Chris Hedges's Blog, page 470

Florence Death Toll at 15 as Floods Surge

WILMINGTON, N.C.—Catastrophic flooding from Florence spread across the Carolinas on Sunday, with roads to Wilmington cut off by the epic deluge and muddy river water swamping entire neighborhoods miles inland. “The risk to life is rising with the angry waters,” Gov. Roy Cooper declared as the storm’s death toll climbed to 15.

As the storm continued to crawl inland, dumping more than 30 inches of rain in spots since Friday, fears of historic flooding grew and tens of thousands were ordered evacuated from communities along the state’s steadily rising rivers — with the Cape Fear, Little River, Lumber, Waccamaw and Pee Dee rivers all projected to burst their banks.

In Wilmington, with roads leading in and out of the coastal city underwater and streams still headed upward, residents waited for hours outside stores and restaurants for basic necessities like water. Police guarded the door of one store, and only 10 people were allowed inside at a time.

Woody White, chairman of the board of commissioners of New Hanover County, said officials were planning for food and water to be flown into the coastal city of nearly 120,000 people.

“Our roads are flooded,” he said. “There is no access to Wilmington.”

About 70 miles away from the coast, residents near the Lumber River stepped from their homes directly into boats floating in their front yards; river forecasts showed the scene could be repeated in towns as far as 250 miles inland as waters rise for days.

Downgraded to a tropical depression overnight, Florence was still massive. Radar showed parts of the sprawling storm over six states, with North and South Carolina in the bull’s-eye.

Thousands were ordered to evacuate from what officials said could be the worst flooding in North Carolina history, but it wasn’t clear how many had fled or even could. The head of Federal Emergency Management Agency, Brock Long, said officials were focused on finding people and rescuing them.

“We’ll get through this. It’ll be ugly, but we’ll get through it,” Long told NBC’s “Meet The Press.”

President Donald Trump said federal emergency workers, first responders and law enforcement officials are “working really hard” on Florence. He tweeted that as the storm “begins to finally recede, they will kick into an even higher gear. Very Professional!”

The storm’s death toll climbed to 15 when a pickup truck ran off Interstate 20 in South Carolina and struck an overpass support, killing the driver. Earlier, authorities said a man drowned after his pickup truck flipped into a drainage ditch along a flooded South Carolina road and two people died from inhaling carbon monoxide from a generator in their home.

About 740,000 homes and businesses remained without power in the Carolinas, and utilities said some could be out for weeks.

Victor Merlos was overjoyed to find a store open for business in Wilmington since he had about 20 relatives staying at his apartment, which still had power. He spent more than $500 on cereal, eggs, soft drinks and other necessities, plus beer.

“I have everything I need for my whole family,” said Merlos. Nearby, a Waffle House restaurant limited breakfast customers to one biscuit and one drink, all take-out, with the price of $2 per item.

Florence was still spinning slowly atop the Carolinas as it pulled warm water from the ocean and hurled it onshore. Kenneth Campbell had donned waterproof waders intending to check out his home in Lumberton, but he didn’t bother when he saw the Coast Guard and murky waters in his neighborhood.

“I’m not going to waste my time. I already know,” he said.

As rivers swelled toward record levels, state regulators and environmental groups were monitoring the threat from gigantic hog and poultry farms located in low-lying, flood-prone areas.

The industrial-scale farms typically feature vast pits of animal feces and urine that can pose a significant pollution threat if they are breached or inundated by floodwaters. In past hurricanes, flooding at dozens of farms also left hundreds of thousands of dead hogs, chickens and other decomposing livestock bobbing in floodwaters.

Stream gauges across the region showed water levels rising steadily, with forecasts calling for rivers to crest Sunday and Monday at or near record levels: The Little River, the Cape Fear, the Lumber, the Neuse, the Waccamaw and the Pee Dee were all projected to burst their banks, possibly flooding nearby communities.

Evacuations were ordered for thousands of people, and the Defense Department said about 13,500 military personnel had been assigned to help relief efforts.

Authorities ordered the immediate evacuation of up to 7,500 people living within a mile (1.6 kilometers) of a stretch of the Cape Fear River and the Little River, about 100 miles (160 kilometers) from the North Carolina coast. The evacuation zone included part of the city of Fayetteville, population 200,000.

John Rose owns a furniture business with stores less than a mile (1.6 kilometers) from the river. Rain-soaked furniture workers helped him quickly empty more than 1,000 mattresses from a warehouse in a low-lying strip mall.

“It’s the first time we’ve ever had to move anything like this,” Rose said. “If the river rises to the level they say it’s going to, then this warehouse is going to be under water.”

Fayetteville’s city officials, meanwhile, got help from the Nebraska Task Force One search and rescue team to evacuate 140 residents of an assisted-living facility in Fayetteville to a safer location at a church.

Already, more than 2 feet (60 centimeters) of rain had fallen in places, and forecasters were saying there could be an additional 1½ feet (45 centimeters) before Sunday was out.

“Flood waters are still raging across parts of our state, and the risk to life is rising with the angry waters,” Cooper said. “If you aren’t watching for them, you are risking your life.”

Officials were warning residents not only to stay off the roads but also to avoid using GPS systems.

“As conditions change, GPS navigation systems are not keeping up with the road closures and are directing people onto roads that are confirmed closed and/or flooded,” the state Transportation Department said on Twitter.

Florence weakened to a tropical depression early Sunday and was crawling west at 8 mph (13 kph). At 5 a.m., the storm was centered about 20 miles (35 kilometers) southwest of Columbia, South Carolina. Its winds were down to 35 mph (55 kph).

In Goldsboro, North Carolina, home of Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, roads that frequently flood were already closed Saturday by rushing water. Dozens of electric repair trucks massed to respond to damage expected to hit central North Carolina as rainwater collected into rivers headed to the coast.

On Saturday evening, Duke Energy said heavy rains caused a slope to collapse at a coal ash landfill at a closed power station outside Wilmington. Duke spokeswoman Paige Sheehan said about 2,000 cubic yards (1,530 cubic meters) of ash were displaced at the Sutton Plant and that contaminated storm water likely flowed into the plant’s cooling pond.

Near the flooded-out town of New Bern, where about 455 people had to be rescued from the swirling flood waters, water completely surrounded churches, businesses and homes. In the neighboring town of Trenton, downtown streets were turned to creeks full of brown water.

Still, spirits were high at the Trent Park Elementary School in New Bern, where 44-year-old Cathy Yolanda Wright took shelter after being rescued from her flooded home Saturday. Wright, who sings in the choir at Mount Calvary Missionary Baptist, led residents at the shelter in an energetic singalong.

People clapped and shouted, “Amen!” and “Thank you, Lord.”

___

Associated Press writers Alex Derosier in Fayetteville, North Carolina; Jonathan Drew in Wilmington, North Carolina; Allen G. Brred and Emery P. Dalesio in New Bern, North Carolina; Denise Lavoie and Sarah Rankin in Richmond, Virginia; Gary Robertson and Martha Waggoner in Raleigh, North Carolina; Meg Kinnard, Russ Bynum and and Jeffrey Collins in Columbia, South Carolina; Seth Borenstein and Michael Biesecker in Washington; Lolita C. Baldor at the Pentagon; Jennifer Kay in Miami; Pete Iacobelli in Clemson, South Carolina, and Jay Reeves in Atlanta contributed to this report.

___

For the latest on Hurricane Florence, visit https://www.apnews.com/tag/Hurricanes

Death Toll Rises to 11 as Florence Pours On the Rain

NEW BERN, N.C.—The Marines, the Coast Guard, civilian crews and volunteers used helicopters, boats and heavy-duty vehicles Saturday to rescue hundreds of people trapped by Florence’s shoreline onslaught, even as North Carolina braced for what could be the next stage of the disaster: widespread, catastrophic flooding inland.

The death toll from the hurricane-turned-tropical storm climbed to 11.

A day after blowing ashore with 90 mph (145 kph) winds, Florence practically parked itself over land all day long and poured on the rain. With rivers rising toward record levels, thousands of people were ordered to evacuate for fear the next few days could bring the most destructive round of flooding in North Carolina history.

