Tag Archives: history

Low temperature hydrogen removal

Leave a reply

Platinum catalysts can be very effective at removing hydrogen from air. Platinum promotes the irreversible reaction of hydrogen with oxygen to make water: H2 + 1/2 O2 –> H2O, a reaction that can take off, at great rates, even at temperatures well below freezing. In the 1800s, when platinum was cheap, platinum powder was used to light town-gas, gas street lamps. In those days, street lamps were not fueled by methane, ‘natural gas’, but by ‘town gas’, a mix of hydrogen and carbon monoxide and many impurities like H2S. It was made by reacting coal and steam in a gas plant, and it is a testament to the catalytic power of Pt that it could light this town gas. These impurities are catalytic poisons. When exposed to any catalyst, including platinum, the catalyst looses it’s power to. This is especially true at low temperatures where product water condenses, and this too poisons the catalytic surface.

Nowadays, platinum is expensive and platinum catalysts are no longer made of Pt powder, but rather by coating a thin layer of Pt metal on a high surface area substrate like alumina, ceria, or activated carbon. At higher temperatures, this distribution of Pt improves the reaction rate per gram Pt. Unfortunately, at low temperatures, the substrate seems to be part of the poisoning problem. I think I’ve found a partial way around it though.

My company, REB Research, sells Pt catalysts for hydrogen removal use down to about 0°C, 32°F. For those needing lower temperature hydrogen removal, we offer a palladium-hydrocarbon getter that continues to work down to -30°C and works both in air and in the absence of air. It’s pretty good, but poisons more readily than Pt does when exposed to H2S. For years, I had wanted to develop a version of the platinum catalyst that works well down to -30°C or so, and ideally that worked both in air and without air. I got to do some of this development work during the COVID downtime year.

My current approach is to add a small amount of teflon and other hydrophobic materials. My theory is that normal Pt catalysts form water so readily that the water coats the catalytic surface and substrate pores, choking the catalyst from contact with oxygen or hydrogen. My thought of why our Pd-organic works better than Pt is that it’s part because Pd is a slower water former, and in part because the organic compounds prevent water condensation. If so, teflon + Pt should be more active than uncoated Pt catalyst. And it is so.

Think of this in terms of the  Van der Waals equation of state:{\displaystyle \left(p+{\frac {a}{V_{m}^{2}}}\right)\left(V_{m}-b\right)=RT}

where V_{m} is molar volume. The substance-specific constants a and b can be understood as an attraction force between molecules and a molecular volume respectively. Alternately, they can be calculated from the critical temperature and pressure as

{\displaystyle a={\frac {27(RT_{c})^{2}}{64p_{c}}}}{\displaystyle b={\frac {RT_{c}}{8p_{c}}}.}

Now, I’m going to assume that the effect of a hydrophobic surface near the Pt is to reduce the effective value of a. This is to say that water molecules still attract as before, but there are fewer water molecules around. I’ll assume that b remains the same. Thus the ratio of Tc and Pc remains the same but the values drop by a factor of related to the decrease in water density. If we imagine the use of enough teflon to decrease he number of water molecules by 60%, that would be enough to reduce the critical temperature by 60%. That is, from 647 K (374 °C) to 359 K, or -14°C. This might be enough to allow Pt catalysts to be used for H2 removal from the gas within a nuclear wast casket. I’m into nuclear, both because of its clean power density and its space density. As for nuclear waste, you need these caskets.

I’ve begun to test of my theory by making hydrogen removal catalyst that use both platinum and palladium along with unsaturated hydrocarbons. I find it works far better than the palladium-hydrocarbon getter, at least at room temperature. I find it works well even when the catalyst is completely soaked in water, but the real experiments are yet to come — how does this work in the cold. Originally I planned to use a freezer for these tests, but I now have a better method: wait for winter and use God’s giant freezer.

Robert E. Buxbaum October 20, 2021. I did a fuller treatment of the thermo above, a few weeks back.

Eight ways to not fix the tower of Pisa, and one that worked.

1 Reply

You may know that engineers recently succeed in decreasing the tilt of the “leaning” tower of Pizza by about 1.5°, changing it from about 5.5° to about to precisely 3.98° today –high precision given that the angle varies with the season. But you may not know how that there were at least eight other engineering attempts, and most of these did nothing or made things worse. Neither is it 100% clear that current solution didn’t make things worse. What follows is my effort to learn from the failures and successes, and to speculate on the future. The original-tilted tower is something of an engineering marvel, a highly tilted, stone on stone building that has outlasted earthquakes and weathering that toppled many younger buildings that were built straight vertical, most recently the 1989 collapse of the tower of Pavia. Part of any analysis, must also speak to why this tower survived so long when others failed.

First some basics. The tower of Pisa is an 8 story bell tower for the cathedral next door. It was likely designed by engineer Bonanno Pisano who started construction in 1173. We think it’s Pisano, because he put his name on an inscription on the base, “I, who without doubt have erected this marvelous work that is above all others, am the citizen of Pisa by the name of Bonanno.” Not so humble then, more humble when the tower started to lean, I suspect. The outer diameter at the base is 15.5 m and the weight of the finished tower is 14.7 million kg, 144 million Nt. The pressure exerted on the soil is 0.76 MPa (110 psi). By basic civil engineering, it should stand straight like the walls of the cathedral.

Bonanno’s marvelous work started to sink into the soil of Pisa almost immediately, though. Then it began to tilt. The name Pisa, in Greek, means swamp, and construction, it seems, was not quite on soil, but mud. When construction began the base was likely some 2.5 m (8 feet) above sea level. While a foundation of clay, sand and sea-shells could likely have withstood the weight of the tower, the mud below could not. Pisano added length to the south columns to keep the floors somewhat level, but after three floors were complete, and the tilt continued, he stopped construction. What to do now? What would you do?

If it were me, I’d consider widening the base to distribute the force better, and perhaps add weight to the north side. Instead, Pisano gave up. He completed the third level and went to do other things. The tower stood this way for 99 years, a three-floor, non-functional stub. 

About 1272, another engineer, Giovanni di Simone, was charged with fixing the situation. His was the first fix, and it sort-of worked. He strengthened the stonework of the three original floors, widened the base so it wold distribute pressure better, and buried the base too. He then added three more floors. The tower still leaned, but not as fast. De Simone made the south-side columns slightly taller than the north to hide the tilt and allow the floors to be sort-of level. A final two stories were added about 1372, and then the first of the bells. The tower looked as it does today when Gallileo did his famous experiments, dropping balls of different size from the south of the 7th floor between 1589 and 1592.

Fortunately for the construction, the world was getting colder and the water table was dropping. While dry soil is stronger than wet, wet soil is more plastic. I suspect it was the wet soil that helped the tower survive earthquakes that toppled other, straight towers. It seems that the tilt not only slowed during this period but briefly reversed, perhaps because of the shift in center of mass, or because of changes in the sea level. Shown below is 1800 years of gauge-based sea-level measurements. Other measures give different sea-level histories, but it seems clear that man-made climate change is not the primary cause. Sea levels would continue to fall till about 1750. By 1820 the tilt had resumed and had reached 4.5°.

