Marc Liebman's Blog, page 36

A Vote for Impeachment Is Not a Vote for Removal

Many Democrats are giddy about the fact that the House of Representatives are about to ‘impeach’ Donald Trump.  What they don’t understand is that impeachment does not equate to removal from office.

Thirteen times in our history a resolution to authorize the start of an impeachment process has made it to the floor of the House of Representatives.  The list of Presidents includes John Tyler, James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Ulysses Grant, Herbert Hoover, Harry Truman, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barak Obama and assuming the vote occurs, Donald Trump.

And only twice – Andrew Johnson in 1867 and Bill Clinton in 1997 – did the Senate vote.  Clinton was not convicted and Johnson was, but not removed from office.

A House vote to refer articles of impeachment the Senate for trial does not mean that the President will (a) be convicted and (b) removed from office.  To gain a conviction, two thirds of the 100 Senators, i.e. 66 must vote to convict.  If there is a tie, then the vice president gets to cast the tie breaking vote.

Unless someone dies, there are 53 Republican Senators.  To win a conviction AND remove President Trump from office, the Democrats need all their senators to vote to convict plus convince 19 Republicans to do the same.  The odds of that happening are somewhere between slim and none.

Our Founding Fathers made the impeachment process difficult because they feared political power.  They lived at a time when King George III could imprison you, take your property and, if so desired, order you executed.  Even though they were residents of an English colony, they did not have the same rights as those living in England.  Our fight for independence was based on securing individual freedom and limiting the power of central government.

Our Founding Fathers were also worried about those who seek power above all else.  In the Constitution, the responsibility to enforce the laws of the land and conduct foreign policy is resides in the executive branch.  The purse strings were given to the House of Representatives and the Senate.  Review of laws and conformance to the Constitution was allocated to the Supreme Court.

Why?  Because they feared scenarios that are being played out today.  The current impeachment process is just another step in the Democratic Party’s attempt to overturn an election.  The first was the failed Russian collusion theory.

So, instead of governing, the Democrats decided on the strategy of resistance.  No matter how this impeachment inquiry plays out, two things are certain.  One, it will fail in the Senate.  And two, the Democratic leadership will have nothing to show for four years of resistance.

In the meantime, they will have to take on a sitting president who and his party can point to record low unemployment and record high employment amongst minorities; a booming economy; foreign policy successes and much more.  All this in the face of incessant attacks by the Democratic Party and their allies in the media

What do the Democrats have to show for four years of resistance?  Nothing.

Have they helped solve some of the country’s pressing problems?  Nope.

The real verdict will not be the impeachment vote in the Senate but the results of the 2020 election.

Which is the Greater Crime?

Every day, we are bombarded by ABC/NBC/CBS commentators who breathlessly tell us the latest on the impeachment process.  We see articles in newspapers quoting unnamed sources that the president committed an impeachable offense.

The barrage of sound bites and articles remind me of the first two years of the Trump presidency when the news was dominated by stories about how Trump and his campaign staff colluded with the Russians to win the election.  It was the narrative that the Democratic National Committee, the Clinton campaign and leaders of the Democratic party wanted us to believe.  It was the only way Hillary could have lost.

Yet, the Mueller report concluded that while Russian intelligence agencies attempted to interfere with the U.S. election process there was no evidence of collusion.  What did emerge was evidence that senior members of the FBI, and our intelligence community attempted to embroil the president in an impeachable controversy and force him from office.  The words “soft coup” come to mind as a way to describe the effort.

Now we know the FBI misled the FISA court to get a warrant to surveil U.S. citizens and the Mueller investigation was based on the specious Steele dossier.  The result is that there are two Federal investigations that have been expanded and will determine what, if any crimes were committed.  Most impartial observers believe indictments are coming.

Unlike the Russian investigation, neither Attorney General Barr nor his subordinates are appearing frequently on TV solemnly stating that there is clear evidence that senior leaders of the FBI, the DNC, the CIA and maybe even members of the Obama administration were involved in a conspiracy to overturn the election.  Nor do the same media commentators have any interest in the story.  Assuming indictments are handed down, this may be the biggest political scandal since Watergate

Instead, we have is the same game plan with a different story with the mainstream media playing a familiar role.  It is called impeachment of the president over a quid pro quo.  So far, despite his pronouncements, Congressman Schiff doesn’t have much.  All one has to do is read the transcript that is the basis of the inquiry.  Schiff is the same man who several times a week told us that there was clear evidence of a conspiracy between the Russians and the Trump campaign to win the election.  He continued to spin this narrative even after the Mueller report was out.