More than 2 feet (60 centimeters) of rain had fallen in places, and the drenching went on and on, with forecasters saying there could be an additional 1½ feet (45 centimeters) by the end of the weekend.

“I cannot overstate it: Floodwaters are rising, and if you aren’t watching for them, you are risking your life,” Gov. Roy Cooper said.

As of 5 p.m., Florence was centered about 60 miles (95 kilometers) west of Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, inching west at 2 mph (4 kph) — not even as fast as a person walking. Its winds were down to 45 mph (75 kph). With half of the storm still out over the Atlantic, Florence continued to collect warm ocean water and dump it on land.

In its initial onslaught along the coast, Florence buckled buildings, deluged entire communities and knocked out power to more than 900,000 homes and businesses. But the storm was shaping up as a two-part disaster, with the second, delayed stage triggered by rainwater working its way into rivers and streams.

The flash flooding could devastate communities and endanger dams, roads and bridges.

Authorities ordered the immediate evacuation of up to 7,500 people living within a mile (1.6 kilometers) of a stretch of the Cape Fear River and the Little River, about 100 miles (160 kilometers) from the coast. The evacuation zone included part of the city of Fayetteville, population 200,000.

Officials in nearby Harnett County urged residents of about 1,100 homes to clear out because the Lower Little River was rising toward record levels.

One potential road out was blocked as flooding forced the shutdown of a 16-mile (26-kilometer) stretch of Interstate 95, the main highway along the Eastern Seaboard.

In New Bern, along the coast, homes were completely surrounded by water, and rescuers used inflatable boats to reach people.

Kevin Knox and his family were rescued from their flooded brick home with the help of Army Sgt. Johan Mackie, part of a team using a phone app to locate people in distress. Mackie rode in a boat through a flooded neighborhood, navigating through trees and past a fencepost to get to the Knox house.

“Amazing. They did awesome,” said Knox, who was stranded with seven others, including a boy who was carried out in a life vest. “If not, we’d be stuck upstairs for the next … how long? I have no idea.”

New Bern spokeswoman Colleen Roberts said 455 people in all were rescued in the town of 30,000 residents without any serious injuries or deaths. But thousands of buildings were damaged in destruction Roberts called “heart-wrenching.”

Across the Trent River from New Bern, Jerry and Jan Andrews returned home after evacuating to find carp flopping in their backyard near the porch stairs.

Coast Guard helicopters were taking off across the street to rescue stranded people from rooftops and swamped cars. Coast Guard members said choppers had made about 50 rescues in and around New Bern and Jacksonville as of noon.

Marines rescued about 20 civilians from floodwaters near Camp Lejeune, using Humvees and amphibious assault vehicles, the base reported.

In Lumberton, about 80 miles (130 kilometers) inland, Jackie and Quinton Washington watched water filling both their front and back yards near the Lumber River. Hurricane Matthew sent more than 5 feet (1.5 meters) of water into their home in 2016, and the couple feared Florence would run them out again.

“If it goes up to my front step, I have to get out,” Quintin Washington said.

The dead included a mother and baby killed when a tree fell on a house in Wilmington, North Carolina. South Carolina recorded its first death from the storm, with officials saying a 61-year-old woman was killed when her car hit a tree that had fallen across a highway.

Three died in one inland county, Duplin, because of water on roads and flash floods, the sheriff’s office said. A husband and wife died in a house fire linked to the storm, officials said, and an 81-year-old man died after falling and hitting his head while packing to evacuate.

Retired Marine Garland King and his wife, Katherine, evacuated their home in New Bern on Friday and returned Saturday, sharing a kiss and joining hands as they drew near their house.

“It was tough. Wobbling. I was looking for water moccasins to hit me at any time,” he said.

They finally made it, and found a soggy, stinking mess.

“The carpets. The floors. Everything is soaking wet,” Katherine King said. “We’re going to have to redo the whole inside.”

The National Hurricane Center said Florence broke a North Carolina rainfall record that had stood for almost 20 years: Preliminary reports showed Swansboro got more than 30 inches (75 centimeters) and counting, obliterating the mark set in 1999, when Hurricane Floyd dropped just over 24 inches (60 centimeters) on the state.

As of noon, Emerald Isle had more than 23 inches (58 centimeters) of rain, and Wilmington and Goldsboro had about a foot (30 centimeters). North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, had around 7 inches (18 centimeters).

Stream gauges across the region showed water levels rising steadily, with forecasts calling for rivers to crest Sunday and Monday at or near record levels. The Little River, the Cape Fear, the Lumber, the Neuse, the Waccamaw and the Pee Dee were all projected to rise over their banks, flooding cities and towns.

Forecasters said the storm will eventually break up over the southern Appalachians and make a sharp rightward swing to the northeast, its rainy remnants moving into the mid-Atlantic states and New England by the middle of the week.

___

AP writers Jonathan Drew in Wilmington; Jeffrey Collins in Fork, South Carolina; Emery P. Dalesio in New Bern; Denise Lavoie and Sarah Rankin in Richmond, Virginia; Gary Robertson in Raleigh, North Carolina; Meg Kinnard in Columbia, South Carolina; Seth Borenstein and Michael Biesecker in Washington; Martha Waggoner in Raleigh, North Carolina; Jennifer Kay in Miami; Russ Bynum in Columbia, South Carolina; Pete Iacobelli in Clemson, South Carolina, and Jay Reeves in Atlanta contributed to this report.

___

For the latest on Hurricane Florence, visit https://www.apnews.com/tag/Hurricanes

U.S. Border Patrol Agent Arrested in Texas as Suspected Serial Killer

LAREDO, Texas—A U.S. Border Patrol agent suspected of killing four prostitutes was arrested early Saturday after a fifth woman managed to escape from him and notify the authorities, law enforcement officials said, describing the agent as a “serial killer.”

Juan David Ortiz, an intel supervisor for the Border Patrol, fled from state troopers and was found hiding in a hotel parking lot in Laredo at around 2 a.m. Saturday, Webb County Sheriff Martin Cuellar said at a news conference in the border city about 145 miles (235 kilometers) southwest of San Antonio. He said investigators have “very strong evidence” that he is responsible for the deaths of the four women.

The county’s district attorney, Isidro Alaniz, described Ortiz as a serial killer. Authorities didn’t disclose the victims’ names or nationalities and they declined to discuss the evidence or say how the women were killed.

Alaniz said investigators are still trying to determine a motive for the killings. He said all of the women worked as prostitutes.

He said his office plans to charge Ortiz with four counts of murder and one count of aggravated kidnapping.

Man Dies After Shark Attack Off Cape Cod

WELLFLEET, Mass.—A man boogie boarding off a Cape Cod beach was attacked by a shark on Saturday and died later at a hospital, becoming the state’s first shark attack fatality in more than 80 years.

The 26-year-old man from Revere succumbed to his injuries following the attack in the waters off Newcomb Hollow Beach in Wellfleet at around noon, Wellfleet Police Lt. Michael Hurley said.

Life-saving measures were attempted on the beach before the man was taken to Cape Cod Hospital in Hyannis, where he was pronounced dead, State Police spokesman David Procopio said. The beach has been closed to swimming.

The attack is the first fatal shark attack in Massachusetts since 1936, and the second shark attack this season.

A 61-year-old New York man was severely injured Aug. 15 after fighting off a shark off Truro, about 4 miles north of Saturday’s attack. He’s currently recovering in a Boston hospital.

“Today is just keeping everyone out of the water,” Hurley said. “There’ll be a determination later about what the town wants to do with the beaches going forward.”

Beachgoers said the Wellfleet beach is popular with surfers, and with sunny skies and warm temperatures Saturday it was busy, even though the summer season was over and lifeguards were no longer on watch.

Joe Booth, a local fisherman and surfer, said he was on shore when he saw the man and his friend boogie boarding when the attack happened.

