One of the works friends thrust at me lately has been Margaret S. Creighton's "The Colors of Change: Gettysburg's Forgotten History", a work which has angered and and upset some readers. But only because these readers have not yet accepted the fullness of the Gettysburg event. Professor Creighton has undertaken in her book--an extremely smooth read, and hard to put down--to tell the story of many of the people who were caught up in the battle, but whose contributions have been lost, forgotten, or twisted and scorned to this day.
Some of these people were Union soldiers--to be specific, the men of the largely German Eleventh Corps of the Army of the Potomac. This Corps, attacked with fierce brilliance by Stonewall Jackson at the Battle of Chancellorsville, ran. It seemed the rational thing to do at the time. And it no doubt was, so total was Jackson's surprise. But the Eleventh, to this day, has not lived down Chancellorsville. That the men became unjustly known as a corps of cowards was hard for them and their leaders, Oliver Otis Howard and Carl Schurz among them, to bear. Howard and Schurz were both men of high principle and great personal courage who could not stand each other. Both were also on the feckless side as generals. These personal factors did not make the situation of the Eleventh any better or more secure. One of the factors in this slur that seemed never to end was nativism. The men were Germans, foreigners. So they were disliked, considered cowards, dismissed. The scorned groups and their languages may change; the heart of humanity seems to remain the same forever. That we have learned nothing after millennia does not speak well for us.
Other "outsider groups" at Gettysburg included black men and women who lived in or near the town, and whose situation was uniquely precarious. Some were escaped slaves who had come via the Underground Railroad or by other means. Others were freemen, born in Pennsylvania, and sometimes the owners of farms, land, or businesses. None were safe. Their individual reactions ranged from fleeing to hiding, to fighting against Lee's troops if they had the chance. If they were caught, they might be killed or raped, or kidnapped and sent South to areas where slavery still held sway. It did not matter whether they had ever been slaves or not; they were now.
Black women were in the worst of all possible situations. That is because they suffered from both the social strictures against Blacks and those against women. But white women, too, were in a situation in which they were in constant danger--young Jennie Wade, for example, was killed on the first day of the battle while baking bread, and while her sister Georgia Wade McClellan lay nearby in labor. And, no matter how the women acted or reacted, whether they were white or black, whether they survived or not, they literally could not win in the court of their neighbors' public opinion. Ms. Wade herself soon was believed to be "no better than she should be," and her sister Georgia spent the rest of her life trying to vindicate her dead sister's reputation.
Were women patriotic, or did they collaborate with the enemy? Was their work of nursing and preserving important or not? (In the case of the second question, the implied answer was often "no.")
I'd suggest you read this entire book. It will not make you happy; but it may in some small way make you determined that humanity will do better next time.
I plan to feature some stories from Creighton's book from time to time, if only to remind you to look the book up and read it.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Why Fracking is New and Different
You may or may not be an advocate of natural health. Whichever--it always pays to keep an open mind about information, especially when the information deals with a subject so portentous as fracking for natural gas.
The following information is from the Alliance for Natural Health-US, and tells why fracking is very different from the old methods of collecting natural gas in Pennsylvania. I have, by the way, found ANH-USA very good about providing information relating to their sources. We, the readers, can follow them online and read the articles and books they read in preparing their own articles. You will still have to come to your own conclusions, but you don't have to settle for simply believing or disbelieving this one organization.
In a recent article the editors took on the assertion that fracking is merely "a refinement of a very old technology."
To the ANH-US editors, there is a vast difference between the old, slow gas wells that dotted the Commonwealth for decades and modern exploratory techniques. Here is what they have to say about it:
"The old method of natural gas extraction was simply to dig a hole straight down into the trapped natural gas, which sits in a kind of natural reservoir, and then capture that gas as it takes the path of least resistance up to the surface. The modern method of hydraulic fracking is radically different. New drilling technology allows a hole to be dug straight down and then be turned sideways and extended in multiple directions horizontally. Here is a diagram:
(Diagram omitted here.)
"The holes are then pumped full of water, sand, and chemicals at very high pressure. This literally splits the rocks open to capture natural gas that was stuck inside them.
"The concrete and steel well linings used in hydraulic fracking frequently rupture under the violence of this mining method, and the 2005 Halliburton Exemption exempts these wells and sites from the Clean Water Act and other regulatory laws."
The url for the complete article is:
http://www.anh-usa.org/more-about-fracking/
This particular article alludes to, but does not dwell upon, the wholesale pollution and destruction of scarce water by fracking. It also does not dwell upon how the combination of fracking techniques and the legal doctrine of Eminent Domain may make it possible for a corporation to siphon the gas out from under your feet, whether or not you give permission. Presumably you would be in a better position if you owned the mineral rights to your land, but it will take a lawyer to advise you on mineral rights.
The following information is from the Alliance for Natural Health-US, and tells why fracking is very different from the old methods of collecting natural gas in Pennsylvania. I have, by the way, found ANH-USA very good about providing information relating to their sources. We, the readers, can follow them online and read the articles and books they read in preparing their own articles. You will still have to come to your own conclusions, but you don't have to settle for simply believing or disbelieving this one organization.
In a recent article the editors took on the assertion that fracking is merely "a refinement of a very old technology."
To the ANH-US editors, there is a vast difference between the old, slow gas wells that dotted the Commonwealth for decades and modern exploratory techniques. Here is what they have to say about it:
"The old method of natural gas extraction was simply to dig a hole straight down into the trapped natural gas, which sits in a kind of natural reservoir, and then capture that gas as it takes the path of least resistance up to the surface. The modern method of hydraulic fracking is radically different. New drilling technology allows a hole to be dug straight down and then be turned sideways and extended in multiple directions horizontally. Here is a diagram:
(Diagram omitted here.)
"The holes are then pumped full of water, sand, and chemicals at very high pressure. This literally splits the rocks open to capture natural gas that was stuck inside them.
"The concrete and steel well linings used in hydraulic fracking frequently rupture under the violence of this mining method, and the 2005 Halliburton Exemption exempts these wells and sites from the Clean Water Act and other regulatory laws."
The url for the complete article is:
http://www.anh-usa.org/more-about-fracking/
This particular article alludes to, but does not dwell upon, the wholesale pollution and destruction of scarce water by fracking. It also does not dwell upon how the combination of fracking techniques and the legal doctrine of Eminent Domain may make it possible for a corporation to siphon the gas out from under your feet, whether or not you give permission. Presumably you would be in a better position if you owned the mineral rights to your land, but it will take a lawyer to advise you on mineral rights.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)