, slavery had been a legal enterprise in the United States for seventy years. Lincoln knew there was no legal way to stop slavery except through the complicated and time-consuming process of amending the constitution. He was unwilling to bypass the basic structure of laws in the United States even to end slavery even though he clearly saw it as an evil. Lincoln once said, “If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong.”
It is charged, correctly, that for a time Lincoln advocated the voluntary re-settlement of African-Americans in Africa. He stated that he believed that former slaves and former slaveholders could not live peacefully side-by-side. Apparently he believed former slaveholders would attack the formerly enslaved. He later changed his mind and his position.
A number of arguments that Lincoln was racist appear to me to be emotionally based reactions to finding out that history as it is often taught in schools is simplistic and generic. Lincoln did not single-handedly “free the slaves.” He was not the first, the most vocal or the most ardent abolitionist. He was not the only person to die because of his opposition to the “peculiar institution.”
There is no doubt that the contributions of many brave and dedicated people who worked for emancipation are routinely overlooked while Lincoln contributions, although substantial, are exaggerated. The role of Black soldiers fighting and dying for a country that viewed them as significantly less than human is another glaring omission from most teaching about American history.
Admittedly 1858 Lincoln did not view the races as equal. Unlike Douglas, who compared enslaved people to farm produce, Lincoln saw enslaved people as human, not property. For that time he was more devoted to human rights than the great majority of Americans.
Fortunately for all Americans, Lincoln lived beyond 1858 and served as president during the Civil War. He preserved the Union, and over time, transformed the country and his own thinking. His critics correctly point out at the start of the war Lincoln said he would support anything that would keep the country united including the continuation of slavery. He worked hard and cleverly to include some of the states where slavery existed on the union side of the war. Only after years of bloodshed did he gradually come to believe that the end of slavery was essential for the continuation of the nation.
Lincoln enforced anti-slave trading laws. He abolished slavery in the District of Columbia. He wrote the Emancipation Proclamation, introducing the idea of freeing enslaved people en mass.
Critics accurately state that the Emancipation Document itself did not free a single person immediately. As president of the country at a time of war, Lincoln wrote the presidential edict to deprive the states then attempting to secede from the union of a war resource, namely the labor of slaves by freeing enslaved people in those states. Of course he had no way to enforce the edict. Lincoln was a master of written American English and the order was purposefully written with all the flair of a list of groceries, seemingly to make it sound like a conventional presidential edict. But the implication of the document was immense.
Early in the Civil War Lincoln opposed the use of Black troops. Apparently, he feared conflict between Black recruits and the regular Union Army soldiers. Later on her changed his mind and took the lead in recruiting Blacks for the army. An estimated 200,000 served and 30,000 died. Lincoln insisted that black soldiers receive equal pay with white soldiers. He cited their bravery as another reason to end of slavery and a reason they should be given the right to vote.
It has been suggested that Lincoln was assassinated not for what he had done but for what he planned to do to extend rights to people regardless of race.
Lincoln was a man of his times and a man for all times. He was not perfect. He did not escape the prejudices of the general populations. On the other hand, he learned from his mistakes. He had a heart and mind that, once fixed upon a goal, remained steadfast in spite of all opposition.
As I noted before, Lincoln was not the first or the loudest in calling for the abolition of slavery but he was the man who had the political skills to judge the changing views of the nation. Pushing for emancipation too hard and too soon might have alienated supporters who helped save the union. But he envisioned the end of slavery. Step after cautious step he sought and ultimately achieved it.
Perhaps abolitionist Frederick Douglass who knew Lincoln personally expressed it best on the occasion of his Oration In Memory of Abraham Lincoln in 1876.
“I have said that President Lincoln was a white man, and shared the prejudices common to his countrymen towards the colored race. Looking back to his times and to the condition of his country, we are compelled to admit that this unfriendly feeling on his part may be safely set down as one element of his wonderful success in organizing the loyal American people for the tremendous conflict before them, and bringing them safely through that conflict. His great mission was to accomplish two things: first, to save his country from dismemberment and ruin; and, second, to free his country from the great crime of slavery. To do one or the other, or both, he must have the earnest sympathy and the powerful cooperation of his loyal fellow-countrymen. Without this primary and essential condition to success his efforts must have been vain and utterly fruitless. Had he put the abolition of slavery before the salvation of the Union, he would have inevitably driven from him a powerful class of the American people and rendered resistance to rebellion impossible. Viewed from the genuine abolition ground, Mr. Lincoln seemed tardy, cold, dull, and indifferent; but measuring him by the sentiment of his country, a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to consult, he was swift, zealous, radical, and determined.”