He said he saw the man kick aggressively kick something behind him and a flicker of a tail from the water. He realized what was happening when the friend came ashore dragging his injured friend.

“I was that guy on the beach screaming, ‘Shark, shark!’ ” Booth said. “It was like right out of that movie ‘Jaws.’ This has turned into Amity Island real quick out here.”

Booth said others on the beach attempted to make a tourniquet while others frantically called 911.

Hayley Williamson, a Cape Cod resident and former lifeguard who was on the beach at the time, was in disbelief after the man, who police have not yet identified was rushed in an ambulance.

“We’ve been surfing all morning right here and they were just further down,” she said of the two boogie boarders. “Right spot, wrong time, I guess.”

A Cape Cod politician said officials who did not take more aggressive action against sharks bore some responsibility for the fatal attack. Barnstable County Commissioner Ron Beaty said he had warned something like this could happen.

“It is my personal belief that the responsibility for this horrible shark attack rests squarely upon the shoulders of the aforementioned officials for their utter lack of attention and inaction regarding the growing shark problem on Cape Cod of the last few years,” he said.

The family of the victim was notified of the death but his name was not released, Procopio said.

The state’s last shark attack fatality was on July 25, 1936, when 16-year-old Joseph Troy Jr. was bitten in waters off Mattapoisett.

Troy, of Boston’s Dorchester neighborhood, was visiting an uncle and was swimming about 50 feet offshore when the shark attacked.

__

Associated Press reporter Philip Marcelo contributed from Boston.

American History for Truthdiggers: The Slow, Perilous Shift to Emancipation

Editor’s note: The past is prologue. The stories we tell about ourselves and our forebears inform the sort of country we think we are and help determine public policy. As our current president promises to “make America great again,” this moment is an appropriate time to reconsider our past, look back at various eras of United States history and re-evaluate America’s origins. When, exactly, were we “great”?

Below is the 17th installment of the “American History for Truthdiggers” series, a pull-no-punches appraisal of our shared, if flawed, past. The author of the series, Danny Sjursen, an active-duty major in the U.S. Army, served military tours in Iraq and Afghanistan and taught the nation’s checkered, often inspiring past when he was an assistant professor of history at West Point. His war experiences, his scholarship, his skill as a writer and his patriotism illuminate these Truthdig posts.

Part 17 of “American History for Truthdiggers.”

See: Part 1; Part 2; Part 3; Part 4; Part 5; Part 6; Part 7; Part 8; Part 9; Part 10; Part 11; Part 12; Part 13; Part 14; Part 15; Part 16.

* * *

“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union.” —President Abraham Lincoln, in a letter to the abolitionist Horace Greeley (Aug. 22, 1862)

It is nearly impossible to illustrate the magnitude of the American ordeal of civil war. It is not just the hundreds of thousands of soldiers and civilians killed, but the fact that this war—perhaps more than any other—utterly transformed the United States. The bookshelves simply overflow with fascinating military histories of the conflict, and I’ll leave that part of the story to their distinguished authors. Rather, let us here examine how, in the course of just four years, the war moved from being dedicated solely to the preservation of the Union to becoming a war of liberation to emancipate slaves.

How, in other words, did President Lincoln move from his above quote—declaring he would do nearly anything with the slaves (including leaving them in bondage) in order to preserve the Union—to the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863 and, eventually, the 13th Amendment constitutionally abolishing slavery (1865)? What’s certain is that Lincoln himself may have transformed—for both tactical and moral reasons—as a brutal war moved him squarely into the abolitionist camp. This is perhaps the most profound tale of this horrific war: the one with the most transformative impacts.

The Myth of Union Invincibility

It’s often said that the North held all the strong economic, political and military cards at the start of this war. And, indeed, it did—on paper. The Union states had the vast majority of the (white) population, nine-tenths of the manufactured goods, seven-tenths of the miles of railroad tracks, nine-tenths of the merchant ships and seven-tenths of the grain production. The North also received most of the country’s annual immigration and had eight-tenths of the nation’s banking flow. By these measures, it seemed the South didn’t stand a chance.

But a closer look narrows the gap between the two belligerents. The North had essentially no army—its paltry regiments were mostly spread across the vast western interior fighting Indians. Furthermore, some of the most able U.S. Army officers—one thinks of Robert E. Lee, T.J. “Stonewall” Jackson and James Longstreet—quickly resigned their commissions and joined the new Confederate army. That army, of course, was mobilized rather quickly because it had a head start. After John Brown’s raid on Harpers Ferry in 1859, spooked Southerners from Virginia to Texas formed militias to stave off perceived threats of slave rebellion. Many of these local militiamen would form the core of the future Confederate armies.

Perhaps the biggest equalizer, however, was the matter of opposing war aims. The Union could win only if it conquered and occupied much of the South. A win for the South, on the other hand, meant simply not losing. This is a much easier, and defensive, task. The Union could count on long supply lines (which had to be guarded) and frequent guerrilla attacks by the Confederates at its rear. The South fought on familiar turf and with much shorter supply lines. And the population numbers were themselves deceptive. Though the North counted seven-tenths of the white population, the South counted nearly 4 million slaves. These laborers kept the Southern agrarian economy churning and freed up millions of potential soldiers for the Confederacy. Conversely, Northerners, out of fear of crippling their economy, couldn’t mobilize nearly so high a percentage of the workforce.

Many Southerners also argued that its rural population was more martial and effective than the supposedly effete Yankees. Some even claimed that just a single Southerner could “whoop 10 Yankees!” Though the South met early battlefield success and was generally better led during the war’s early campaigns, such conceited proclamations would be proved wrong. It turned out that there was enough (often foolhardy) valor on both sides, as men killed and died with a discipline that is shocking to the modern reader. In the end, nothing was inevitable, neither Union victory nor Southern defeat, but by 1862 one thing seemed certain: It was to be a long, hard war.

For Union!: Lincoln Walks the High Wire (1861-62)

President Lincoln was obsessed with Kentucky. Well, he had been born there. But there was far more to it. After all, not every slave state had seceded. Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware stayed in the Union—in some cases only just. Lincoln knew he needed to keep the so-called border states on the Union side, or at least neutral. Many lateral (east/west) railroad lines ran through the western border states and would be vital to shifting troops from theater to theater. Maryland and Delaware, along with already seceded Virginia, surrounded the Union capital, Washington, D.C. The president’s very safety was at stake.

So it was that Lincoln’s desire to keep the border states in the Union informed the president’s strategic thinking in the war’s first year. Lincoln had to downplay the abolitionist sentiments of his Republican Party and reassure Northern Americans—most of them wildly racist—that this war was for union, not a crusade against slavery. In keeping with this strategy, in the war’s early months most Union commanders were ordered to return runaway slaves and enforce the Southerners’ rights to their “property.”

Lincoln didn’t want and, he thought, couldn’t afford a crusade. What was needed was a quick victory, and a limited war that didn’t too badly damage Southern property or increase border state sympathy for the Confederacy. Initially, Lincoln called for only 75,000 three-month volunteers, and this is telling. One grand victory and the seizure of the Confederate capital in nearby Richmond, Va., might just end the war in one fell swoop. Of course, it was not to be. The green Union Army was out-led and, ultimately, outfought at the July 1861 Battle of Bull Run, near Manassas Junction, Va., and fled back to the District of Columbia in disarray.

In Tennessee and Mississippi, an unknown, disheveled general named Ulysses S. Grant—who had failed in most of life’s endeavors and been cashiered from the regular Army years before for drunkenness—met with more success (he would eventually lead all Union armies). Still, the rebels had generally acquitted themselves well in the war’s early years. It was to be a long war. Union strategy would have to change. As Lincoln wrote, “We must change tactics or lose the game.” It was time to strike the economic and cultural heart of the Confederacy: the institution of slavery.