Sea level height history as measured by land gauges. Because of climate change (non man-made) the sea levels rise and fall. This seems to have affected the tilt of the tower. Other measures of water table height give slightly different histories, but still the sense that man change is not the main effect.

The 2nd attempt was begun in 1838. Architect, Alessandro Della Gherardesca got permission to dig around the base at the north to show off the carvings and help right the tower. Unfortunately, the tower base had sunk below the water table. Further, it seems the dirt at the base was helping keep the tower from falling. As Della Gherardesca‘s crew dug, water came spurting out of the ground and the tower tilted another few inches south. The dig was stopped and filled in, but he dig uncovered the Pisano inscription, mentioned above. What would you do now? I might go away, and that’s what was done.

The next attempt to fix the tower (fix 3) was by that self-proclaimed engineering genius, Benito Mussolini. In 1934. Mussolini had his engineers pump some 200 tons of concrete into the south of the tower base hoping to push the tower vertical and stabilize it. The result was that the tower lurched another few inches south. The project was stopped. An engineering lesson: liquids don’t make for good foundations, even when it’s liquid concrete. An unfortunate part of the lesson is that years later engineers would try to fix the tower by pumping water beneath the north end. But that’s getting ahead of myself. Perhaps Mussolini should have made tests on a model before working on the historic tower. Ditto for the more recent version.

On March 18, 1989 the Civic Tower of Pavia started shedding bricks for no obvious reason. This was a vertical tower of the same age and approximate height as the Pisa tower. It collapsed killing four people and injuring 15. No official cause has been reported. I’m going to speculate that the cause was mechanical fatigue and crumbling of the sort that I’ve noticed on the chimney of my own house. Small vibrations of the chimney cause bits of brick to be ejected. If I don’t fix it soon, my chimney will collapse. The wet soils of Pisa may have reduced the vibration damage, or perhaps the stones of Pisa were more elastic. I’ve noticed brick and stone flaking on many prominent buildings, particularly at joins in the chimney.

John Burland’s team cam up with many of the fixes here. They are all science-based, but most of the fixes made things worse.

In 1990, a committee of science and engineering experts was formed to decide upon a fix for the tower of Pisa. It was headed by Professor John Burland, CBE, DSc(Eng), FREng, FRS, NAE, FIC, FCGI. He was, at the time, chair of soil mechanics at the Imperial College, London, and had worked with Ove, Arup, and Partners. He had written many, well regarded articles, and had headed the geological aspects of the design of the Queen Elizabeth II conference center. He was, in a word, an expert, but this tower was different, in part because it was an, already standing, stone-on stone tower that the city wished should remain tilted. The tower was closed to visitors along with all businesses to the south. The bells were removed as well. This was a safety measure, and I don’t count it as a fix. It bought time to decide on a solution. This took two years of deliberation and meetings

In 1992, the committee agreed to fix no 4. The tower was braced with plastic-covered, steel cables that were attached around the second and third floors, with the cables running about 5° from the horizontal to anchor points several hundred meters to the north. The fix was horribly ugly, and messed with traffic. Perhaps the tilt was slowed, it was not stopped.

In 1993, fix number 5. This was the most exciting engineering solution to date: 600 tons of lead ingots were stacked around the base, and water was pumped beneath the north side. This was the reverse of the Mussolini’s failed solution, and the hope was that the tower would tilt north into the now-soggy soil. Unfortunately, the tower tilted further south. One of the columns cracked too, and this attempt was stopped. They were science experts, and it’s not clear why the solution didn’t work. My guess is that they pumped in the water too fast. This is likely the solution I would have proposed, though I hope I would have tested it with a scale model and would have pumped slower. Whatever. Another solution was proposed, this one even more exotic than the last.

For fix number 6, 1995, the team of experts, still overseen by Burland, decided to move the cables and add additional tension. The cables would run straight down from anchors in the base of the north side of the tower to ten underground steel anchors that were to be installed 40 meters below ground level. This would have been an invisible solution, but the anchor depth was well into the water table. So, to anchor the ground anchors, Burland’s team had liquid nitrogen injected into the ground beneath the tower, on the north side where the ground anchors were to go. What Burland did not seem to have realized is that water expands when it freezes, and if you freeze 40 meters of water the length change is significant. On the night of September 7, 1995, the tower lurched southwards by more than it had done in the entire previous year.  The team was summoned for an emergency meeting and the liquid nitrogen anchor plan was abandoned.

Tower with the two sets of lead ingots, 900 tons total, about the north side of the base. The weight of the tower is 14,700 tons.

Fix number 7: Another 300 tons of lead ingots were added to the north side as a temporary, simple fix. The fix seems to have worked stabilizing things while another approach was developed.

Fix number 8: In order to allow the removal of the ugly lead bricks another set of engineers were brought on, Roberto Cela and Michele Jamiolkowski. Using helical drills, they had holes drilled at an angle beneath the north side of the tower. Using hoses, they removed a gallon or two of dirt per day for eleven years. The effect of the lead and the dirt removal was to reduce the angle of the tower to 4.5°, the angle that had been measured in 1820. At this point the lead could be removed and tourists were allowed to re-enter. Even after the lead was removed, the angle continued to subside north. It’s now claimed to be 3.98°, and stable. This is remarkable precision for a curved tower whose tilt changes with the seasons. (An engineering joke: How may engineers does it take to change a lightbulb? 1.02).

The bells were replaced and all seemed good, but there was still the worry that the tower would start tilting again. Since water was clearly part of the problem, the British soils expert, Burland came up with fix number 9. He had a series of drainage tunnels built to keep the water from coming back. My worry is that this water removal will leave the tower vulnerable to earthquake and shedding damage, like with the Pavia tower and my chimney. We’ll have to wait for the next earthquake or windstorm to tell for sure. So far, this fix has done no harm.

Robert Buxbaum, October 9, 2020. It’s nice to learn from other folks mistakes, and embarrassments, as well as from their successes. It’s also nice to see how science really works, not with great experts providing the brilliant solution, but slowly, like stumbling in the dark. I see this with COVID-19.

Hamilton and his slave-trading father in law.

1 Reply
Philip Schuyler as a Major General in the Revolution. His statue was removed.

What most folks know about Alexander Hamilton’s father in law, Philip Schuyler, is that he was “loaded”, that he had three daughters, and that he quickly took to young Alexander. But an important fact varnished over is that Schuyler made his money in the slave trade, a trade that Hamilton was likely in when he met the young Schuyler daughters. Schuyler was also a slave owner, owning 13 slaves, by his record, and perhaps another 17 indentured servants working at two mansions. So far, only the Philip Schyler statue has been taken down. It seems possible that many monuments to Hamilton may follow.

Statue of Alexander Hamilton, proudly stands in front of Columbia University. The ten dollar founding father.

The play “Hamilton” proclaims Hamilton’s genius and exceptional work ethic, mentioning that, at the young age of 14 (more likely 16) he was left in charge of a trading company. This was for 5 months in 1771, while the owner was over seas doing business. Hamilton knew the business well; he’d been hired as a clerk at 11 at Beekman and Cruger, a similar import-export trading firm. What items did these firms trade — cotton, sugar, rum, and most profitable slaves. This likely was the business that kept the owner overseas for 5 months while Alexander ran the shop. There are at least two notifications of slave ships entering the harbor with human good for sale. Among Hamilton’s likely jobs would have been fattening and oiling the goods for sale. Hamilton himself seems to have owned a slave-boy named Ajax who he inherited (briefly) from his mother, Rachel. His mother is listed on the tax records as white. She owned five saves at one time, suggesting she was not entirely impoverished. Hamilton’s father, though a failed businessman, was a Scottish Laird (a Lord). As for the court-mandated transfer of Ajax from Alexander, it was to his half-brother James because James was “Legitimate.”