Yeah, I get it.  The president is accused of asking a foreign leader to have his government investigate a political rival in turn for aid.  Yet, while in office Vice President Biden asked the same leader to fire an official who was leading an investigation into his son’s activities and end the investigation in return for aid.  He did and foreign aid was provided.  Where’s that investigation?  Oh, I forgot, he is a Democrat and by definition, untouchable by the media.

What bothers me about the impeachment investigation besides being a politically motivated witch hunt designed to discredit the president is that none of the witnesses who have testified have first-hand knowledge that the president actually asked for a quid pro quo.  The whistleblower had, at best, second-hand information.  None of the president’s advisers who participated on the call have said a quid pro quo was offered.

Ever since the United States emerged on the stage as a world power at the beginning of the last century, U.S. presidents have praised, congratulated, scolded and threatened leaders of other governments.  They also made ‘back office” deals that that bypassed the Constitution.  President Roosevelt’s covert and overt agreements with the U.K. in 1939 and 1940 before we entered the war come to mind.  There are others.

So, I come back to which is the greater crime?  A coup that attempted to overturn a national election or another failed politically motivated impeachment attempt on a quid pro quo that didn’t happen?

This Impeachment Process Doesn’t Pass the Smell Test

Prior to the current impeachment effort, twice it made it to the Senate for trial – President Andrew Johnson (1868) and President William Clinton (1998).

In between, there were four other attempts to impeach a U.S. president – John Tyler (1843); James Buchanan (1860); George Bush (2008).  None made it to the floor of the House of Representatives.  In 1974, Nixon resigned before the charges were filed.

Our founding fathers deliberately made the process difficult because they suspected if they didn’t, we’d see it happen frequently.  Section 4 of Article II of the Constitution states that The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeach for and conviction of treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.  Article I, Paragraph 5 Section says The House of Representatives … shall have the sole power of impeachment.  Section 3, paragraph 6 gives the Senate the power to try all impeachments.  The Constitution requires two-thirds of the members of the Senate to vote in favor of removal.  That has happened only once – President Johnson – and he stayed in office.

Why is this review of the language in the Constitution necessary.  If you listen to the media, one would get the impression that assuming the house brings charges against the president, he must leave office.  That is simply not true.

So doesn’t the current process pass the smell test?

One, the whistleblower statutes require the individual filing the complaint must have first-hand knowledge of the crime.  This man doesn’t.  As it turns out, he has a long-term relationship with Joe Biden.  There’s more evidence suggesting the complaint was politically motivated.

Two, before he filed his complaint, the whistleblower went to Adam Schiff.  There’s a well-defined process for these types of complaints and why wasn’t it followed.  Hint, it doesn’t start with going to a Congressman.

Three, the rules the House of Representatives used in prior impeachment attempts were not good enough for Speaker Pelosi or Adam Schiff, so they voted to change them to make it easier to bring charges.  Why?  A cynic would say because they knew that the current effort wouldn’t meet the criteria needed to bring charges.

Four, in prior impeachment attempts, the process was open and transparent.  Congressman Schiff is holding them in secret so he can leak only what he wants to leak to control the narrative.

Five, in prior attempts to impeach a president, both parties were allowed to participate.  Again, this time, Congressman Schiff is keeping the Republicans at arms-length.  What is he afraid of?

Six, apparently, only the Democrats don’t believe the transcript on which the whistleblower made his complaint.  They believe it was edited and some mysterious sections were either added or deleted.  So far, they have no evidence of such malfeasance, or at least it hasn’t been leaked.  It is being used as the basis of a political witch hunt.

This whole process smells, just as the Russia investigation did.  For two years we were bombarded by leaks from Congress assuring the American people that President Trump’s campaign colluded with the Russians.  It did not.  When the indictments come out, the American people will find out high level members of the FBI, the CIA and other agencies attempted to overturn an election.

When “all” the evidence comes out during this impeachment attempt, more than likely it will show that nothing major happened.  Does Speaker Pelosi or Congressman Schiff care?  No, it is an attempt to discredit a president.  In the end, the American people this all about raw naked power.  The DNC knows it can’t win at the ballot box, so it is trying other means.  Our Founding Fathers anticipated moves such as this and are rolling over in their graves.