‘As He Died to Make Men Holy, Let Us Die to Set Men Free’: Emancipation Comes at Last

Lincoln was stuck between political forces. The opposition Democrats in the North were decidedly against emancipation of the slaves, as was much of the Northern population (especially Irish immigrants). His own Republicans—especially the “radical wing”—on the other hand, were becoming frustrated with Union military defeats and Lincoln’s unwillingness to attack slavery. But Lincoln was personally edging ever closer to the “radical” position, for reasons of “military necessity.” Congress, in July of that year, had passed the Confiscation Act of 1862, which held that Union military officers were no longer obliged to return runaways to Southern slaveholders. Congress knew, as did Lincoln and his commanders, that slavery was the core of the Southern war machine. Slaves dug trenches, built forts, raised crops and enabled millions of white men to head to the battle front. Something had to be done to strike a blow to the South’s war-making capacity. An attack on slavery seemed to be just the thing.

Unfortunately, Lincoln felt he first needed a battlefield victory before issuing an Emancipation Proclamation. And, for a year, his armies in the vital Eastern theater had known nothing but defeat: at Bull Run (1861), the Peninsula Campaign (1862), the Shenandoah Valley (1862) and Second Bull Run (1862). Then, in September 1862, the effective, victorious Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee took his Army of Northern Virginia northward and invaded Maryland. He hoped to turn Maryland into a rebel state, gain international recognition for the Confederacy and, perhaps, end the war. On Sept. 17, 1862, at Antietam Creek, Lee was (just barely) defeated and forced back into Virginia. Though the ever-cautious Union Gen. George B. McClellan had failed to trap and destroy or at least meaningfully pursue Lee’s army (despite having found a misplaced copy of the Confederate battle plan!), Lincoln had the “victory” he needed.

Soon afterward, he issued probably one of the most profound, questionably legal and consequential executive edicts of all time: the Emancipation Proclamation. It declared that on Jan. 1, 1863, all slaves held in the rebellious states were “then, thenceforward, and forever free!” So, how many slaves did Lincoln free in January 1863? Zero. The edict didn’t touch the slaves in border states (Lincoln still needed to keep these states in the Union) and applied only to slaves in regions actively in rebellion. Of course, the Confederates reigned in these areas and weren’t about to free their slaves. In the end, the proclamation was a war measure, not a humanitarian decree. But it did change one thing. The Union Army would transform overnight into an army of liberation wherever it marched.

This much, too, is certain: There would have been no Emancipation Proclamation had the war not lasted so long and turned so bloody. It was the death of whites by the tens of thousands that convinced the Union to free the blacks. The irony, of course, was that if the Union had won at Bull Run, or if the Union’s commander during 1862, Gen. McClellan, would have seized Richmond in July 1862 (as he nearly did), then the war might have ended with slavery intact. After all, emancipation was not yet a stated war aim, and it is likely that a coalition of Southerners, border staters and Northern Democrats would have negotiated reunion without emancipation. Who knows how long slavery might then have persevered in the American South.

Who (Really) Freed the Slaves?

“The Emancipation of Negroes” (1863), by the influential artist and cartoonist Thomas Nast, offers an aspirational depiction of a prospering black family, at center. The drawing, published in Harper’s Weekly, commemorates President Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, which took effect on the first day of January in 1863.

Ask an American on the street today “Who freed the slaves?” and nine times out of 10 the answer will be “Abe Lincoln, of course.” But that’s not strictly true. Lincoln did, it must be said, generally abhor the institution of slavery, but he was extraordinarily cautious in its abolition. His Emancipation Proclamation didn’t free a single slave on the day it took effect, Jan. 1, 1863. And it wasn’t just “military necessity” that had provoked the decision. From the earliest days of the war, the slaves, if not the Northern whites, were totally sure this was a war for abolition. By the tens of thousands they risked their lives to escape to Union lines. They placed the question of emancipation—of what exactly was to be done with these “contrabands” of war, as the slaves were termed—on the agenda of the Union Army and, by extension, the U.S. government.

“Near Andersonville” (1866) by Winslow Homer, one of the foremost painters of 19th-century America. It shows a slave watching as Union troops are led into captivity by Confederates. More than 10,000 Northerners died at the Andersonville Prison in Georgia during the Civil War.

How this process worked can be made clear with a simple vignette, undoubtedly repeated thousands of times during the war. A family of runaway slaves—man, woman and child—escapes a plantation and enters Union-held territory. They meet a lowly private on guard duty. The soldier is no abolitionist; heck, he has probably never met many black people. He certainly doesn’t see them as his equal. Still, he catches the look in the poor child’s eyes and doesn’t want to be responsible for turning these slaves away. So he asks his lieutenant what to do, who asks the captain, who asks the colonel, who asks the general, who … eventually asks President Lincoln. What exactly is the policy of the U.S. government toward these human “contrabands”? The question becomes public, is debated in Congress, on the streets, in countless taverns.

Most standard histories ignore this facet of the war and deny agency to the millions of black slaves, most of whom are portrayed as victims and then grateful benefactors. Only they were so much more. Seen in this light, it was the slaves, through their many thousands of dangerous escapes, who freed themselves, by flooding the Union Army lines both before and after the famed Emancipation Proclamation.

Whither Civil Liberties?

The Civil War probably did more to expand federal and presidential power than any other war in American history. Although both the Union and Confederacy were republics and ostensible democracies, each soon found that exigencies of war would force them to curtail civil liberties and centralize governance. The latter was particularly ironic in the “states rights”-obsessed South. Lincoln, in response to anti-conscription and anti-war riots, called out the Army in more than a few cities, suspended habeas corpus and imprisoned many anti-war figures. He even banished one Ohio politician to the South! Some of these measures have been, rightfully, criticized by later scholars.

But context matters. Lincoln had a war to win, political enemies at his rear and an Army that had known mostly defeat for two full years. Furthermore, the draft riots were a genuine threat and a reflection of Northern racism (and unhappiness about fighting for black freedom), especially among the Irish. For example, in the New York riots of July 1863, angry mobs attacked blacks throughout the city, killing more than 100 and prompting Lincoln to call in federal troops fresh from the Battle of Gettysburg to suppress the five-day melee. Lincoln’s critics, who took to calling him “King Abraham,” “a Caesar” and a tyrant, remained angry throughout the war. They resented the implementation of a military draft (the first of its type), his transformation of the war into one of emancipation, declarations of martial law and his suspension of civil liberties. However, the American people, by and large, stood by Lincoln and gave him (a surprising) victory in his bid for re-election in 1864.

“The Miscegenation Ball,” an 1864 political attack on Lincoln, attempted to inflame racist passions by portraying white men cavorting with black women.

The actions of Confederate President Jefferson Davis were even more ironic. His was a republic supposedly founded on states’ rights and in opposition to centralized control. And yet it was the Confederacy that first passed a conscription law and drafted its white population into military service.

Interestingly, a “Twenty-Negro Law” exempted substantial slaveholders from conscription, resulting in opposition by some to what was called a “rich man’s war and poor man’s fight.” The government in Richmond could temporarily commandeer slaves for war labor. Furthermore, high taxation (which the Southern Democrats supposedly abhorred) combined with food shortages to cause notorious “bread riots” in Richmond and mass desertions from the South’s armies. In some regions, deserters and draft dodgers formed armed militias that essentially ruled certain counties as independent nations.

The story was the same, North and South, as it often is: “Military necessity” and a long, bloody war curtailed individual freedom.

Carnage: Waging the Civil War

It was a bloodbath. From start to finish, thousands upon thousands of Americans—clad in blue or gray—fell dead or maimed on the field of battle. Few had predicted such a massive bloodletting; after all, this was to be a 90-day war. Instead, it lasted more than four years. The American Civil War was by far the costliest in American history. Some 600,000 died, if not more—equivalent to more than the American fatalities of the two world wars taken together. On a single day at the Battle of Antietam (Sept. 17, 1862), more men were killed and wounded on both sides than in all previous American wars. More Union men became casualties that day than the number that would fall on D-Day in 1944.

The primary cause of all this death and destruction (besides the devotion of both sides) was the rifled musket. In previous wars, the United States and other belligerents generally used smoothbore muskets, which were far less accurate. Rifling a musket increased its range and accuracy fourfold and made the defense the far stronger tactical position. The rifle also decreased the offensive value of artillery, as gunners could now be picked off when the cannons were brought forward. Furthermore, traditional cavalry charges became a thing of the past, since bullets took down horses and riders long before they could reach the infantrymen’s lines.