I base Hamilton’s age on the Nevis-St Kitts record of his birth, January 11, 1755.”[1] The play takes as a fact Hamilton’s claim to have been born two years later, January 11, 1757. I trust the written records here, and imagine Hamilton wanted to present himself as a young genius, rather than as a bright, but older fellow. In 1772, at at age 17, Hamilton wrote a “fire and brimstone” description of a deadly hurricane, describing it as “divine rebuke to human vanity and pomposity.”[2] Between this, and his skill at trading, the community leaders collected money to send him to New York, but unlike the play’s description, it was not only for further education. The deal was that he continue trading for the firm,[3] and this is likely how he met his future father in law. “[4] 

Hercules Mulligan, a revolutionary tailor: He was a spy. According to the CIA, much of the work was through his black slave, Cato.

In New York, Hamilton met Schuyler and his daughters. It seems likely that he met the father first, likely as possible customer for the slave trade from the Caribbean, or perhaps as a customer for rum and sugar. A 1772 letter in Hamilton’s handwriting [4] asks for the purchase of “two or three poor boys” for plantation work, “bound in the most reasonable manner you can.” As in the play, Hamilton was friends with John Laurens, an abolitionist, and among his first lodgings was with Hercules Mulligan, a tailor’s apprentice. Hercules is presented as black in the play, but he was quite white (see picture) with a black slave, Cato. Cato ran most of the messages. According to the play, “I’m joining the rebellion cuz I know it’s my chance
To socially advance, Instead of sewin’ some pants, I’m taking my shot. No, Hercules was socially advanced ,married into the British Admiralty, even. He was a true believer in freedom and a slave-holder. His older brother, Hugh Mulligan, was one of the traders that Hamilton was supposed to work with.[5] As for Laurens and his anti-slavery organization, most of those in the organization owned slaves, and though they opposed slavery, they could never decide on when or how to end it. There is no evidence that Cato was ever set free.

The appointment to Washingtons staff was not likely a coincidence. The elder Schuyler was one of the four top generals appointed in 1775 to serve directly under Washington. Phillip oversaw, at a distance, the disastrous attack on Quebec and the victory at Saratoga– both, Burr served admirably. Phillip’s main role was as a quartermaster/supplier, and this is not a small role. Phillip Schuyler had been a quarter-master in the French and Indian war. It’s likely that it was Schuyler who got Hamilton his appointment to Washington’s staff.

Once on Washington’s staff, Hamilton served admirably. Originally serving as a secretary, Hamilton wrote many of Washington’s dispatches. Then, according to tradition, as a cannon commander, he took particular pleasure in the attack on Princeton University. He then served well as secretary of the Treasury, and as head of the Bank of The United States, the only major US bank until Burr opened the Bank of the Manhattan company. Despite his aversion to slavery, Hamilton also continued to deal in slaves. A 1796 cash book entry records Hamilton’s payment of $250 to his father-in-law for “2 Negro servants purchased by him for me.” This is only 3 years before 1799, when New York began to end slavery in the state with the Act for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery. Children of slaves born after July 4, 1799, were to be legally free, but required indentured servitude: to age 28 for males and 25 for females. Those born before July 4, 1799 became free in 1817. There is no evidence that Hamilton was a leader in any of this, but Burr, another slave-owning abolitionist, was a leader in the NY legislature at the time.

I’m with Burr.He was flawed, a slave-owning abolitionist, but vehimently against the Alien and Sedition Acts, a Hamiltonian horror.

It seems that Robert Morris introduced Hamilton to the importance of tariffs, and to the idea of using debt service as a backing to currency. It’s brilliant idea, but Hamilton understood it and took to it. Hamilton also understood the need for a coast guard to enforce the tariffs. As for Hamilton’s character, or Burr’s. Both, in my understanding, were imperfect people who did great deeds. I’ve already written that Hamilton was likely setting up Burr for murder, perhaps because of Burr’s vehement opposition to the Alien and Sedition Acts — That’s why Hamilton wore his glasses and fiddled with the gun so much. Burr was also gaining power through his Manhattan corporation and Tammany organization. both of which got his support among the immigrants.

My intent here is not to knock the image of Hamilton, Schuyler, Laurens and Mulligan, nor to raise that of Burr, but to correct some current fictions in the play “Hamilton”, and to fight a disease of our age, the cancel culture. The cancel culture elevates their heroes (Hamilton, Mulligan) to god-status. They will lie to cover the flaws of their heroes, and will lie also to claim a drop of black blood in them; neither Hamilton nor Mulligan were black and both owned slaves, as did Burr. The other side of the cancel culture is to cancel — to eliminate the validity — of the reactionaries, the non-revolutionary. In the play, these include Samuel Seebury and Aaron Burr. Great building is almost always the work of contradictory people. They need some talent, and a willingness to act, and because building requires a group, they have to work in a group, tolerating flaws of the others in the group. It is just these flawed, contradictory builders that are being cancelled, and I don’t think that’s right or healthy.

Robert Buxbaum, August 4, 2020.

Shakespeare’s plays, organized.

1 Reply

One remarkable thing about Shakespeare’s plays is how varied they are. There are comedies and tragedies; histories of England, and of Rome, musings on religion, and on drink, and lots of cross-dressing. He wrote at least thirty seven plays between 1590 and 1613, alone or as a major collaborator, and the chart below gives a sense of the scope. I have seen less than half of these plays, so I find the chart below both useful and humorous. The humor of the chart is partly that it presents the common man (us) access to the godly (Shakespeare). That access is the root of the best comedy, in my opinion. Shakespeare also has a comic dog, some total idiots, comic violence to women, and a few other cringeworthy laugh-getters, but we’ll not mention those; it’s low comedy. You’ll notice that Merchant of Venice is listed here as a comedy; I think it was seen that way by Shakespeare. The hero of the play in my opinion, is a woman, Portia, who outsmarts all others by her legal genius at the end. Tragedy is when the great individual can not access great things. At least that’s how I see it. As for History; it’s been said, that it starts as tragedy, and ends as comedy. Shakespeare’s histories include some of each. And as for our, US history, Lincoln was tragedy, like LBJ; Truman was comedy, and Andrew Jackson too. And, as for Trump, who knows?

By Myra Gosling, www.goodticklebrain.com
A Shakespeare collaboration. The collaborator, Fletcher, is cited by name.

Ms Gosling’s graphic, wonderful as it is, lists some but not all of Shakespeare’s collaborations. Two listed ones, “Henry VIII,” and “The Two Noble Kinsmen” were with John Fletcher. The cover shown at right, shows Fletcher named as first author. Since Fletcher outlived Shakespeare and took over the company after his death, I’ll assume these are later plays.