The Forgotten Tenth Amendment

If you read the Articles of Confederation, it is clear that the men who wrote wanted to make sure that the power of the individual states was preserved.  Our Founding fathers were afraid of a powerful central government that could impose its will on any or all of the Thirteen Colonies.  For example, under the Articles of Confederation, the Congress could request money from the states and it was up to the state legislature to determine how much, if any, money it would send to the central government.  The result was that the American Revolution was funded by loans from France, The Netherlands and Spain and the wallets of its wealthiest citizens.

The Articles of Confederation quickly proved to be unworkable and our Founding Fathers determined that we needed a better governing document.  On May 27th, 1787, the Constitutional Convention was called to order and by September 17th, 1787, they had a document that they could take to the 13 states for ratification.

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts balked at ratifying the original document and insisted that before it would agree to ratifications, 10 amendments known as the Bill of Rights must be added.

The First and Second Amendment get all the publicity, but the Tenth (and last Amendment in the Bill of Rights) should get more attention.  In one simple sentence – The powers not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people – it clearly was intended to limit the power of the Federal government.

The intent of this amendment is quite clear, i.e. any power not specifically given to the Federal government resides with the states.  Clearly, this is a hangover from the Articles of Confederation.  The writers of this amendment were afraid that a strong Federal government would ride roughshod over the individual states and their rights to govern themselves.

State’s rights have, over our history have led conflicts between the states and the Federal government.  Slavery, already a staple of the economy of Virginia, North and South Carolina and Georgia was just one and probably the easiest to point out.  It took a civil war and the Thirteenth Amendment to abolish slavery.

Laws about firearms is another.  We face a byzantine and often conflicting mix of state, county, city and Federal laws governing the ownership of a firearm.

But let’s come back to the Tenth.  Reading it, one wonders where is the constitutional justification for several large Federal agencies, e.g. the Department of Energy (DoE) and the Department of Education (DoEd)?  Unlike the Departments of Commerce, Defense and State which have their justification in sentences in the Constitution, neither Energy nor Education can trace their raison d’ être to the Constitution.

The issue is simply this.  DoED’s 4,000 employees spend $61B+ taxpayer dollars every year and DoE’s 14,000+ employees consume $21.1B+ taxpayer dollars.  Their existence may not be constitutional because of the Tenth Amendment which says, if it is not specifically given to the Federal government, it is a right of the state.  Or, maybe they shouldn’t exist.

Origin of the Third Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

If you read our history prior to the American Revolution, after the Seven Years War, interest in becoming an independent nation began to rise.  What spurred the desire to rebel was the English Parliament passing laws on English citizens who were not represented in Parliament.  This was in direct violation of the English constitution which prohibited the crown from imposing any taxes the crown wanted unless they were approved by Parliament that included those who were affected by the new laws.

To American citizens familiar with our form of government, it sounds relatively benign, but in the Thirteen Colonies in 1775 reality was far different than theory.

King George III was between the rock and the hard place.  He needed a standing army and navy to keep the empire intact and expand it if possible.  This required a large standing army and navy and the money to pay for it. Maintaining a large standing army stationed in Britain was extremely unpopular to say nothing of expensive.

By the end of the Seven Years War in 1765, England had been at war with her European neighbors war over 16% (116 years) since 1066 until the 1775 when the American Revolution started.  One by one, the other countries – The Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, Spain – gave up fighting the British.  At the end of the Seven Years War only France was left as a major colonial power who could attempt to compete with England which was deeply in debt.

Keeping the citizens of the Thirteen Colonies loyal was a strategic imperative of King George III.  Their loyalty was important to maintaining England’s global empire and the source of its immense wealth.

King George’s answer was to a plan to station 10,000 troops in the Thirteen Colonies and use a series of taxes to pay for their support.  The Sugar Act of 1763 and the Stamp Act of 1765 are just two.  To reduce the housing costs, the King decreed British soldiers would be quartered in homes throughout the colonies with the consent of the homeowner.

Neither Parliament nor King George III realized the furor that these actions caused.  The colonists considered themselves to be English citizens and the actions of the King and Parliament lit the fire that ultimately became the American Revolution.

You can see the post-revolution response in to quartering troops in the Third Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.  King George III’s plan to house British soldiers in the homes of British citizens (our forefathers) in the Thirteen Colonies was so reprehensible to the Founding Fathers that they wrote the Third Amendment.  It specifically prohibits the quartering of soldiers in an individual’s home without the owner’s consent.

Why Nancy Pelosi, Why?