By Warren Bull, author of Abraham Lincoln For the Defense http://tinyurl.com/jsugrd2
and Abraham Lincoln in court & campaign http://tinyurl.com/hyjq7v2
December 27, 2016
Did Abraham Lincoln Fight A Duek
Did Abraham Lincoln Fight A Duel?
Warren Bull
WARREN BULL
Bio: Warren Bull is an award-winning author with three novels and more than 100 stories published.
Human Connections
Did Abraham Lincoln Fight a Duel?
Although later in life Abraham Lincoln was known for his compassion and sensitivity toward others in the words he chose to use, he was not always as careful. Back in 1842 the Illinois State Bank went bankrupt. It refused to accept its own paper money. The Democratic Party and James Shields, party member and State Auditor, supported the decision. Lincoln’s party, the Whigs, opposed the action. Abraham Lincoln wrote an editorial in the form of a letter, which he signed, “Rebecca.” The letter not only opposed the action, but also went on to ridicule Shields as a ladies man.
Lincoln showed the letter to Mary Todd, who he had recently resumed seeing. She thought the letter was wonderful and, without telling Lincoln, she penned a similar letter and signed hers, “Cathleen.”
Mortified, Shields demanded that the newspaper editor tell him the name of the author, which he did. Shields sent a letter to Lincoln demanding that he made a full retraction. Lincoln took responsibility for both letters but refused to retract what they said. He even suggested that Shields re-write his demand into a “more gentlemanly” form, adding fuel to the fire.
Shields then challenged Lincoln to a duel to take place in Missouri where dueling was still legal. Lincoln, being challenged, had the choice of weapons. He chose large cavalry broadswords and had a board placed between the duelists that neither could cross on pain of death.
Lincoln at six feet four inches tall with long arms had a decisive advantage over Shields at five feet nine inches tall. Before the duel Lincoln demonstrated his reach by cutting off a branch over Shields’ head. With the intercession of friends, the duel was called off. Lincoln apologized publically. The men became friends.
In later life Lincoln did not want to talk about the incident, which he recalled with great embarrassment.
Interestingly, in 1862 while Lincoln was president Shields was a Brigadier General in the Army of the Potomac. At the Battle of Kernstown Shields’ forces achieved a very rare defeat of Stonewall Jackson and his men. Shields was seriously wounded in the action. Lincoln nominated him for promotion him to Major General.
Image by Durand
By Warren Bull author of Abraham Lincoln for the Defense http://tinyurl.com/gm4yatl and the soon to be released Abraham Lincoln Abraham Lincoln in court & campaign http://tinyurl.com/hyjq7v2
Warren Bull
WARREN BULL
Bio: Warren Bull is an award-winning author with three novels and more than 100 stories published.
Human Connections
Did Abraham Lincoln Fight a Duel?
Although later in life Abraham Lincoln was known for his compassion and sensitivity toward others in the words he chose to use, he was not always as careful. Back in 1842 the Illinois State Bank went bankrupt. It refused to accept its own paper money. The Democratic Party and James Shields, party member and State Auditor, supported the decision. Lincoln’s party, the Whigs, opposed the action. Abraham Lincoln wrote an editorial in the form of a letter, which he signed, “Rebecca.” The letter not only opposed the action, but also went on to ridicule Shields as a ladies man.
Lincoln showed the letter to Mary Todd, who he had recently resumed seeing. She thought the letter was wonderful and, without telling Lincoln, she penned a similar letter and signed hers, “Cathleen.”
Mortified, Shields demanded that the newspaper editor tell him the name of the author, which he did. Shields sent a letter to Lincoln demanding that he made a full retraction. Lincoln took responsibility for both letters but refused to retract what they said. He even suggested that Shields re-write his demand into a “more gentlemanly” form, adding fuel to the fire.
Shields then challenged Lincoln to a duel to take place in Missouri where dueling was still legal. Lincoln, being challenged, had the choice of weapons. He chose large cavalry broadswords and had a board placed between the duelists that neither could cross on pain of death.
Lincoln at six feet four inches tall with long arms had a decisive advantage over Shields at five feet nine inches tall. Before the duel Lincoln demonstrated his reach by cutting off a branch over Shields’ head. With the intercession of friends, the duel was called off. Lincoln apologized publically. The men became friends.
In later life Lincoln did not want to talk about the incident, which he recalled with great embarrassment.
Interestingly, in 1862 while Lincoln was president Shields was a Brigadier General in the Army of the Potomac. At the Battle of Kernstown Shields’ forces achieved a very rare defeat of Stonewall Jackson and his men. Shields was seriously wounded in the action. Lincoln nominated him for promotion him to Major General.
Image by Durand
By Warren Bull author of Abraham Lincoln for the Defense http://tinyurl.com/gm4yatl and the soon to be released Abraham Lincoln Abraham Lincoln in court & campaign http://tinyurl.com/hyjq7v2
November 29, 2016
Was Abraham Lincoln a Scrooge?