Still, there was more to it than mere technology. The tactics of this war had not yet caught up with the technological advances. Most officers on both sides, trained in Napoleonic tactics at West Point, preferred the offensive to the defensive. They were taught to be aggressive and to seek out and destroy the enemy’s main force. Few recognized the transformational power of the rifle soon enough to stray from the “close-order column” tactics of the Napoleonic Wars, and they marched their men straight into the deadly maelstrom of enemy fire. Though often misguided, these officers were brave; there is no question. Colonels and generals led from the front, and in the Civil War, a general was more likely to be killed than a private. The inverse has tended to be true ever since. By war’s end, after years of failure to recognize the tactical revolution that had been unleashed, both sides had shifted to entrenchments and defensive fortifications. Unfortunately, by then, hundreds of thousands had fallen in foolish close-order charges.

We Are Men: Black Soldiers in the Civil War

“Once let the black man get upon his person the brass letters US, let him get an eagle on his button, and a musket on his shoulder, and bullets in his pocket, and there is no power on earth or under the earth which can deny that he has earned the right of citizenship in the United States.” —A speech by abolitionist and former runaway slave Frederick Douglass at National Hall in Philadelphia (July 6, 1863)

Few could have imagined it. Most Southerners and plenty of Northerners couldn’t have foreseen the mass arming of blacks and their service in the armies of the federal republic! But this is exactly what occurred, as early as 1862, when Congress gave its approval. The decision was driven by two main forces: one, military necessity, and, two, the clamoring of blacks and runaway slaves themselves to serve the Union. And enlist they did, in record numbers. Though just 1 percent of the prewar Northern population, blacks eventually constituted 10 percent of Union Army volunteers. Furthermore, 85 percent of the North’s of-age black population enlisted.

All told, by war’s end, 180,000 blacks would serve the Union. They were paid less than white soldiers, treated poorly by many white troopers, served under white officers and were initially kept behind the lines for humiliating menial labor. Still, the valor of the black troops cannot be overestimated. By 1865, 20 percent of the 180,000 black soldiers had died, a casualty rate much higher than among their white brothers in arms. Many black soldiers came from the border states, for enlisting in the Army was the only sure way to freedom in regions where slavery remained legal after the Emancipation Proclamation was issued. Tens of thousands of others were runaways, only recently held in bondage.

“And Not This Man?” (August 1865) by Thomas Nast shows the nation in the guise of Columbia appealing for civil rights for a soldier who lost a leg in the recently ended Civil War. Nearly 200,000 blacks fought for the Union.

These men knew exactly what they were fighting for. The war was no abstraction for a runaway slave. In the Army they could contribute to a victory they hoped would bring their permanent salvation. They also found many other things in the Army: the dignity of service; a transformation of their self-image; and, among some at least, a new respect in the collective national opinion. Still, serving in a black regiment was dangerous for soldier and officer alike. The Confederates were appalled by the sight of blacks armed and in uniform. Some Confederate units refused to take black prisoners and had a policy of shooting captured black soldiers and their hated white officers. Besides, with much to prove on the field of battle, combat could be extraordinarily perilous.

One of the first and most famous black regiments formed was the 54th Massachusetts Infantry. Its colonel was the 26-year-old Robert Gould Shaw, the son of prominent abolitionist parents in Boston. As a Massachusetts regiment, raised partly at the behest of Frederick Douglass and other famous local abolitionists, the 54th was the North’s “showcase black regiment.” In July 1863, the regiment volunteered to lead the assault on the formidable Fort Wagner in South Carolina. In the heroic, and ultimately unsuccessful, attack, nearly half the regiment became casualties and Shaw was killed charging the fort’s parapet. Though the attack failed, the exploits of the 54th resonated across the North. The Atlantic Monthly declared, “Through the cannon smoke of that dark night [at Fort Wagner], the manhood of the colored race shines before many eyes that would not see.”

The Confederates threw the body of Col. Shaw into the pit of a mass grave along with hundreds of his enlisted men. When a Confederate officer supposedly replied to a request for Shaw’s body with the taunt “We have buried him with his niggers,” Shaw’s proud father replied, “We hold that a soldier’s most appropriate burial-place is on the field where he has fallen.” Col. Shaw still lies with his men in that pit on a South Carolina island.

Lincoln’s Final Act: The 13th Amendment

“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.” —Section I, 13th Amendment to the Constitution (1865)

By January 1865, the war was finally nearing its end. More than half a million soldiers were dead, and nearly 200,000 blacks wore the uniform of the Union. Still, President Lincoln felt there remained work to be done aside from achieving victory in the war. During a lame-duck session of Congress, he fought hard and pushed the 13th Amendment through the House of Representatives on its way to ratification. He was advised not to do so. Some thought it would motivate the South to fight on, others, that it would alienate Lincoln’s supporters in the slave-laden border states; plenty just plain disagreed with the final abolition of slavery.

Nevertheless, Lincoln proceeded. He did so, mainly, because he feared the war would end before slavery was on its way to abolishment. His Emancipation Proclamation, after all, was an executive war measure, sanctioned not by Congress but by presidential fiat. Though the proclamation declared the slaves were “forever free,” might not the courts determine after the war that the edict was unconstitutional or no longer in effect? Might then, as Lincoln feared most, the runaway slaves that donned the Union blue be rendered slaves once again at war’s end? Here Lincoln demonstrated his true mettle. He and his supporters lobbied for the necessary votes, probably bribed their way to some, and eventually won passage of the amendment. Thus ended slavery everywhere. And, ironically, it was in loyal border states such as Delaware that it ended last—long after the Union Army had liberated the slaves of Alabama.

Emancipation and the 13th Amendment that followed constituted, by some economic measurements, the largest and quickest forced confiscation of property in world history and were, by their very nature, a major and complex undertaking. The achievement was profound, if unexpected. A war undertaken, by Lincoln’s own declaration, for preservation of the Union—regardless of the outcome for the slaves—had within four short years morphed into a conflict that abolished slavery once and for all. It was now the law of the land: “Neither slavery, nor indentured servitude … shall exist within the United States.” It was a long, hard road, but after half a century of effort, the once mocked abolitionists had achieved freedom for the slaves.

* * *

On April 14, 1865, just days after Robert E. Lee surrendered his army, Lincoln was assassinated in Ford’s Theatre in Washington, D.C., by the actor and Confederate sympathizer John Wilkes Booth. In a tragedy truer than fiction, Lincoln would not see the Union to final victory. Nonetheless, by April 1865, Lincoln knew that victory was near—though it was not the sort of victory he had initially envisioned. He had hoped to quickly re-establish and preserve the Union without resorting to total war.

Instead, the carnage of Bull Run, the Peninsula campaign, Shiloh and other battles led him to see the bitter truth. Victory demanded that the old Union and the old South be destroyed and a new union reconstructed on its ashes. This would be the task at hand when the Confederacy surrendered. The nation had changed by 1865. The role and scope of federal power had forever increased; notions of race and citizenship had been reformulated. And, lastly, a new nationalism formed as Americans started to think of the federal Union as the paramount law of the land. Before the war, most Americans referred to these United States. After the conflict, almost all labeled this country the United States!

The war appeared to solve many things: the question of union, the legality of secession, even the existence of slavery. Yet so much more, so many unanswered questions, lay before Lincoln’s untested successor and the nation as a whole. How shall the Union be pieced together, and how would (or should) 4 million souls—recently held in bondage—be integrated into American society? The nation would have to be reconstructed, to be sure, but few knew quite what to do with the freed slaves. In the aftermath of civil war there existed an opportunity, a first chance, to legislate and enforce racial equality once and for all. Americans had only to seize the chance. Tragically, they would not.