I’m just a dumb old senior citizen watching the circus is our nation’s capital.  Every day, Adam Schiff piously advises us that they has new evidence that further justifies impeachment of the president of the United States or that he is sending out subpoenas for more information.  For 18 months Schiff told us there was real evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians.  There was none so unless House investigators find evidence of a serious crime, to anyone who has read the Constitution, the impeachment effort will ultimately fail.

According to the Constitution, in order to indict or charge a sitting president, all that is needed is a simple majority of members to vote yes.  Clearly, with Democrats holding 235 of the 434 seats in the House, Speaker Pelosi has the votes assuming they all vote yes.

Now comes the hard part.  In order to gain a conviction that would remove President Trump from office, the Senate must vote to convict by a two-thirds majority.  That means the Democrats need 66 votes.  The Republicans hold 53 Senate seats, the Democrats 47 (including two independents – Bernie Sanders and Agnus King – who vote Democratic).  Basic math says Senator Schumer needs to find 19 Republican Senators to vote for impeachment.

What are the chances of 19 Republican senators flipping?  About as much as snowball will survive in hell.

So question one is why bother?  Many will see it as another attack on the president because since the day after Trump was elected, the Democrats have focused on trying to discredit him at every turn and reduce the chances he will be re-elected instead of implementing their legislative agenda, whatever that is.

Whenever the impeachment process runs its course, the Democrats will be 0 for 2 in attempts to unseat the president.  Failure one was running what amounted to an attempted coup with the now discredited Russia collusion story.  It died in flames in the Mueller’s report and in his testimony in the house.  Shortly, we may see indictments and trials of the perpetrators.  Wouldn’t that be a new concept?

Failure two will be impeachment process.  Now 0 and 2, whomever the Democratic candidate who will be facing an incumbent president whose style has rubbed a lot of us the wrong way but also has a list of solid accomplishments on his side of the ledger, e.g. a booming economy with historic low levels of unemployment and high levels of employment amongst minorities; redone trade deals; getting Nato nations meet their spend commitment of 2% GNP; defeat of ISIS; and so on.

What will the Democratic candidate have to tout other than he/she wants Trump out of office?  Not much.  They can’t attack his record of accomplishment because it will highlight their own failures.

This leads me to question two – what, if anything will it cost the Democratic party?  Its current slate of prospective candidates are well left of center and not attractive to many the voters in the country.

The 2020 election could cost the Democrats the White House and make gains in the House..  It is way too early to tell, but right now, the Democrats have nothing positive to run on except their hate for Donald Trump.

Nancy Pelosi, what were you thinking?

 

 

Untold Story of British Prison Ships During the American Revolution

Treatment of POWs during the late 18th Century was a lot different than it is today.  There was no Geneva Convention.  The custom at the time was for the prisoners to scavenge for their own food or grow it in a camp or make artifacts they could sell to earn money to buy food.  When King George III declared that those rebelling against England were traitors whatever modicum of decent treatment American POWs would have received went out the window.

The British problem was that early in the war, they captured large numbers of Continental Army soldiers.  Their jails were over-crowded and so to house captured rebels, the British brought old ships of the line and stripped them of their masts and weapons.  Most were anchored in New York but after Charleston was captured, several were there and for a short time in Philadelphia.

One of the most notorious ships was HMS Jersey.  Built in 1736 as a 60 gun third-rate ship-of-the-line, HMS Jersey had a compliment of approximately 500 men and when it was converted to a prison hulk, it was at the end of its service life.

Anchored in Wallabout Bay which later became the Brooklyn Navy Yard, prisoners were rowed out to Jersey and other prison ships where they lived in horrific conditions.  The British provided very little food and those too weak to fend off the rats, were eaten alive.  When a prisoner died, the men tossed his body over the side.

In New York Harbor alone, there were more than 8,000 American prisoners on prison ships.  During and after the war, 11,000 Americans died on British prison ships compared to 4,500 deaths on the battlefield.

At the end of the Revolution, several thousand men and boys were living on board the Jersey.  Even though Cornwallis was defeated in 1781, as late as 1783, the British were still keeping prisoners on prison ships in New York Harbor.  Rather than release the prisoners, the British set the ships in New York Harbor on fire.  At the time, it was estimated there were 1,400 men still on Jersey.

Lord Howe was never charged or reprimanded for this horrific act which took place in 1783, two years after Cornwallis’ surrender.  For months after the fire, charred bodies washed up on the shores of New York Harbor.