Was Abraham Lincoln a Scrooge?
Historians frequently dismiss Abraham Lincoln as one of the least inclined of American presidents to celebrate Christmas. After all, Lincoln did not have a Christmas tree, did not send out Christmas cards and every Christmas day in the White House during Lincoln’s administration was a workday.
In fact, while in Congress, Lincoln voted against making Christmas a holiday. So was he a Scrooge?
Christmas became popular in the 1840s, driven in part by emerging technology that improved newspaper presentation. Drawn images started to become part of publishing, both in newsprint and in magazines. Queen Victoria advanced the tradition of the Christmas tree. A published drawing showing her decorating her tree was the impetus that popularized the practice in the United States.
Christmas cards, Christmas carols, Dickens himself as well as Clement Clark Moore’s poem A Visit from Saint Nicholas – combined to unify Christmas as more than just a day of family feasting or church going for the American public.in the 1840s and 1850s.
The famous vote that Lincoln took against Christmas came in his term in the state legislature in Illinois. Lincoln felt state workers did not need another paid day off that regular folks themselves would not receive.
In 1861 Lincoln hosted a Christmas party at the White House. In 1862 he spent Christmas visiting soldiers at area hospitals. In 1863 he visited Union soldiers with his son Tad, bearing Christmas gifts of books and clothing marked “From Tad Lincoln”.
Lincoln was keenly aware of what Christmas meant to all Americans – both North and South. And he used Christmas and the symbolism of Santa Claus especially to great effect in prosecuting the war.
Christmas of 1863 saw the Union effort bearing down hard on the South with a blockade of goods. For months on end supplies were thin in the South as Lincoln strategized to squeeze the energy from the Confederate effort. He commissioned artist Thomas Nast to draw a picture of Santa Claus visiting Union Troops in the January 3, 1863 edition of the widely read Harper’s Weekly. The scarcity of goods and the high prices of store bought items caused Southern mothers to explain to their children that not even Santa Claus could break the Union blockade.
Lincoln instructed Nast to show Santa with Union troops as much as possible and the enduring images from 1863 and 1864 publications are largely credited with defining the image of the modern Santa Claus. Their affect was so profound that Lincoln one time claimed Santa was “the best recruiting sergeant the North ever had.”
1864 was an election year and Lincoln handily won all but three states and was re-elected. General Sherman wrote to President Lincoln: “I beg to present you, as a Christmas gift, the city of Savannah…”
Lincoln wrote in response: “Many, many thanks for your Christmas gift – the capture of Savannah…Please make my grateful acknowledgements to your whole army – officers and men.”
One of Thomas Nast’s most famous prints was one called The Union Christmas, which was printed on December 31, 1864 and depicts President Lincoln standing at a door, with him offering the cold and frostbitten Southern soldiers an invitation to rejoin the Union. Another Nast creation from earlier that same month showed the Confederacy’s President Jefferson Davis and his problematic predicament. The illustration, entitled Lincoln’s Christmas Box to Jeff Davis, showed the choices the South’s leader by then had: “More war or peace and union?”
Historians frequently dismiss Abraham Lincoln as one of the least inclined of American presidents to celebrate Christmas. After all, Lincoln did not have a Christmas tree, did not send out Christmas cards and every Christmas day in the White House during Lincoln’s administration was a workday.
In fact, while in Congress, Lincoln voted against making Christmas a holiday. So was he a Scrooge?
Christmas became popular in the 1840s, driven in part by emerging technology that improved newspaper presentation. Drawn images started to become part of publishing, both in newsprint and in magazines. Queen Victoria advanced the tradition of the Christmas tree. A published drawing showing her decorating her tree was the impetus that popularized the practice in the United States.
Christmas cards, Christmas carols, Dickens himself as well as Clement Clark Moore’s poem A Visit from Saint Nicholas – combined to unify Christmas as more than just a day of family feasting or church going for the American public.in the 1840s and 1850s.
The famous vote that Lincoln took against Christmas came in his term in the state legislature in Illinois. Lincoln felt state workers did not need another paid day off that regular folks themselves would not receive.
In 1861 Lincoln hosted a Christmas party at the White House. In 1862 he spent Christmas visiting soldiers at area hospitals. In 1863 he visited Union soldiers with his son Tad, bearing Christmas gifts of books and clothing marked “From Tad Lincoln”.
Lincoln was keenly aware of what Christmas meant to all Americans – both North and South. And he used Christmas and the symbolism of Santa Claus especially to great effect in prosecuting the war.