* * *

To learn more about this topic, consider the following scholarly works:

• James West Davidson, Brian DeLay, Christine Leigh Heyrman, Mark H. Lytle, and Michael B. Stoff, “Experience History: Interpreting America’s Past,” Chapter 16: “Total War and the Republic, 1861-1865” (2011).

• James M. McPherson, “The Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era” (1998).

Maj. Danny Sjursen, a regular contributor to Truthdig, is a U.S. Army officer and former history instructor at West Point. He served tours with reconnaissance units in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has written a memoir and critical analysis of the Iraq War, “Ghost Riders of Baghdad: Soldiers, Civilians, and the Myth of the Surge.” He lives with his wife and four sons in Lawrence, Kan. Follow him on Twitter at @SkepticalVet and check out his new podcast, “Fortress on a Hill,” co-hosted with fellow vet Chris “Henri” Henrikson.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author, expressed in an unofficial capacity, and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. government.

Facebook Empowers Weekly Standard to Suppress Left-Leaning Articles

When Facebook selected the right-wing, Iraq War-boosting magazine The Weekly Standard as an official fact-checking partner last year as part of its effort to combat “misinformation,” progressives warned that the conservative publication would use its power to suppress accurate articles published by center-left and left-wing outlets.

That’s precisely what happened.

After ThinkProgress published an article by Ian Millhiser last week arguing that Supreme Court pick Brett Kavanaugh’s comments during his Senate confirmation hearings combined with a speech he gave in 2017 eliminates “any doubt” that the judge opposes the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade, the Weekly Standard deemed the article “false”—a designation that, given Facebook’s rules and the platform’s enormous power, cuts off 80 percent of the piece’s future traffic and penalizes other pages that dare to post the article.

Expressing opposition to Facebook’s decision to hand the factually challenged Weekly Standard the power to decide what is and isn’t fact-based news, The Intercept republished Millhiser’s piece on Friday with a statement from The Intercept’s editor-in-chief Betsy Reed, who condemned the social media giant’s decision to tank “a fairly straightforward legal analysis” at the behest of a right-wing magazine.

“That legal analysis, the article noted, matched comments Kavanaugh had made in a speech in 2017,” Reed writes. “Facebook, meanwhile, had empowered the right-wing outlet the Weekly Standard to ‘fact check’ articles. The Weekly Standard, invested in Kavanaugh’s confirmation, deemed the ThinkProgress article ‘false.’ The story was effectively nuked from Facebook, with other outlets threatened with traffic and monetary consequences if they shared it.”

“The story is republished below with permission from ThinkProgress,” Reed concluded, “though not from Facebook or the Weekly Standard.”

.@imillhiser’s critical analysis of Brett Kavanaugh’s comments was completely accurate. @weeklystandard naturally wanted to censor it, because @weeklystandard is unscrupulous, and Facebook naturally let it happen because Facebook is pathetic. https://t.co/jS4FqDxpN8

— Brian Beutler (@brianbeutler) September 11, 2018

This is what happens when you let non-reality-based organizations into the fact-checking community to achieve “balance.” You achieve bullshit. https://t.co/LpXvdJnPEA

— Dan Froomkin (@froomkin) September 11, 2018

So Facebook has given the Weekly Standard the power to drive liberal news outlets into the ground and the Weekly Standard is now wielding it https://t.co/divgzdlpOA

— Ryan Grim (@ryangrim) September 11, 2018

Progressive outlets and commentators have been warning since Facebook launched its latest news feed algorithm that allowing such a powerful corporation to become the arbiter of “trustworthy” sources would threaten non-corporate and left-wing outlets that publish information.

These warnings took on a new sense of urgency after Facebook began giving a ton of airtime to Fox News and making publications like the Weekly Standard the gatekeepers of legitimate news.

Demonstrating that Facebook has no plans to apply critical scrutiny to articles published by the very outlet it has empowered as an official fact-checker, The Intercept’s Jon Schwartz found three basic falsehoods in a single paragraph of an article published on the Weekly Standard’s website on Friday.

As of this writing, the Weekly Standard has not yet deemed its article “false.”

More evidence that it was a great idea for Facebook to put these guys in charge of fact-checking https://t.co/Fim7sgrm3W

— Jon Schwarz (@schwarz) September 14, 2018

This claim by the Weekly Standard is of course false, Medicare for All nationalizes the insurance industry, not the healthcare industry. Fortunately, we can be sure the Weekly Standard’s fact-checker will report it to Facebook. https://t.co/UrxKlal5S1 pic.twitter.com/2zcUmepntL

— Jon Schwarz (@schwarz) September 14, 2018

The Weekly Standard’s claim that Medicare is America’s “most expensive and worst-run health-care program” is obviously also false. So there are two things for the Weekly Standard’s fact-checker to report to Facebook. https://t.co/UrxKlal5S1 pic.twitter.com/UrykQzy1Yd

— Jon Schwarz (@schwarz) September 14, 2018

Here’s a third falsehood in just one paragraph of this Weekly Standard article. I hope the Weekly Standard fact-checker gets on this soon, it’s important that people don’t see this on Facebook and get deceived https://t.co/UrxKlal5S1 pic.twitter.com/qV6xUWLK2z

— Jon Schwarz (@schwarz) September 14, 2018

How Deeply Is Putin Involved in Meddling Abroad?

MOSCOW—As alleged Russian plots, conspiracies and crimes unfold against the West, prosecutors and pundits routinely blame Vladimir Putin or a circle of Kremlin insiders said to be acting on direct orders from the president.

Putin may indeed have involvement in some shadowy schemes, but is he micromanaging every suspected poisoning, computer hack and influence campaign?

Experts say not necessarily. Instead, they say Putin and his entourage may be sending out signals about what he wants, and ambitious officials and individuals scramble to interpret and fulfill them to win his favor.

The motley mix of Russians accused of meddling in U.S. politics seems to illustrate this. Gun activist Maria Butina, who is jailed in Washington on charges that she tried to infiltrate U.S. political organizations as a covert Russian agent, is among those on the margins of power who seemed to seize an opportunity to advance their own interests and potentially please their rulers by manipulating gullible Americans.

It’s unclear whether Putin was even aware of Butina’s activities. But the initiative — like Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya’s efforts to meet with Donald Trump’s campaign team, or online trolling credited to “Putin’s chef” Yevgeny Prigozhin — dovetailed with the Kremlin’s dual goals of destabilizing Western democracy and ending sanctions against Russia.

Only Putin can say for sure what strings he pulls. But some projects — such as the attack in Britain with a military-grade nerve agent in March — appear more likely to have his blessing. British authorities say the poisoning of former Russian spy Sergei Skripal was carried out by Russia’s GRU military intelligence agency, with a likely green light from the highest levels. Russia vehemently denies any involvement.

“Russia is not as centralized as people sometimes think,” said Alexander Baunov of the Carnegie Moscow Center. Incidents of election meddling abroad weren’t part of “a single planned event, but separate people and actions” operating loosely under the same anti-Western banner.

Such efforts don’t always coalesce. Observers describe rivalries among Kremlin insiders as they jostle for favors or influence. Prigozhin’s supposed financing of mercenaries in Syria, for example, is reportedly at odds with Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu but helps Russia maintain a foothold in the Middle East.

“Putin’s state is like a court,” said Mark Galeotti, a Russia security expert at the Institute of International Relations in Prague. “You have the people above making it clear what it is they are looking for, and then you have people below either looking to find ways they can leverage their existing opportunities and contact base to potentially provide value, or look to package what they’ve already got and sell it to advance their agenda.”

The Gun Activist

Butina, ordered Monday to remain in a U.S. jail while she awaits trial, seems to be a fringe figure, whose gun activism started in Siberia, far from Russia’s decision-making core in Moscow.

As Trump pursued the presidency, she and influential patron Alexander Torshin allegedly used their connections with the National Rifle Association to cultivate a back channel to Republican politics. They tapped a vulnerability on the American right: the growing number of conservatives who don’t conform to the Washington establishment’s consensus on Russia, said Michael Kofman, head of the Russian program at the CNA think tank in Virginia. Some on the right have shown great affinity for what they see as the unyielding patriotism, faith and imagery of Putin’s Russia.