“Henry IV, part 1” is thought to be from Shakespeare’s early career, and seems to have been a mass collaboration: something written by a team the way situation comedies are written today. And “Pericles, Prince of Tyre,” listed near the bottom right, seems to have been a mid-career collaboration with George Wilkins. At least four of Shakespeare’s collaborations don’t appear at all in the graphic. “Edward III” and “The Spanish Tragedy”, appear to have been written with Thomas Kyd, likely early in Shakespeare’s career. Perhaps Gosling felt they don’t represent the real Shakespeare, or perhaps she left them off because they are not performed often. Another collaboration, “Sir Thomas More” (an intentional misspelling of Moore?), is well regarded today, and still put on. An existing manuscript includes 300+ lines written in Shakespeare’s hand. Still, Shakespeare’s main contribution seems to have been editing the play to get it past the censors. Finally, “Cardenio,” is a lost play, likely another collaboration with Fletcher. It got good reviews.

The cool thing about Shakespeare’s play writing, in my opinion, is his willingness to let the characters speak for themselves. Even characters who Shakespeare doesn’t like have their say. They speak with passion and clarity; without interruption or mockery. Writing this way is difficult, and most writers can’t avoid putting themselves and their opinions in the forefront. I applaud Ms Gosling for making Shakespeare accessible. Here’s this month’s issue of her blog, GoodTickleBrain.

Robert Buxbaum, June 26, 2019. As a side note, Shakespeare appears to have been born and died on the same date, April 23; in 1564 and 1616, respectively.

Presidential drinks, smokes, and other vices

1 Reply

I’d written about presidential desks so now presidential drinking and related vices. The US colonials were hard drinkers, and their leaders lead on this front too. The colonials who fought at Lexington and Concord loaded up at Bradford’s Tavern before greeting the British. Meanwhile, safe in Philadelphia, each of the authors of the declaration of Independence drank, on average, two pint tankards of rum per day, likely mixed with water, a mixture called “grog,” or mixed with apple cider, a mix called “the stone fence.”

Washington's bar bill for 55 men.

Washington’s bar bill for 55 men; food was less than 1/4 of the bill, both for the officers and the servants. Note the “Segars” and broken crockery.

The standard of drinking for officers in the colonial army can be seen from the bill for the farewell dinner (right) held at City Tavern in New York. The average man drank more than two bottles of wine, about a quarter bottle of old stock (whiskey)  bottle of beer, porter or cider, and 1/2 bowl of punch. There is also a cost for “segars” and for broken cookery. The servants drank almost as much but not quite. George Washington was considered a very modest drinker in the crowd, avoiding rum mostly, and sticking to Madera wine or dark, “Philadelphia” porter, typically mixed with molasses. He smoked a pipe too, but didn’t have a mistress nor did he fight in any duels; a model for presidents to come. When Washington retired from the presidency, he become the premier distiller in the USA, making thousands of barrels of rye whiskey per year. A good man and a good president, IMHO.

John Adams considered himself a temperance man, and complained of Washington’s lack of refinement. He didn’t smoke at all, and drank only one tankard of hard cider to start the day, followed by beer, Madera and diluted rum (grog). He was priggish and disliked. He also started the pseudo war with France, spent massively to pay off the Barbary pirates, insulted most everyone, and passed the single worst law ever in US history, Our worst president, IMHO, but at least he didn’t overspend.

According to "The Balance, and Columbian Repository" 1806, "A cock tail is a stimulating liquor composed of spirits of any kind, sugar, water and bitters. It is supposed to be an excellent electioneering potion inasmuch as it renders the heart stout and bold, at the same time that it fuddles the head. It is said also, to be of great use to a democratic candidate: because, a person having swallowed a glass of it, is ready to swallow any thing else."

According to “The Balance, and Columbian Repository” May 15, 1806, “– Cock tail then is a stimulating liquor… an excellent electioneering potion inasmuch as it renders the heart stout and bold, at the same time that it fuddles the head… of great use to a democratic candidate: because, a person having swallowed a glass of it, is ready to swallow any thing else.”

Jefferson was a spendthrift who  spent $16,500 in the money of the day (well over $1 million today) on French wine; $11,000 for his time in the Whitehouse and $5,000 for the ministry in Paris. His wine habits, along with his book and furniture buying, led him to be bankrupt twice. The first time, he was bailed out by congress, the second time (at his death) his slaves and property were sold off to pay debts, including his red-haired, slave children. Not a good man, but a good president. He ended Adam’s the pseudo-war with France, defeated the Barbary pirates, and doubled the size of America through the Louisiana purchase.

James Madison, like Jefferson preferred French wine, mostly Champaign, but he didn’t drink much of it, according to the standard of the day. He said that, if he drank any more than 3 or so glasses or he’d wake up with a headache. He also smoked ‘seegars’ until his death at 85: a good man but a poor president. Who would declare war on the most powerful nation on earth without first preparing his army or navy? Dolly Madison is considered the first of the “First Ladies,” for her hostess prowess.

Monroe liked French Champaign and Burgundy. He was the last of the “gentleman presidents; liked as a man and as a president, doing little that was controversial, except perhaps stating the Monroe Doctrine — US control of the Caribbean. He oversaw an “era of good feelings,” where the US grew and wounds healed.

John Quincy Adams was as obnoxious and disliked like his father, “the bitter branch of the bitter tree.” He was a wine-snob who claimed to have conducted a blind taste test with 14 kinds of Madeira and correctly identified 11 of them. After his one-term as president he returned to congress where his last act was to vote against admitting Texas to the union. At least 17 male-line Adams’s have graduated from Harvard; few are remembered fondly.

Andrew Jackson was not a gentleman. He drank whiskey — home made — and smoked cigars along with his wife. He fought about 20 duels, served whiskey proudly to all his guests, and removed the requirement of land to vote. He was a drinker of coffee too, pairing it with cigars, and is reported to have said, “Doctor, I can do anything you think proper, except give up coffee and tobacco.” One famous duel was with his lawyer, Thomas Hart Benton. Benton shot him twice, and they become friends and allies for life. Jackson added the first running water in the white house. The source was soon contaminated by human waste but I can’t complain. We have similar problems in Oakland county today. He also paid down the national debt, leaving Van Buren with a surplus for the first and only time in America. I consider Jackson an excellent president, but have not decided about him as a man.

Van Buren was a heavy drinker, a pipe smoker, a corrupt Tammany man, and a bit of a spendthrift (“Martin Van Ruin”)  He is the only US president to grow up speaking Dutch, not English, and his favored drink was Schiedam, a blue-colored gin favored by New York’s Dutch. Most people could not stand Schiedam, and it led Van Buren to be called “Blue whiskey Van.” Gin is an acquired taste — one that several later presidents would acquire. My guess is that Schiedam is the reason that some modern gins come in blue bottles. Van Buren accomplished nothing of note as president.

William Henry Harrison smoked a pipe and drank nothing harder than cider. Modest drinking differentiated him from hard-drinking Van Buren. His campaign song — Tippicanoe and Tyler too — includes the line “Van is a used-up man”, but modest drinking may have killed him too. He likely died of infected water in the Whitehouse —  something that could have been cured by a bit of whiskey mixed into the infected water. (I’m running for water commissioner my campaign: clean water at an appropriate pressure for fire-fighting.
Explosion_aboard_USS_Princeton

John Tyler, Harrison’s VP, drank and smoked cigars. He kept two kegs of “Lieutenant Richardson’s whiskey” on hand, and Champaign for state dinners. He was a compromiser, who missed dying in an explosion on the USS Princeton because he’d stopped off for a drink. Most of the rest of his cabinet were not so lucky. He was rejected for re-election in favor of Polk, who promised to admit Texas.