Christmas of 1863 saw the Union effort bearing down hard on the South with a blockade of goods. For months on end supplies were thin in the South as Lincoln strategized to squeeze the energy from the Confederate effort. He commissioned artist Thomas Nast to draw a picture of Santa Claus visiting Union Troops in the January 3, 1863 edition of the widely read Harper’s Weekly. The scarcity of goods and the high prices of store bought items caused Southern mothers to explain to their children that not even Santa Claus could break the Union blockade.
Lincoln instructed Nast to show Santa with Union troops as much as possible and the enduring images from 1863 and 1864 publications are largely credited with defining the image of the modern Santa Claus. Their affect was so profound that Lincoln one time claimed Santa was “the best recruiting sergeant the North ever had.”
1864 was an election year and Lincoln handily won all but three states and was re-elected. General Sherman wrote to President Lincoln: “I beg to present you, as a Christmas gift, the city of Savannah…”
Lincoln wrote in response: “Many, many thanks for your Christmas gift – the capture of Savannah…Please make my grateful acknowledgements to your whole army – officers and men.”
One of Thomas Nast’s most famous prints was one called The Union Christmas, which was printed on December 31, 1864 and depicts President Lincoln standing at a door, with him offering the cold and frostbitten Southern soldiers an invitation to rejoin the Union. Another Nast creation from earlier that same month showed the Confederacy’s President Jefferson Davis and his problematic predicament. The illustration, entitled Lincoln’s Christmas Box to Jeff Davis, showed the choices the South’s leader by then had: “More war or peace and union?”
November 25, 2016
Welcome Home
Welcome Home
With my trip to New Zealand, I had not gone to a voice lesson for two months. It had been even longer since my last choir rehearsal. I had my first returning choir rehearsal last night and my first returning voice lesson that morning. I did not realize how much I missed them until they were back in my life.
I acted like a rookie with the choir. I did not bring my music folder or that essential tool for singers everywhere — a pencil. It’s used to note where to take breaths, where to put emphasis, and where to use the pronunciation the director directs. Of the four songs practiced I’d heard one before. I was sight-reading almost all night. Still, I was pleased by my general performance. The choir has a new young director with a lot of energy, interesting ideas and high expectations. I really like the companionship with other singers.
My first voice lesson reminded me why I like lessons so much. My teacher made suggestions that I implemented then and there. She always gets me singing better and better. I can hear the improvements as the lesson progresses. Sometimes I can end up singing better than I thought I could. There are moments of beauty and art, which lift me out of my day-to-day living.
Like writing it gets better with practice and with feedback from a knowledgeable and trusted teacher. There are not many activities that allow you to experience marked improvement in a skill in such a brief period of time.
I have been singing long enough that I can hear differences in my voice from recordings I made a while ago. The skills are additive. I noticed in choir how much my ability to sight-read has improved. I don’t know how good I can be eventually. That’s part of the attraction of the whole experience. At my age there are not a gigantic number of behaviors that continue to improve. Writing and singing are two. Writing better is a slower process, but then I’ve been doing it longer so improvements take more time. The amount of change is less too.
What raises you out of the ordinary and gives you a sense of accomplishment?
With my trip to New Zealand, I had not gone to a voice lesson for two months. It had been even longer since my last choir rehearsal. I had my first returning choir rehearsal last night and my first returning voice lesson that morning. I did not realize how much I missed them until they were back in my life.
I acted like a rookie with the choir. I did not bring my music folder or that essential tool for singers everywhere — a pencil. It’s used to note where to take breaths, where to put emphasis, and where to use the pronunciation the director directs. Of the four songs practiced I’d heard one before. I was sight-reading almost all night. Still, I was pleased by my general performance. The choir has a new young director with a lot of energy, interesting ideas and high expectations. I really like the companionship with other singers.
My first voice lesson reminded me why I like lessons so much. My teacher made suggestions that I implemented then and there. She always gets me singing better and better. I can hear the improvements as the lesson progresses. Sometimes I can end up singing better than I thought I could. There are moments of beauty and art, which lift me out of my day-to-day living.
Like writing it gets better with practice and with feedback from a knowledgeable and trusted teacher. There are not many activities that allow you to experience marked improvement in a skill in such a brief period of time.
I have been singing long enough that I can hear differences in my voice from recordings I made a while ago. The skills are additive. I noticed in choir how much my ability to sight-read has improved. I don’t know how good I can be eventually. That’s part of the attraction of the whole experience. At my age there are not a gigantic number of behaviors that continue to improve. Writing and singing are two. Writing better is a slower process, but then I’ve been doing it longer so improvements take more time. The amount of change is less too.
What raises you out of the ordinary and gives you a sense of accomplishment?
November 18, 2016
Ngaio Marsh's Death In White Tie
Death in a White Tie by Ngaio Marsh: A Review by Warren Bull
Death in a White Tie was published in 1938. It was recommended to me while I was on tour in Ngaio’s home in Christchurch, New Zealand. I very much enjoyed both the tour and the novel.