The pair were oddly open about it, using their own identities on social media and advertising their networking successes.

“One of the more remarkable aspects of this case is how not-covert, obvious and self-aggrandizing it really was,” Kofman said.

Torshin leveraged his connections as a lawmaker in the upper house of parliament, the Federation Council. The body is “a kind of trading post for different interests. Torshin has been a senior figure mediating between various different interests that come together there for over 10 years. He is a senior behind-the-scenes player,” said Tom Adshead of Macro Advisory, a Moscow business consultancy.

However, Torshin’s powers were limited. Gun rights legislation that he championed failed miserably in Russia. And while the FBI says the pair developed ties to Russian intelligence, there’s no sign Butina and Putin ever met.

The Lawyer at Trump Tower

Another Russian alleged to have tried to influence the U.S. election campaign was lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya, who met with Trump campaign aides in Trump Tower in June 2016, reportedly to offer Moscow’s help in defeating Hillary Clinton.

While Veselnitskaya has denied acting on behalf of Russian officialdom, scores of emails and documents shared with The Associated Press show she served as a ghostwriter for top Russian government lawyers and received assistance from senior Interior Ministry personnel in a case involving a key client.

Still, she’s not exactly part of Putin’s inner circle. Instead, Baunov said, “she’s a lady who was trying to advance her own personal career.”

The leaked documents suggest Veselnitskaya went to Trump Tower as part of efforts to help her clients try to overturn U.S. sanctions — one of the Kremlin’s strategic goals.

“Some people in the Kremlin, in special services, could be aware of the existence of Veselnitskaya and what she was doing,” Baunov said. “But that doesn’t mean … everybody asked in conference calls ‘how is her project going?’”

The Chef and his Trolls

Proximity to Putin is a key in such initiatives, and one of the most successful was purportedly launched by a player in his court: Yevgeny Prigozhin.

Dubbed “Putin’s chef” for his well-connected restaurant and catering business, Prigozhin is considered the driving force in a media empire that includes the Internet Research Agency, the St. Petersburg “troll farm” whose members were indicted by U.S. special counsel Robert Mueller in February for allegedly waging “information warfare” against the United States through social media platforms and internet-based media.

Observers say such projects generally go through layers of officialdom first — vetting by Putin’s spokesman, chief of staff, foreign minister, spy service chiefs — who decide when and whether to inform the president himself.

The troll farm was “a proxy body, not a government service,” Baunov said. Its activities, including fake Facebook accounts and articles, “were not taken seriously but they were approved, as an attempt to show the West that the web and the internet don’t belong only to the West.”

The indictment hasn’t deterred Prigozhin. The agency still exists; it just moved across town. And its parent company started an English-language site this year called USAReally aimed at American readers, six months before the U.S. midterm elections.

Prigozhin also is the suspected mastermind of a company called Wagner that sends private military contractors to fight in Syria, Ukraine and Africa. Three Russian journalists were killed in July in unclear circumstances while investigating Wagner’s activities in Central African Republic.

Prigozhin is among a string of powerful Russian businessmen — sometimes referred to as oligarchs — who have been hit with sanctions or otherwise implicated in investigations into Russia’s role in Trump’s 2016 election. They deny wrongdoing, but observers suggest they are paying the price for the very proximity to Putin that allowed them to build their fortunes.

The ‘Patriotic’ Volunteers

Among the accusations of foreign interference that have hit closest to Putin are those involving the GRU military intelligence agency: the nerve agent attack in Britain and Mueller’s accusations that 12 suspected GRU agents hacked Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign and the Democratic Party.

Military analysts say operations by the GRU follow a strict chain of command that travels up through the military chief of staff, the defense minister and Putin himself.

Putin, however, has suggested that the hackers could be independent operators.

In a possible acknowledgment of the potential value of such outsiders, Putin signed a decree last week making information about freelance agents who help Russia’s foreign intelligence services a state secret, according to Russian news agencies.

In the past, only information about regular personnel earned such protection.

Putin’s entourage got a glimpse into his thinking when he likened hackers to “artists,” saying last year: “If they are patriotic, they contribute in a way they think is right, to fight against those who say bad things about Russia.”

___

Angela Charlton reported from Paris. Kate de Pury in Moscow contributed to this report.

Police Accused of Trying to Smear Man Slain in His Home by Dallas Officer

Law enforcement has searched the Dallas home of Botham Shem Jean, who was killed last week by Police Officer Amber Guyger, who shot him in his own apartment.

The four-year member of the Dallas Police Department, who lived in the same building, says she confronted him when she attempted to enter an apartment she erroneously thought was her own.

News of the search warrant went public Thursday, the same day a memorial for Jean was held, and the police action was denounced by some of the dead man’s supporters.

The warrant was aimed at finding “any contraband, such as narcotics, and other items that may have been used in criminal offenses.” Police publicized that they found 10.4 grams of marijuana during the Sept. 8 search.

“The warrant seems to only be designed for one particular purpose, and that is to smear the victim,” civil rights attorney Lee Merritt told NBC News.

“This is nothing but a disgusting attempt to assassinate the character of a wonderful young man,” said Ben Crump, an attorney for the Jean family.

Days after the killing, Guyger was arrested and charged with manslaughter, and on Sept. 9 she was released on $300,000 bail. The officer was placed on leave from the police department but not fired.

Merritt said “most citizens would have been charged” on the night that such a shooting occurred.

Jean, 26, a native of St. Lucia, worked as a risk assurance associate at PricewaterhouseCoopers in Dallas.

“They began their investigation into HIS MURDER by searching through HIS belongings,” activist Shaun King tweeted.

Can't stop thinking about this.

A timely reminder that, while marijuana is now a million dollar industry for the some, it's still used — even in death — to smear others https://t.co/7kUgzMWIMB

— Astead (@AsteadWesley) September 14, 2018

How in God's name is that relevant or newsworthy? https://t.co/G7EIPpjua8

— Jonathan Swan (@jonathanvswan) September 13, 2018

“They went in with the intent to look for some sort of criminal justification for the victim,” Merritt told USA Today. “It’s a pattern that we’ve seen before … we have a cop who clearly did something wrong. And instead of investigating the homicide—instead of going into her apartment and seeing what they can find, instead of collecting evidence relevant for the homicide investigation—they went out specifically looking for ways to tarnish the image of this young man.”

“She took away my soul, she took away everything,” Jean’s mother, Allie,

said of Guyger, who shot someone while on duty in May 2017. “He didn’t deserve to die like that.”

Kobach Aims to Drive Out Migrants Living in Kansas Illegally

TOPEKA, Kan. — Kris Kobach highlights his national reputation as an immigration crusader in running for Kansas governor by promising voters that if he’s elected he’ll work to drive out illegal immigrants to halt what he says is the $377 million in benefits provided to them by the state each year.

The conservative Republican’s plans echo President Trump’s crackdown on immigration — an agenda Kobach has helped to shape. The president has endorsed Kobach, the Kansas secretary of state, who won a narrow primary victory over the state’s GOP governor.

Plenty of immigration policy analysts suggest Kobach’s push could harm the state’s economy, but they start by questioning the dollar figure he is citing repeatedly as the annual cost of illegal immigration to Kansas. Kobach is undeterred.

“My election would send a signal that the public-benefits gravy train is going to end,” Kobach said during a recent interview.

While states such as California and Illinois have offered immigrants sanctuary, Kobach wants Kansas to catch up to others including Missouri, Alabama and Arizona in setting policies designed to prevent immigrants living in the U.S. from getting jobs or obtaining benefits. Kobach has falsely described Kansas as the “sanctuary state of the Midwest.”

His figure for what Kansas could save annually comes from a September 2017 report by the Federation for American Immigration Reform.

The group backs Trump’s call to build a wall on the border with Mexico and opposes “amnesty,” for immigrants living in the U.S. illegally, including a pathway to citizenship for those willing to serve in the military. Its website argues for cutting legal immigration 70 percent and says “immigration levels must fall” for U.S. wages to rise.