It wasn’t until 1902 when the Brooklyn Navy Yard was being expanded that they found the timbers of HMS Jersey.  In 1908, President Taft dedicated The Prison Ship Martyr’s Monument under which are 20 coffins filled with bones recovered from the hulk.

Setting fire to ships with men still on board was an act of cruelty unmatched until Adolph Hitler arrived on the scene in the first half of the 20th Century.  To this day, neither the Royal Navy nor the British government has apologized for this horrendous act.

Behold, a Great Document Has Been Written For You

When was the last time you read the American Constitution in its entirety?  If you haven’t in the past five or ten years, you should.  And, my recommendation is that you read it without all the “interpretations.”  Reading from the preamble to the end of the 27th amendment will take, if you are an average reader, 30 minutes.  That’s the good news.  Here’s a link – https://constitutionus.com.

The bad news is that the clarity of thought should start your mind working.  The document was written during the Constitutional Convention that took place from May 25th to September 17th, 1787.  It was an effort to replace the Articles of Confederation that was ratified during the American Revolution and was found to be unworkable.

When the Constitution Convention was convened, the country was mired in a recession and every one of the members had lived through the Revolutionary War but also the British rule that preceded it.  Those life experiences and a desire to create a strong Federal Government that was responsive to the will of the governed colored their thinking.  Throughout the document, simplicity of the language and the clarity of thought is amazing.

In 10 clearly written articles, the Founding Fathers laid out their vision of a new government that never before existed.  To make the Constitution the “law of the land,” nine of the original 13 Colonies had to ratify it.  Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, New Jersey, Pennsylvania quickly voted for the document immediately.  Before it would ratify the Constitution, Massachusetts needed to be assured that it would be quickly amended to ensure certain individual rights which became first 10 Amendments known as the Bill of Rights.

After Massachusetts, Maryland, South Carolina and Virginia ratified it to make it eight.  New Hampshire’s ratification on June 28th, 1789 led to an agreement that the Constitution would take effect on March 4th, 1789.  The remaining colonies – New York, North Carolina and Rhode Island followed.

In a referendum held on March 24th, 1788, the people of Rhode Island overwhelmingly voted against ratification.  Two plus years later, on May 29th, 1790 after the Constitution was adopted by the other 12 states, Rhode Island’s legislature ratified it with a margin of two votes.

In the 230 years since the document was signed, it has been modified only 27 times.  One amendment (the 21st) repeals the 18th (Prohibition of Intoxicating Liquors).

The U.S. Constitution is the oldest in force document of its kind in the world.  Some may argue that the Magna Carta holds that crown, but while it has many of the same elements, it does not lay out the structure of a democratically elected government that has stood the test of time.

By contrast, France, which had a major role in helping us win our independence has had 16 constitutions since Louis XIV lost his head during the French Revolution.  One French Constitution – Acte Additionel – was in effect for only 21 days in 1835.

In the oath of office that members of the military and every elected Federal official takes, there is the phrase, “I swear I will uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States to the best of my ability….  Listening to many campaigning for Congress and the Presidency, it is very clear that they have not read the Constitution recently or their sound bites would be different.

Changing the Way Iran’s Government Behaves

The recent attack by Iran on a Saudi oil field is the latest provocation by Iran and is probably the result of the newly imposed sanctions.  Long term they will continue until the West – read the U.S., the Gulf Cooperation Council and some of its allies take action to force the Iranian government to stop.

Through its secret police and Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, the rulers of Iran maintain a vise grip on the country making an internal revolt unlikely.  An invasion is off the table because of the potential casualties.  Air strikes will have limited effect and will require subsequently larger, more expensive and risky in terms of potential POWs.

The question facing U.S. policy makers is “how does one change the way Iran behaves?”  The answer is simple – mine the approaches to Iranian oil loading terminals.

Admittedly, it is an act of war, but recently Iran crossed that threshold with by attacking a Saudi refinery and attached mines to neutral tankers.  If one goes back a few years, they’ve fired cruise missiles and rocket propelled grenades, machine guns and laid mines indiscriminately in the Persian Gulf.

Here’s why this will work.  Iran has four major oil loading terminals (Bandar-e Eman Khomeini, Jazireh-ye-Khark, Jazireh-ye-Sirri, Jazireh-ye-Qeshm) either close to or outside beyond the 12 mile limit.  Their four major ports – Abadan, Bushehr, Kangan and Bandar-Abbas all have oil loading terminals with limited lines of approach.