It starts when Roderick Alleyn’s mother, Lady Alleyn, announces that she will get involved in the ”coming out” of young women being presented to society this season in London. She has promised to chaperone one of the young women. One of the women presenting a debutante comes to the Chief Detective-Inspector to ask for help for “a friend” who is being blackmailed. The woman says she cannot reveal the reason “her friend” pays the money. The woman is a close family friend, which makes the matter more personal to Alleyn.
Chief Detective-Inspector Alleyn requests the help of a friend, Lord Robert Gospell affectionately known as Bunchy, who has aided investigations in the past. The man is genuinely liked and respected by other members of the social elite. He often helps those women who find it hard to fit in to the social swim join the activities. While Bunchy is on the phone with Alleyn conveying information aobut the blackmail someone enters the room so Bunchy ends the call. Shortly after that Bunchy is killed, which leaves Alleyn feeling guilty for involving him in the investigation. The policeman has to struggle to contain his rage.
The author describes the elite of society and the “coming out” of young women with assurance and knowledge of that social class. Her social commentary is woven seamlessly into the story. As with other novels Marsh’s command of writing is faultless. It is a pleasure to read her work.
This novel includes more about the Detective-Inspector’s life, family and emotions than her other works, which her fans will enjoy.
Dashiell Hammett called the novel, “The best detective story I have ever read.” I give my highest recommendation to the novel.
Death in a White Tie was published in 1938. It was recommended to me while I was on tour in Ngaio’s home in Christchurch, New Zealand. I very much enjoyed both the tour and the novel.
It starts when Roderick Alleyn’s mother, Lady Alleyn, announces that she will get involved in the ”coming out” of young women being presented to society this season in London. She has promised to chaperone one of the young women. One of the women presenting a debutante comes to the Chief Detective-Inspector to ask for help for “a friend” who is being blackmailed. The woman says she cannot reveal the reason “her friend” pays the money. The woman is a close family friend, which makes the matter more personal to Alleyn.
Chief Detective-Inspector Alleyn requests the help of a friend, Lord Robert Gospell affectionately known as Bunchy, who has aided investigations in the past. The man is genuinely liked and respected by other members of the social elite. He often helps those women who find it hard to fit in to the social swim join the activities. While Bunchy is on the phone with Alleyn conveying information aobut the blackmail someone enters the room so Bunchy ends the call. Shortly after that Bunchy is killed, which leaves Alleyn feeling guilty for involving him in the investigation. The policeman has to struggle to contain his rage.
The author describes the elite of society and the “coming out” of young women with assurance and knowledge of that social class. Her social commentary is woven seamlessly into the story. As with other novels Marsh’s command of writing is faultless. It is a pleasure to read her work.
This novel includes more about the Detective-Inspector’s life, family and emotions than her other works, which her fans will enjoy.
Dashiell Hammett called the novel, “The best detective story I have ever read.” I give my highest recommendation to the novel.
November 11, 2016
Colour Scheme by Ngaio Marsh: A Review by Warren Bull
Colour Scheme by Ngaio Marsh: A Review by Warren Bull
Colour Scheme by Ngaio Marsh: A Review by Warren Bull
Colour Scheme was published in 1943 and it is set against the background of New Zealand at war. It begins with members of the Claire family who run a spa, which makes use of the natural hot springs in the area. The family members work very hard but not very well at their enterprise. Colonel Edward Claire and his wife Barbara are the proprietors. They are nice, if somewhat vague. people. Early in their residence in the area Barbara nursed Rua Te Kahu, a chief of the Te Rurawas Maori, back to health after a serious illness. They have been trusted and esteemed by their Maori neighbors ever since. Simon is the couple’s son who has been known to spout off a socialist brand of political talk. Barbara, their daughter lacks sophistication. She is rather shy and, when trying to fit in with people her age, she becomes a bit too loud. Dr. James Ackrington is Barbara’s uncle. He is a permanent resident, curmudgeon and critic of all he surveys.
Maurice Questing is not part of the family, but he resides at the Spa. He has a real talent for angering the doctor. The other Claires are intimidated by him. Huia is a Maori maid likely to burst into tears or otherwise demonstrate her emotions. Robert Smith is a roustabout who does as little as possible with the exception of complaining.
Into this group come Geoffrey Gaunt, actor and celebrity, with his secretary, Dikon Bell and his servant, Alfred Colley. The mix of personalities is a clever and interesting part of the novel. Having been in New Zealand, I could easily envision the setting, which is well described. I am not certain how her portrayal of Maoris would be seen by today’s New Zealanders, but for the time it was written in it is respectful.