James K. Polk was a modest drinker who favored the occasional wine or brandy. He survived his single term in the Whitehouse to die 105 days after leaving the Whitehouse of gastro-enteritis caused by infected water or fruit. A bit of whiskey might have helped. By admitting Texas, Polk started the Mexican – American War. This expanded the US further, all the way to California. I rather like Polk, but most historians do not.

Zachary Tayler, a Whig, “old rough and ready” had been a whiskey man in the army but never drank as president and rarely smoked in the white house. He died 1 1/2 years after taking office, likely killed by the bad water and lack of alcohol. Tayler was against all forms of secession and against the fugitive slave compromise that Clay. I like Tayler and agree with him.

Millard Fillmore was Tayler’s vice president and another non-smoker, he drank Madera wine as had some early presidents. Always concerned with his health, and is said to have installed the first bathtub, installing with it with copper and brass pipes. I suspect that the copper pipes saved Fillmore from DC’s bad water as copper is a fine anti-microbial. Though opposed to slavery, Fillmore signed the fugitive slave compromise that brought California into the union as a free state. The civil war is sometimes blamed on Fillmore, unfairly I think. It could not have been stopped. He died at the ripe age of 74, long after having left the Whitehouse.

Franklin Pierce, a Democrat and alcoholic, was “the hero of many a well-fought bottle”. Not a bad president, in my opinion. He saw the inevitable civil war coming and could not stop it, His wife lost her mind and his children all died. The last one, Benny, by beheading in front of him when a train Pierce and his wife were about to board broke its axle and slid down a hill. Pierce added the Gadson purchase, made the civil service less corrupt, made treaties with Britain and opened Japan. He too is blamed for the civil war by current historians as if they could have done better. He died of cirrhosis at 65, 13 years after leaving office.

James Buchanan, another Democrat was likely our only homosexual president. Buchanan was a life-long bachelor who drank quite a lot. His favorite was originally “Old Monongahela” but switched to J. Baer “finer than the best Monongahela,” buying ten gallons of J.Baer (rye) per week, direct from the distillery. “The Madeira and sherry that he has consumed would fill more than one old cellar, and the rye whiskey that he has ‘punished’ would make Jacob Baer’s heart glad.” Like Pierce, he is blamed by historians for not saving the union, as if this were an easy job that anyone could have done. Buchanan had no problem with the White House water, but was heart-broken when his housemate, William King left to become minister to France.

Lincoln didn’t drink or chew tobacco, nor did he have mistresses, or apparent trouble with the water. He was depressive though, told wonderful stories, some of them true, smoked a pipe, and once almost fought a duel with swords that broken up by the wives of the duelers. A good man and a great president. His son, Robert was present at his murder, and at two other presidential shootings.

Andrew Johnson drank and smoked occasionally, but had a low tolerance. Johnson added Alaska by purchase (Seward’s folly) but is not liked or respected by historians. I consider this unfair: he compares unfavorably to Lincoln, but don’t we all, and he could not smooth reconstruction, a near impossible task. His main impeachment crime was bombastic speech, by the way, a vice he shares with Andrew Jackson and Donald Trump. Like Buchanan and Pierce, I consider him a good president doing a near-impossible job.

Ulysses S. Grant was a Republican, a heavy cigar smoker, but a light drinker. Grant smoked as many as 20 cigars per day (a Grant cigar is 5″ long by 42 ring), but drank only brandy for his health, and not too much of that. Later in life he drank a mixture of wine and cocaine for throat pain from cancer. This stuff, a favorite of Pope Leo, was the inspiration for Coca-Cola. Grant’s campaign song, “Grant Grant Grant” specifically mentions his opposition to the KKK. He did a good job with reconstruction though the Democrats hated him for it. They mocked him as a drunk and worse: “I smoke my weed and drink my gin, playing with the people’s tin.” Grant wrote a great autobiography with the help of Mark Twain.

Hayes, a Republican, didn’t drink at all and opposed others’ drinking. Elected in 1876, he banned liquor of all sorts in the white house, and his wife was known as “Lemonade Lucy.” Hayes is criticized for corruption and for reducing the burdens of reconstruction. His opponent, Tammany Tilden, was at least as corrupt, and a stronger opponent of reconstruction.

Garfield was a beer man who “drank little else.” He tried to reform the civil service, but died from a gunshot and doctor-caused infection shortly after taking office. If his wound had been disinfected he would have probably lived. That’s what Roosevelt did when he was shot.

Chet Arthur, a cigar smoker and enthusiastic drinker, was Garfield’s vice president. When pressured for a no-liquor policy in the White House, he responded: “Madam, I may be the president of the United States, but what I do with my private life is my own damned business!” Arthur liked late night dining that he would finish with Champagne and a cigar. Though his background was in corrupt civil service, as president he did his best to remove this corruption from the civil service. A good president, IMHO.

Ma ma, Ma ma, where's my pa?

Ma ma, Ma ma, where’s my pa?

Grover Cleveland was a cigar and beer man. Weighing 250 lbs, he was known as ‘Big Steve’ or ‘Uncle Jumbo,” In the white house, he limited himself to a gallon of beer a night. That is he drank four tankards of 1 liter each. He’d drank more before becoming mayor of Baltimore. He fathered a child at that time by seduction, perhaps date rape, of Maria Halpin, a 38-year-old sales clerk. She named the child Oscar Folsom Cleveland, the two last names suggesting she was not sure of the father. Cleveland and Folsom had Maria sent to an insane asylum (she was not crazy) and had Oscar was sent to an orphanage. In the end, Maria was freed and Oscar was adopted by Dr. King a trustee of the orphanage. None of this horrible behavior stopped Cleveland from becoming mayor and president. Cleveland married the 21-year-old daughter of his friend, Folsom. Rutherford Hayes was revolted by it all: “Cleveland … is a brute with women.” Cleveland smoked foot-long, ‘supercoronas’ that he received as gifts, using these cigars to influence people and conversations, similar to Churchill. Not a good man, nor a particularly good president, IMHO. Baby Ruth candy was not named after Cleveland’s daughter Ruth, but after the baseball player. IMHO, the candy company claimed otherwise only to avoid paying royalties. Cleveland is remembered fondly by historians, but not by me. I read two of his books.

Benjamin Harrison didn’t drink, but he did smoke cigars and he allowed liquor in the white house though prohibition was a growing issue. He annexed Hawaii, improved the navy, and replaced the “spoils system” for civil service jobs with a merit system. He also tried unsuccessfully to provide voting rights for African-Americans. The move failed in the senate. Cleveland defeated him in his run for a second term by pointing out that tariffs were too high. A tariff battle would dominate the Democrat / Republican split for a generation, and has recently reappeared. Modern historians don’t much like Harrison as he didn’t succeed in providing civil rights, as if that were an easy battle.

mckinleyMcKinley drank scotch whiskey — Dewar’s, a brand provided by Andrew Carnegie, and he smoked several cigars per day. He would not smoke in public though there is artwork, as at right, and the comment that “one never saw McKinley without a cigar in his mouth except at meals or when asleep.’. The McKinley delight is a variant of the Manhattan made with 3 oz of rye whiskey (at least 100 proof), 1 oz. sweet vermouth, 2 dashes of cherry brandy, and 1 dash absinthe. McKinley was shot and started to recover before dying from doctor-caused infection (he used the same doctor the Garfield had).