The group calculated figures for each state by tabulating a 50-state total for various costs and working from an estimate of how many immigrants living illegally in the U.S. reside in each state. FAIR estimated more than 84,000 immigrants live illegally in Kansas; other sources have lower figures. The total is between 2.2 percent and 2.9 percent of Kansas’ population.

Almost half of the total costs the study cites are for public schooling for immigrant children. But a 1982 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court prohibits states from denying those children an education.

Roughly a third is a combination of policing, court expenses and even general services, such as garbage collection.

In short, much of the spending is for services a state can’t avoid unless immigrants are deported or leave voluntarily.

Kobach acknowledged that he couldn’t cut off much spending immediately and might not be able to completely eliminate his $377 million a year entirely over time but maintains reducing it sharply is worth doing. He’s outlined multiple proposals for combatting illegal immigration.

FAIR research director Matt O’Brien, one of the report’s authors, said the burden to federal and state governments from providing services “offsets any measurable gain” from money “illegal aliens are alleged to inject into the economy.”

“In fact, illegal immigration simply amounts to a massive wealth redistribution scheme,” O’Brien said in an email.

Critics contend the report that Kobach is citing overestimates how many immigrants live in the U.S. illegally and fails to adequately consider immigrant contributions to the economy. A senior policy analyst for the libertarian Cato Institute called it “fatally flawed” — and said it might overestimate net government costs by as much as 97 percent.

“It’s disappointing that a candidate for such an important office is relying on such shoddy research to make his point,” said Alex Nowrasteh, the Cato analyst. He argues for allowing “peaceful” immigrants to stay in the U.S. even if they arrived illegally.

The Democratic nominee for governor, state Sen. Laura Kelly, described the FAIR report as “widely discredited,” adding in an email, “Kris Kobach is deceiving Kansans to further his personal political agenda.”

And independent candidate Greg Orman, a Kansas City-area businessman, said: “We’re not going to grow the Kansas economy by driving workers out of the state.”

Federal law generally prohibits government health coverage and food assistance for illegal immigrants, though Kobach says Kansas is not aggressive enough in policing fraud in those programs.

But FAIR argues that costs for states are bigger and include general services that legal residents also receive, as well as the costs of prosecuting and incarcerating illegal-immigrant criminals and medical care that poor immigrant families can’t afford but are entitled to by law.

In 2016, a study from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine concluded that first-generation immigrants are more costly in the short-term to states and local governments than native U.S. citizens, largely because of education costs. Kim Rueben, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute, which participated in the academies’ study, said immigrant parents have more children on average.

But, she added, “Those kids are also going to be the future labor force.”

Studies by the University of Missouri-Kansas City in 2013 and the University of Kansas in 2014 concluded that immigrants benefit the Kansas economy and pay for government services they use. Both also concluded that immigrants expand the Kansas economy.

Typhoon Kills 12 in Philippines, Heads to Southern China

TUGUEGARAO, Philippines—Typhoon Mangkhut lashed the northern Philippines with destructive winds and heavy rain that set off landslides and destroyed homes on Saturday, leaving at least 12 people dead, as Hong Kong and other parts of southern China braced for the powerful storm.

The most ferocious typhoon to hit the disaster-prone Philippines this year slammed ashore before dawn in Cagayan province on the northeastern tip of Luzon island, a breadbasket that is also a region of flood-prone rice plains and mountain provinces with a history of deadly landslides.

More than 5 million people were at risk from the storm, which the Hawaii-based Joint Typhoon Warning Center downgraded from a super typhoon. Mangkhut, however, was still punching powerful winds and gusts equivalent to a Category 4 Atlantic hurricane when it hit the Philippines.

China and the Philippines agreed to postpone a visit by Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi that was to start Sunday due to the typhoon’s onslaught, which caused nearly 150 flights, a third of them international, to be canceled and halted sea travel.

Francis Tolentino, an adviser to Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, said the 12 died mostly in landslides and houses that got pummeled by the storm’s fierce winds and rain. Among the fatalities were an infant and a 2-year-old child who died with their parents after the couple refused to immediately evacuate from their high-risk community in a mountain town in Nueva Vizcaya province, Tolentino said.

“They can’t decide for themselves where to go,” he said of the children, expressing frustration that the tragedy was not prevented.

Tolentino, who was assigned by Duterte to help coordinate disaster response, said at least two other people were missing. He said the death toll could climb to at least 16 once other casualty reports were verified.

Mayor Mauricio Domogan said at least three people died and six others were missing in his mountain city of Baguio after strong winds and rain destroyed several houses and set off landslides, which also blocked roads to the popular vacation destination. It was not immediately clear whether the deaths and missing cited by Domogan had been included in Tolentino’s count.

Authorities were verifying the drownings of three people, including two children who reportedly died as the typhoon approached. About 70 men reportedly returned to their coastal village in Cagayan to check on their homes as the storm drew closer Friday, but Tolentino said he had received no reports of the men figuring in an accident.

Mangkhut’s sustained winds weakened to 170 kilometers (105 miles) per hour with gusts of up to 260 kph (161 mph) after it sliced northwestward across Luzon before blowing out to the South China Sea, aiming at Hong Kong and elsewhere in southern China.

About 87,000 people evacuated from high-risk areas of the Philippines. Tolentino and other officials advised them not to return home until the lingering danger had passed.

“It’s still a life and death situation,” Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana said by phone, citing past drownings in swollen rivers in mountain provinces after storms had passed.

Storm warnings remained in effect in 10 northern provinces, including Cagayan, which could still be lashed by devastating winds, forecasters said. Thousands of people in the typhoon’s path had been evacuated.

At daybreak in Cagayan’s capital, Tuguegarao, Associated Press journalists saw a severely damaged public market, its roof ripped apart and wooden stalls and tarpaulin canopies in disarray. Outside a popular shopping mall, debris was scattered everywhere and government workers cleared roads of fallen trees.

Many stores and houses were damaged but most residents remained indoors as occasional gusts sent small pieces of tin sheets and other debris flying dangerously.

The Tuguegarao airport terminal was badly damaged, its roof and glass windows shattered by strong winds that also sent chairs, tables and papers flipping about inside, Lorenzana said.

The typhoon struck at the start of the rice and corn harvesting season in Cagayan, a major agricultural producer, prompting farmers to scramble to save what they could of their crops, Cagayan Gov. Manuel Mamba said.

A government damage assessment was underway except in areas still being battered by winds and rain. Two air force C-130 cargo planes and 10 helicopters were on standby in Manila, the Philippines’ capital, to help transport rescuers and aid supplies.

In Hong Kong, Security Minister John Lee Ka-chiu urged residents to prepare for the worst as the storm barreled toward the southern Chinese city.

Cathay Pacific said all of its flights would be canceled between 2:30 a.m. local time on Sunday and 4 a.m. Monday.

“Because Mangkhut will bring winds and rains of extraordinary speeds, scope and severity, our preparation and response efforts will be greater than in the past,” Lee told a briefing on Friday. “Each department must have a sense of crisis, make a comprehensive assessment and plan, and prepare for the worst.”

In nearby Fujian province in China, 51,000 people were evacuated from fishing boats and around 11,000 vessels returned to port on Saturday morning.

China’s National Meteorological Center issued an alert saying Mangkhut would make landfall somewhere on the coast in Guangdong province on Sunday afternoon or evening.

Ferry services in the Qiongzhou Strait in southern China were halted on Saturday and helicopters and tugboats were dispatched to Guangdong to transfer offshore workers to safety and warn ships about the typhoon, China’s official Xinhua News Agency reported.

Mangkhut, the Thai word for mangosteen fruit, is the 15th storm this year to batter the Philippines, which is hit by about 20 a year and is considered one of the world’s most disaster-prone countries.

In 2013, Typhoon Haiyan left more than 7,300 people dead or missing, flattened villages, swept ships inland and displaced more than 5 million in the central Philippines.

___

Associated Press writers Jim Gomez in Manila, Philippines, and Gillian Wong in Beijing contributed to this report.