Marsh did not get into the major mystery for most of the book, which, as a reader, I was perfectly content with because of the quality of her writing. She kept me interested and entertained by the activity of the characters. Her knowledge of theater and theater people is evident. I enjoyed reading this shortly after visiting her home in Christchurch, New Zealand. I recommend it highly. I also give my very highest recommendation to visiting New Zealand.
Colour Scheme by Ngaio Marsh: A Review by Warren Bull
Colour Scheme was published in 1943 and it is set against the background of New Zealand at war. It begins with members of the Claire family who run a spa, which makes use of the natural hot springs in the area. The family members work very hard but not very well at their enterprise. Colonel Edward Claire and his wife Barbara are the proprietors. They are nice, if somewhat vague. people. Early in their residence in the area Barbara nursed Rua Te Kahu, a chief of the Te Rurawas Maori, back to health after a serious illness. They have been trusted and esteemed by their Maori neighbors ever since. Simon is the couple’s son who has been known to spout off a socialist brand of political talk. Barbara, their daughter lacks sophistication. She is rather shy and, when trying to fit in with people her age, she becomes a bit too loud. Dr. James Ackrington is Barbara’s uncle. He is a permanent resident, curmudgeon and critic of all he surveys.
Maurice Questing is not part of the family, but he resides at the Spa. He has a real talent for angering the doctor. The other Claires are intimidated by him. Huia is a Maori maid likely to burst into tears or otherwise demonstrate her emotions. Robert Smith is a roustabout who does as little as possible with the exception of complaining.
Into this group come Geoffrey Gaunt, actor and celebrity, with his secretary, Dikon Bell and his servant, Alfred Colley. The mix of personalities is a clever and interesting part of the novel. Having been in New Zealand, I could easily envision the setting, which is well described. I am not certain how her portrayal of Maoris would be seen by today’s New Zealanders, but for the time it was written in it is respectful.
Marsh did not get into the major mystery for most of the book, which, as a reader, I was perfectly content with because of the quality of her writing. She kept me interested and entertained by the activity of the characters. Her knowledge of theater and theater people is evident. I enjoyed reading this shortly after visiting her home in Christchurch, New Zealand. I recommend it highly. I also give my very highest recommendation to visiting New Zealand.
November 4, 2016
The Wrong Way Down by Elizabeth Daly: A review by Warren Bull
The Wrong Way Down by Elizabeth Daly: A review by Warren Bull
The Wrong Way Down by Elizabeth Daly: A review by Warren Bull
Elizabeth Daly has been described as Agatha Christie’s favorite writer in the book
titled Murderess Ink: The Better Half of Mystery.
I wrote an earlier review of Nothing Can Rescue Me by this author, concluding that the novel was well written and interesting. I noted that a comparison of her protagonist, Henry Gamadge, with Dorothy L. Sayers’ Lord Peter Wimsey was not unreasonable. I recommended that novel but noted that it was not on a par with works by Agatha Christie or Dorothy L. Sayers.
The Wrong Way Down, first published in 1946, has me reconsidering my conclusions. In my opinion this book does show more originality than either of the two novels by the author I read before. It lured me in and then an unexpected plot twist overturned every one of my expectations. I always try to avoid giving specific details and I will continue to do so in this review. Suffice it to say that there is a touch of genius in this work. I recommend it very highly.
If I have not said it before, do NOT read the blurb on the cover of this mystery or any other mystery. For that matter don’t read the blurbs on any work of fiction. Blurbs appear to be written by people who think nothing of giving away the twists and turns that authors labor to construct and place with care in the particular place in the manuscript where they are most effective. Some reviewers also undercut authors when they cannot overcome the impulse to expose key information that resounded emotionally which they came upon when the author wanted the information revealed. Spoilers are called spoilers for a reason.
And as reminder to me, it is not a good idea to judge a writer by reading only one of two of his or her works. This is a great book and earns my highest recommendation.
The Wrong Way Down by Elizabeth Daly: A review by Warren Bull
Elizabeth Daly has been described as Agatha Christie’s favorite writer in the book
titled Murderess Ink: The Better Half of Mystery.
I wrote an earlier review of Nothing Can Rescue Me by this author, concluding that the novel was well written and interesting. I noted that a comparison of her protagonist, Henry Gamadge, with Dorothy L. Sayers’ Lord Peter Wimsey was not unreasonable. I recommended that novel but noted that it was not on a par with works by Agatha Christie or Dorothy L. Sayers.
The Wrong Way Down, first published in 1946, has me reconsidering my conclusions. In my opinion this book does show more originality than either of the two novels by the author I read before. It lured me in and then an unexpected plot twist overturned every one of my expectations. I always try to avoid giving specific details and I will continue to do so in this review. Suffice it to say that there is a touch of genius in this work. I recommend it very highly.