Theodore Roosevelt, was McKinley’s VP, and is one of the most beloved and colorful presidents in US history. He smoked cigars starting when he was 8, but swore off them later. He drank modestly, a version of the mint julep and served it to anyone who’d play tennis with him. Roosevelt’s version used rye plus brandy instead of Bourbon: 2-3 oz of rye whiskey, 10 to 12 fresh mint leaves “muddled” with a splash of water, a sugar cube, ¼ oz. of brandy and a sprig or two of mint as a garnish. The fresh mint was grown on the Whitehouse grounds. T. Roosevelt wrote some 30 books (I’ve read four or five) they are all wonderful. Roosevelt did daring things, like ride a moose, and survived being shot by leaving the bullet where is was; here’s a photo and essay. I don’t understand why so many US presidents drank rye and not Bourbon (Bourbon — corn whiskey — had been invented in the late 1700s and is tastier, IMHO). One of TR’s most famous speeches, “the man in the arena”, was given at the Sorbonne 1910. He claimed that being a critic was not much of an achievement.

William H. Taft smoked cigars and like Champaign, but rarely drank; he was on a perpetual diet. He tried to continue Roosevelt’s programs, but got little done. Still the country did well. He’s most remembered for the “7th inning stretch” break near the end of every baseball game.

Woodrow Wilson drank scotch and smoked cigarettes. His campaign slogan, “Wilson that’s all” was a whiskey slogan. Prohibition began during Wilson’s time in office: it was supposed to help women, but did not. It brought corruption and misery. Here’s an anti-alcohol song of the day: “behind those swinging doors.”

Harding's humidor - a massive thing

Harding’s humidor – a massive thing

Despite prohibition, Harding had poker nights twice a week where he smoked cigars, and the whiskey flowed freely. He also had at least 7 mistresses; he got two of them pregnant. Not a good man or a particularly good president. He died in office, perhaps killed by his wife or by his lifestyle.

Calvin Coolidge was Harding’s VP. Coolidge smoked cigars and drank sweet, Tokay wine. As president he cut spending and taxes, paid down the debt, and did not say much. Much of the detail work was done by his secretary of commerce, Herbert Hoover. Here is the Coolidge cooler: 1.5 oz. of Vermont White vodka, ½ oz. of American whiskey, 2 oz. of orange juice, Club soda. A good man and a good president, IMHO.

hoover

hoover

H. Hoover liked good wine and dry gin-martinis, but didn’t drink either in the white house as he respected prohibits as his predecessors did not. Also, his wife poured out his extensive wine collection. He is blamed for the great depression, unfairly I think. The depression hit all other industrial countries at the same time (most economies revered before ours did). Hoover’s dying request, at 80, was for a good, dry martini. He is the first gin man since Van Buren, but not the last.

FDR and Churchill

FDR and Churchill. They drank Champaign and whiskey.

FDR was the first gentleman president since Monroe. He smoked 2 packs of cigarettes per day and drank gin martinis, very dry. Also, “old-fashioneds”, and daiquiris mixed with orange juice (a rum sizzle it’s called). The old-fashioned is made of whiskey, sugar, water, and bitters. FDR spent his last day with one of his mistresses (his wife had a mistress too) and his last words were to recount how much Churchill drank. FDR also took cocaine. It was a fairly normal medication at the time. He took some before giving the famous speech “December 7, 1941….” I question the harsh sentences we now give to users of this drug.

Truman was not a gentleman, but a fine president, IMHO. He swore with abandon, was a bourbon man, and liked to play poker with his buddies late into the night. He liked to include a shot of bourbon with his breakfast before his morning walk, took another shot “for freedom” when he entered the senate, drank bourbon with his poker buddies, and sometimes had bourbon with dinner. Truman’s buddies and colleagues were impressed that he was always up early though, and ready for work. He worked hard, didn’t smoke, and was true to his wife. He lived a long life, dying at 88 in 1972.

Eisenhower typically drank scotch with ice.

Eisenhower drank scotch over ice.

Eisenhower liked scotch, golf, smoking cigarettes and cigars, and entertaining. He had a mistress (his driver) and mostly entertained business men who he would sound out for advice on the issues of the day. He limited himself to only one drink a day or a bit of a second because of his health. It’s a good standard. Eisenhower was one of the first presidents to have a secret-service nickname, “scorecard” because of his love of golf. Before him, only Wilson played more golf.

John F. Kennedy had many mistresses, and was the last to smoke cigars in public while president. He drank classy drinks like Daiquiris, Bloody Marys and Heineken beer, imported from Holland. The Daiquiri is made of rum, lime, sugar, and water. Kennedy lived on amphetamines from “Dr Feelgood,” his personal physician. He is supposed to have tried LSD and marijuana too, His secret service nickname was “Lancer”, a reference to Lancelot, the philandering knight of Camelot fame. A famous story of Kennedy is that, right before signing the embargo of Cuba, he instructed an assistant to buy up every Cuban cigar he could find. He bought over 1000 and then signed the embargo. Not one of my favorite presidents. Jacquline Kennedy smoked like a train, Salems.

Screen Shot 2018-09-13 at 10.58.11 PMLBJ was a cigarette smoker and a heavy drinker who’s responsible for “Bourbon and Branch” becoming the semi-official drink of Texans. Branch water is just another name for water, BTW. He also drank scotch: Cutty Sark or Teachers, and used his ability to hold liquor in negotiations. He’d greet congressional opponent with two bottles, requesting that they finish them before talking. After that, they were pliable, especially since, sometimes he’d have his diluted. A very good president, IMHO: he was able to implement civil right law that had eluded a century of presidents.
nixon-cigars

Nixon is hated, unfairly I think. He liked fine wine and fruity mixed drinks like Mai Tais, but served mediocre wine to guests. He was an ex-smoker of cigarettes – switched to cigars by the time he was president, but smoking them in private, and handing out bubble gum cigars as a campaign prop. Mai Tais are wonderful drinks, the recipe is 60 ml Jamaican and Martinique Rums, 25 ml Fresh Lime Juice, 15 ml Orange Curaçao, 15 ml Orgeat, 3-4 Crushed Ice Cubes. Nixon ended the Vietnam war and began good relations with Russia and China. I also started the EPA, and is the first president to deal well with the Indians, dividing Alaska land nicely. Watergate was his downfall, helped in part by Deep Throat, the second in command of the FBI who was bypassed for a promotion.

Gerald Ford smoked a pipe in public, and liked gin martinis during lunch or with friends, or gin and tonics in the summer. He didn’t drink to excess, and most people liked him. He’s criticized for thinking Russia was an enemy, and for not stopping inflation, as if anyone else could have done it.