The strategy is simple.  One, lay mines in international waters so that tankers cannot safely dock or leave the terminals.  Two, announce the mines have been laid via Notice to Mariners.  Three, work out agreements with Iran’s major oil customers to have other Arabian Gulf, European, U.S., Canada, or Indonesian suppliers to provide affordable oil and natural gas.  The exceptions would be the PRC, the number one customer for Iranian Oil and North Korea.

The mines could be laid with little risk to U.S. forces via submarine and aircraft.  To keep the Iranians from attempting to clear the mines, warships could be stationed nearby.

Once the mines are in place, insurance rates for tankers scheduled to load at Iranian ports will go sky high.  Prices on the spot market will spike until oil from alternative suppliers noted above start to reach former Iranian customers.

Iran cannot pump enough oil through its pipeline through Turkey to generate the income the government needs to survive.  Its economy will collapse and to survive the government will have to agree to stop sponsoring terrorism and eliminate its nuclear weapons program.

Some countries – Russia, the PRC, and their allies would condemn the act but what could or would they do?  The approach actually benefits Russia who can try to sell more oil to those countries that are affected.

This strategy has two significant side benefits.  One, it puts extreme pressure on Iran’s second largest customer – North Korea because at best, it has a 45 – 60 day supply of oil.  It also puts pressure on its largest customer – the People’s Republic of China and force it to agree to (1) respect international intellectual property agreements; (2) stop currency manipulation and conform to international banking practices and laws; (3) end dumping products on the open market; (4) allow more imports; (5) help force Kim Jong-un to get rid of his nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and negotiate a viable, enforceable peace treaty with South Korea.

We (and the Europeans, Japanese and South Koreans) have very credible mine clearing capabilities.  Our mines have timers to disable them after a period of time.  Once the Iranian regime collapses or agrees to end its nuclear program and stop supporting international terrorism, the mines will be cleared.

It is not if this will work, but if the U.S. has the balls to execute it.

Finding the Wind

Up until the advent of steam power, wind drove ships.  Ask any sailing ship captain and he’ll tell you that wind direction and speed often changes.  Without modern instruments gauging wind strength and direction is art and science tempered by experience.

Anemometer – the instrument that measures wind speed – design has changed little since the Italian Renaissance artist Leon Battista Alberti designed the first one in the 15th Century.  It was four wooden paddles that rotated around a stick.  The faster they rotated, the stronger the wind.  All well and good, but calibration varied from one unit to another and it wasn’t until the middle of the 19th Century when the Brit John Robinson came up with the accurate three-cup anemometer commonly used today.

Locating the anemometer is critical because it had to be mounted out of the turbulence caused by the sails and rigging.  Reading it remotely wasn’t possible until the late 19th Century so they were often mounted on the railing at the aft end of the quarterdeck so the captain could easily walk over to it.

Weather forecasting as we know it today, didn’t exist during the Age of Sail or to the middle of the 20th Century.  A ship captain’s world was what he could see.  It also explains why many reduced sail at night.

Gauging wind velocity was critical to both ship’s speed but also survival.  Hang too much sail in a strong, or variable winds such as those that accompany squall lines and the captain could demast the ship.  Not enough sail and the ship didn’t sail at its best speed.  How much sail to carry at any given time was a matter of experience learned the hard way.

Vanes mounted on the top of the masts told the captain the direction of the wind.  There, they were above the turbulence from the flow of air around the sails and easily seen from the quarterdeck.

Wind direction and velocity dictated not only which sails to set but also how they were trimmed.  The solution is still used today.  Rows of thin string called ‘telltales’ were sewn into the sails in rows.  Main, top, top gallants and royals had at least one row.  The bigger sails had three.  Staysails and jibs also had their telltales attached to both sides of the sail.

The position of the telltale told the captain how the sail was trimmed.  When staysails and jibs were sheeted home for maximum efficiency, the telltales were horizonal.  Slacken a staysail or jib and then the telltale would angle down.  If they fluttered, then the sail was luffing.  The location of the telltale told the captain how to trim the sail.

Telltales on the square sails hung straight down when the wind was coming from over the stern.  If the ship was on either a port or starboard tack, the ends of the telltales pointed down wind.  Looking at their alignment, the captain could quickly tell if the sail was trimmed for the most push.

For most Age of Sail captains, experience enabled them to deal with wind and weather.  The one challenge that confounded most were the ocean’s currents.  These rivers in the ocean often moved at three to five knots and affected the ship’s speed over the bottom and the time needed to get to its destination.