If I have not said it before, do NOT read the blurb on the cover of this mystery or any other mystery. For that matter don’t read the blurbs on any work of fiction. Blurbs appear to be written by people who think nothing of giving away the twists and turns that authors labor to construct and place with care in the particular place in the manuscript where they are most effective. Some reviewers also undercut authors when they cannot overcome the impulse to expose key information that resounded emotionally which they came upon when the author wanted the information revealed. Spoilers are called spoilers for a reason.
And as reminder to me, it is not a good idea to judge a writer by reading only one of two of his or her works. This is a great book and earns my highest recommendation.
October 14, 2016
Odd Times
Odd Times by Warren Bull
Today in Christchurch the weather was cold and dreary. My wife spent the day preparing for the class she is teaching. I had no particular plans. The prospect of wandering through the Canterbury University campus or the neighborhoods to see emerging flowers was not appealing.
After some purposeless activities, I sat down and reconstructed a short story that somehow got lost. I think the computer ate it. I wrote it for an anthology that I expected, but it never came into being. I have started and stopped the recovery effort a number of times with quite limited success. So that was how I spent a satisfying and useful day.
I was reminded of the time when I was traveling with my mother and our flight got delayed for six hours. We were in the airport where we could take care of necessities as they occurred. With nothing planned I wrote a short story by analyzing and then stealing some of the techniques of Iain Pears, who wrote an absolutely great novel, An Instance of the Fingerpost. It was unlike anything I’ve written before or after. It was a challenge I had set for myself before and was never able to meet until then.
I am not going to share my analysis. It wasn’t based on that novel anyway but on two other wonderful novels of his. Grab a couple of his novels, take six hours and figure it out for yourself, if you like.
My point is that being a writer allows me to take advantage of unexpectedly free periods of time when I might be bored or think about what I can learn from my failures or ponder the meaning of life. I find that, although I can squeeze writing into brief interludes, I like to have enough time to thoroughly work on a project that does not resolve itself easily. Years ago I wrote my dissertation in large chunks of time. There are advantages to being somewhere where you are basically unknown and uninterrupted.
What situations help you write?
Today in Christchurch the weather was cold and dreary. My wife spent the day preparing for the class she is teaching. I had no particular plans. The prospect of wandering through the Canterbury University campus or the neighborhoods to see emerging flowers was not appealing.
After some purposeless activities, I sat down and reconstructed a short story that somehow got lost. I think the computer ate it. I wrote it for an anthology that I expected, but it never came into being. I have started and stopped the recovery effort a number of times with quite limited success. So that was how I spent a satisfying and useful day.
I was reminded of the time when I was traveling with my mother and our flight got delayed for six hours. We were in the airport where we could take care of necessities as they occurred. With nothing planned I wrote a short story by analyzing and then stealing some of the techniques of Iain Pears, who wrote an absolutely great novel, An Instance of the Fingerpost. It was unlike anything I’ve written before or after. It was a challenge I had set for myself before and was never able to meet until then.
I am not going to share my analysis. It wasn’t based on that novel anyway but on two other wonderful novels of his. Grab a couple of his novels, take six hours and figure it out for yourself, if you like.
My point is that being a writer allows me to take advantage of unexpectedly free periods of time when I might be bored or think about what I can learn from my failures or ponder the meaning of life. I find that, although I can squeeze writing into brief interludes, I like to have enough time to thoroughly work on a project that does not resolve itself easily. Years ago I wrote my dissertation in large chunks of time. There are advantages to being somewhere where you are basically unknown and uninterrupted.
What situations help you write?
October 10, 2016
Earthquake Recovery
Earthquake Recovery by Warren Bull
On February 22, 2011 at 12:51 p.m. an earthquake measuring 6.3 on the Richter scale hit New Zealand’s South Island. It was centered 10 kilometers southeast of Christchurch’s central business district. The quake occurred about six months after a September 2010 earthquake. Although the earlier quake was more violent, at a magnitude of 7.1, the second quake was more shallow and closer to the city.
It occurred about lunchtime on a weekday, which meant that the business center was full of people. 185 people were killed. More than 130 deaths resulted from the collapse of two multi-storey office buildings.
In July of that year my wife, Judy, and I came to Christchurch. Judy was hired to teach a class in Pediatric Audiology at Cambridge University. I came along too.
In August of this year, 2016, we returned to Christchurch. This time Judy came on a fellowship to teach the same subject as before. As part of our stay we went on a rebuild tour, which focused on what had been accomplished in rebuilding the city and what remains to be done.
Part of Christchurch was built over what had been a swamp. With the seismic event heavier material sank as much as a meter and a half while lighter materials such as dust, sewage and water came to the surface. Homes had geysers of sewage come up through toilets. Water and sewage pipes broke under streets. Older buildings were especially vulnerable. Many of the heritage buildings that had given Christchurch a quaint and charming appearance were destroyed. Much of the downtown area was fenced off. People were not allowed to enter that area. Houses were rated as red, unsafe to enter or green safe.