Carter didn’t drink or smoke, and was critical of those who did, a possible swipe at Ford. When he had an arms summit with the Soviets, Carter toasted the soviets with a small glass of white wine. He’s the least favorite president of my life-time; he backed tyrants and thought that deficit spending would cure the economy. He got nothing more than foreign policy abuse and stag-flation (inflationary recession). Carter’s secret service name was “Deacon,” because of his church leanings. 114000446

Reagan liked California wine and the Orange Blossom Special: 1 oz. (or slightly less) vodka, 1 oz. of either grenadine or sweet vermouth, 2 oz. fresh orange juice, served over ice. Reagan smoked before becoming president, and ate jelly beans as a way of quitting. They became his signature dish. As president, Reagan was a deficit spender but he got better results than Carter had perhaps because he achieved his deficit by lowering taxes.

George HW Bush drank beer or vodka martinis in moderation, and smoked the occasional cigar. He may have had a mistress, too. A vodka martini is a mix of vodka and dry vermouth mixed in at about 4 to 1. I find it flavorless. He liked (likes) sailing and skydiving. Of the recent presidents, he is the fondest remembered by the white house staff. The soviet union collapsed in his day. A good president and a good man.

Screen Shot 2018-09-13 at 10.58.40 PMBill Clinton smoked pot in college and after, though he claims to have not inhaled. In the white house he smoked cigars, but not in public, and liked an English drink called a snake-bite: 50% beer, 50% hard cider. His secret service name was “eagle,” perhaps because of his eagle eye for women. Several women claimed that he’d pressured them into sex. Clinton denied all charges until one, a 22-year-old intern, turned up with the stained dress. He was a good president but a lousy person. His cigar of choice, the Gurkha Grand Reserve, is slightly longer and wider than the Grant cigar, 6 inches by 50 ring.

George W. Bush had been a heavy drinker in college but completely swore off by the time he was president. When his father had been president, his secret service name had been “Tumbler,” a reference to his drinking and its ill-effects. He requested a different nickname as president, Timberwolf. It sounds vaguely like Tumbler. His main presidential accomplishment was the war on terror, such as it is.

Obama, like Clinton, smoked pot in his youth. He switched to beer and cigarettes in the White house but doesn’t do either in public. The picture at right has him holding the glass. His secret service name is “Renegade,” and his main achievement, seems to have been a close rapport with the countries of Islam. While I can’t say that pot helped either of these men, it does not seem to have hurt them, or society. Thus, I can not favor harsh sentences. usa-whitehouse-beer-1

Trump does not drink or smoke. He has had some affairs before becoming president, but they seem to have been consensual, and he seems to have stopped by the time he entered the Whitehouse. Trump’s church leaning is positivist, and his secret service nickname is “Mogul.” He seems committed to tariffs as a way to restart the economy and as a way to bring down the debt. I wish him success.

It is not clear who is in charge when the president is drunk, nor is the law clear about presidential smoking in the Whitehouse: It is both a public building and a private residence

Robert E. Buxbaum, October 18, 2018. As a side note: The 23rd Prime Minister of Australia, Bob Hawke (1954) held the Guinness Record for fast beer drinking: 2.5 pints in under 11 seconds !

God bless you Canada

Leave a reply

Canada is a fine country, rarely appreciated in the USA because most of it is so similar to us — One of my favorite places to visit in Canada was the museum of Canadiana — a museum dedicated to the differences between the US and Canada. Differences do exist, but they are few and small, as you can tell perhaps from the song below, “God Bless You Canada,” by Lee Greenwood, the same fellow who wrote, “God Bless the USA.” The tunes and words are strongly similar, I’d say.

Canada is much easier to reach than Hawaii for the most part, or Alaska, Puerto Rico, or Guam, it’s just north of Montana and south of Alaska and Detroit. And Canadian English is at least as understandable as a southern drawl or a New Yorker twang. Canada has far fewer murders but far more rapes, armed robberies and assaults. It has the same suicide rate as we do, but by different means. And Toronto’s mayor was on crack like Detroit’s mayor.

Canadian $2 coin, Elizabeth II, by the grace of god, Queen. The last part is in Latin.

Canadian $2 coin, Elizabeth II, by the grace of god, Queen (it’s in Latin).

Canada has a Queen, Elizabeth II, that it shares with several other countries including England, Australia, and Barbados. This is no to say that Canada isn’t quite independent: the main power of Canada’s Queen, like with the US president, is “the bully pulpit”. As in The United States. The press does its best to rein in this power.

If Canada were to join the US as the 51 state, it be the 3rd largest state in population (after Texas and California) and the 3rd largest in GDP (after New York and California). Not that all of Canada is likely to join, but certain parts might (New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Labrador) if Quebec goes its separate way. Québécois like remember that they were originally French. “Je me Souviens” is the Quebec motto, and having an English Queen irks. One of my favorite Canada facts (maybe true) is that the name Canada is French for Ça nada (nothing here) but tit’s not sure, there is stuff and people there. My wife is from there. Listen to the song, “God Bless you, Canada”, I suspect you’ll like it.

Robert Buxbaum, September 17, 2018.

Map of Italian pasta

 

From the taste atlas of the world, Italy

Fresh from the taste atlas of the world.

As a brief explanation to the above map, Italy has had a troubled history over the last 2000 years. As the Roman Empire fell, the north-east got taken over by Germans. It still speaks German, and drinks beer. Spätzle is an Austrian pasta. The Italian northwest has been under French domination, off and on and it shows in the thick cream sauces. The south was controlled by the Moores for 1000 years, leaving dishes with fennel and olives. And then there is the amazing innovation: the tomato, a gift from Spanish America that seems to have found its home on the eastern seaboard, though Spain controlled the west. I don’t know why. Enjoy.

Robert Buxbaum, May 1, 2018

New Chinese emperor, will famine not follow

6 Replies

For most of its 2300 year history, the Chinese empire has rattled between strong leaders who brought famine, and weak leaders who brought temporary reprieve. Mao, a strong leader, killed his associates plus over 100 million by his “great leap forward” famine. Since then, 30+ years, we’ve had some weaker leaders, semi-democracy, and some personal wealth, plus the occasional massacre, e.g. at Tiananmen square, and a growing demographic problem. And now a new strongman is establishing himself with hopes of solving China’s problems. I hope for the best, but fear the repeat of the worse parts of Chinese history.

Two weeks ago, Chairman Xi amended the Chinese constitution to make himself emperor for life, essentially. He’s already in charge of the government, the party, and the military. Yesterday (Tuesday), he consolidated his power further by replacing the head of the banks. The legal system is, in theory, is the last independent part of government, but there is hardly any legal system in the sense of a balance of power. If history is any guide, “Emperor” Xi will weaken the courts further before the year is out. He will also likely remove many or all of his close associates and relatives. It is not for nothing that Nero, Stalin, and Mao killed their relatives and friends — generally for “corruption” following a show trial.

China's Imperial past is never is quite out of sight. Picture from the Economist.

China’s past is never is quite out of sight. Picture from the Economist.

Xi might be different, but he faces a looming demographic problem that makes it likely he will follow the president of the stronger emperors. China’s growth was fueled in part by a one child policy. Left behind is an aging, rural population with no children to take care of the elderly. As top-down societies do not tolerate “useless workers,” I can expect a killing famine within the next 10 years. This would shed the rural burden while providing a warning to potential critics. “Burn the chicken to scare the monkey,” is a Chinese Imperial aphorism. Besides, who needs dirt farmers when we have modern machines.