Some people were angry that they could not enter their own houses. Other getting a green rating were too frightened. When we left on November 12th, the last people living in tents got upgraded to better temporary housing.
On the tour we saw considerable progress. We also saw how much still needs to be done. The central city is being created with height restrictions on the buildings. It will be smaller than before and it will have more parks and green areas in and around it with wider streets. Major corporations are building offices. Smaller businesses have reopened. Restaurants and other service industries are also opening. Buildings are still being taken down. Empty lots full of rubble are common. The city allowed people to paint the outside walls of buildings with bright colors. Some walls resemble cartoons. Others look like fine art oil paintings.
Along side the demolition, construction is continuing. People who live here tell us that the central city changes from week to week as more damaged buildings are razed and new businesses start.
A cathedral at the heart of the central city is still the center of controversy. Some people want to save as much as possible of the broken outer shell that exists. Other people want to tear it all down and start from scratch. A proposed modern church was extremely unpopular. That design was abandoned. The debate continues.
A stadium built for the 2011 rugby world cup games is another project without a plan. The city and the insurance company have disagreed about the value of the stadium. No resolution of differences is in sight.
There are certainly fewer places that look like bombed- out buildings than there were five years ago. At that time people predicted at least a decade would be needed to restore Christchurch. I’m happy to report that progress toward that goal is happening. I also think that more than another five years will be needed for a full recovery.
On a positive note, Canterbury University’s enrollment, which had dropped drastically, is now back to former levels. One student started a “Student Army” that helped people dig out and re-start. Farmers started a “Farmy Army” using their farm vehicles to open roads and clear debris.
People here are resilient.
On February 22, 2011 at 12:51 p.m. an earthquake measuring 6.3 on the Richter scale hit New Zealand’s South Island. It was centered 10 kilometers southeast of Christchurch’s central business district. The quake occurred about six months after a September 2010 earthquake. Although the earlier quake was more violent, at a magnitude of 7.1, the second quake was more shallow and closer to the city.
It occurred about lunchtime on a weekday, which meant that the business center was full of people. 185 people were killed. More than 130 deaths resulted from the collapse of two multi-storey office buildings.
In July of that year my wife, Judy, and I came to Christchurch. Judy was hired to teach a class in Pediatric Audiology at Cambridge University. I came along too.
In August of this year, 2016, we returned to Christchurch. This time Judy came on a fellowship to teach the same subject as before. As part of our stay we went on a rebuild tour, which focused on what had been accomplished in rebuilding the city and what remains to be done.
Part of Christchurch was built over what had been a swamp. With the seismic event heavier material sank as much as a meter and a half while lighter materials such as dust, sewage and water came to the surface. Homes had geysers of sewage come up through toilets. Water and sewage pipes broke under streets. Older buildings were especially vulnerable. Many of the heritage buildings that had given Christchurch a quaint and charming appearance were destroyed. Much of the downtown area was fenced off. People were not allowed to enter that area. Houses were rated as red, unsafe to enter or green safe.
Some people were angry that they could not enter their own houses. Other getting a green rating were too frightened. When we left on November 12th, the last people living in tents got upgraded to better temporary housing.
On the tour we saw considerable progress. We also saw how much still needs to be done. The central city is being created with height restrictions on the buildings. It will be smaller than before and it will have more parks and green areas in and around it with wider streets. Major corporations are building offices. Smaller businesses have reopened. Restaurants and other service industries are also opening. Buildings are still being taken down. Empty lots full of rubble are common. The city allowed people to paint the outside walls of buildings with bright colors. Some walls resemble cartoons. Others look like fine art oil paintings.
Along side the demolition, construction is continuing. People who live here tell us that the central city changes from week to week as more damaged buildings are razed and new businesses start.
A cathedral at the heart of the central city is still the center of controversy. Some people want to save as much as possible of the broken outer shell that exists. Other people want to tear it all down and start from scratch. A proposed modern church was extremely unpopular. That design was abandoned. The debate continues.
A stadium built for the 2011 rugby world cup games is another project without a plan. The city and the insurance company have disagreed about the value of the stadium. No resolution of differences is in sight.
There are certainly fewer places that look like bombed- out buildings than there were five years ago. At that time people predicted at least a decade would be needed to restore Christchurch. I’m happy to report that progress toward that goal is happening. I also think that more than another five years will be needed for a full recovery.
On a positive note, Canterbury University’s enrollment, which had dropped drastically, is now back to former levels. One student started a “Student Army” that helped people dig out and re-start. Farmers started a “Farmy Army” using their farm vehicles to open roads and clear debris.
People here are resilient.