Lazy beds (feannagan) use only half the soil are for planting. The English experts were sure this was inefficient and land-wasting. Plowing was imposed on Ireland, and famine followed

“Lazy beds” of potatoes were used in Ireland for a century until experts forced their abandonment in the mid 1800s. The experts saw the beds, and the Irish as lazy, inefficient, and land-wasting. Famine followed.

Currently about 40% of the country is rural, about 560 million people spread out over a country the size of Canada or the US. The rest, 60% or 830 million, live concentrated in a few cities. The cities are rich, industrial, and young. The countryside is old, agricultural and poor, salaries are about 1/3 those of the cities. The countryside holds about 2/3 of those over 65, about 100 million elderly with no social safety net. The demographic imbalance is likely to become worse — a lot worse — within the next decade.

What is likely to happen, I fear, is that the party leaders — all of whom live in the cities — will decide that the countryside is full of non-productive, uneducated whiners. They will demand that more food should be produced, and will help them achieve this by misguided science and severe punishments. Mao’s experts, like Stalin’s and Queen Victoria’s, demanded unachievable quotas and academic-based advice that neither the leaders nor the academics had ever tried to make work. Mao’s experts told peasants to kill the birds that were stealing their grain. It worked for a while until the insects multiplied. As for the quotas, the party took grain as if the quotas were being met. If the peasants starved, they starved.

I expect that China’s experts will propose machine-based modern agriculture, perhaps imported from the US or Israel: Whatever is in style at the time. The expert attitude exists everywhere to this day, and the results are always the same. See potato famine picture above. When the famine comes, the old will request food and healthcare, but the city leaders will provide none, or just opioids as they did to ailing Elvis. When the complaining stops the doctor is happy.

China's population pyramid as of 2016. Notice the bulge of 40-55 year olds.

China’s population pyramid as of 2016. Notice the bulge of 40-55 year olds. Note too that there are millions more males (blue) than females (pink).

In single leader societies, newspapers do not report bad news. Rather, they like to show happy, well-fed peasants singing the leaders’ praise. When there’s a riot too big to ignore, rioters are presented as lazy malcontents and counter-revolutionaries. Sympathizers are sent to work in the fields. American academia will sing the praises of the autocratic leader, or will be silent. We never see the peasants, but often see the experts. And we live in a society where newspapers report only the bad, and where we only believe when there pictures. No pictures, no story. As with Stalin’s Gulags, Mao’s famine, or North Korea today, there are likely to be few pictures released to the press. Eventually, a census will reveal that tens of million aged have vanished, and we’ll have to guess where they went.

I can expect China to continue its military buildup over the next decade. The military will be necessary to put down riots, and keep young men occupied, and to protect China from foreign intervention. China will especially need to protect its ill-gotten, new oil-assets. Oil is needed if China is to replace its farmers with machines. It will be a challenge for a wise American leader to avoid being drawn into war with China, while protecting some of our interests: Taiwan, Hong Kong, etc. As with Theodore Roosevelt, he should offer support and non-biassed mediation. Is Trump up to this?  Hu Knows?

Robert Buxbaum, March 21, 2018. The above might be Xi-nephobia, Then again, this just in: Chairman Xi announces that Taiwan will face punishment if it attempts to break free. Doesn’t sound good.

Why did Hamilton wear his glasses at the duel?

24 Replies

The musical play “Hamilton” ends with his duel with Burr. A song leading up to it, the world was wide enough tells the audience that Hamilton “wore his glasses” at the duel, and that he “methodically fiddled with the trigger.” It doesn’t say why, but tries to imply a sort of death-wish where Hamilton “threw away his shot” (fired into the air) because he didn’t want to kill his first friend, or because he thought of his son, who died near the spot. The theory is supported by popular myth, though the details of the events are, by necessity, muddy. All the witnesses testified that they looked away before the shooting started –customary in duels at the time.

There are some problems I find with this theory, and I’d like to present another: that Hamilton was so eager to kill Burr that he over-stacked the deck in his favor. The witnesses noted that Hamilton performed some provocative actions that seem out of character for someone who wants to commit suicide: “As they were taking their places, he (Hamilton) asked that the proceedings stop, adjusted his spectacles, and slowly, repeatedly, sighted along his pistol to test his aim”[1]. This seems like a taunt, if anything. As I reading the letters too, I find Hamilton taunting Burr to duel. He could have bowed out in many ways, as Washington always had, or been neutral. Why taunt? Why wear glasses and fiddle with the trigger? Why test your aim and then throw away your shot?

The choice of guns is important too, along with where the shot actually went. First the shot: While Hamilton’s second originally thought Hamilton had shot in the air, when the seconds went back the next day they found the shot in a cedar limb, “at an elevation of about twelve feet and a half, perpendicularly from the ground, between thirteen and fourteen feet from the mark on which General Hamilton stood, and about four feet wide of the direct line between him and Col. Burr, on the right side”.[2] The men stood 10 paces apart (16-18 feet), so apparently the shot hit about 6 feet above Burr’s head on a line reasonably towards him. That’s not quite shooting in the air.

The pair of Wogdon dueling pistols used in the Hamilton - Burr duel.

The Wogdon pistols used in the Hamilton – Burr duel. Currently the property of the JP Morgan Chase Manhattan Bank, in 1976 they were found to have a hidden hair trigger, something Hamilton knew, but Burr would not have known.

The choice of pistols is also suggestive. The pistols were the property of John Church, a brother-in-law to Hamilton, and a business partner of both men. Church had fought a duel with Burr some years before and, using Burr’s pistols, shot a button off Burr’s coat. Burr missed completely. Church then bought these new pistols in London — Wogdon pistols, with an extra-large bore and sights. Sights were not considered “sporting” for duels, and not ordinarily allowed. With sights on the pistols, one could not miss if one aimed. As for the bigger bore, this too was unusual. If you hit, you killed; most gentlemen preferred a less-deadly duel. Hamilton chose to use these pistols even though he owned two, “legal” pistols (smaller bore, no sight). As the challenged party, it was his right. Still, why not choose your own, if not to make use of the sight and the large-bore. And, according to his second, he seems to have practiced with the pistols beforehand [4].

Analysis of the guns, done in the late 1970s [3] turned up another illegal feature. While they appear to be normal dueling pistols, these guns have a hidden feature. If you move the trigger a fraction of an inch forward it sets a hidden, hair-trigger. It’s a hidden feature that Hamilton knew about [3] but Burr almost certainly did not. If Hamilton surreptitiously set the hair-trigger, it would give him a tremendous advantage. He would be able to shoot more quickly and more accurately, with a much lighter squeeze on the trigger. The sights ensured it would be a kill. Burr’s gun, unset, would have required the normal, heavy, 10-15 pound pull. His shot would have been slower and less accurate. As it was, it seems Burr fired second.

Ten paces is not very far apart. People missed because of the 10-20 lb pull and lack of sights made it hard to hit. Besides, many people who were hit survived.

Ten paces is not very far apart. People missed because of the 10-20 lb pull and the lack of sights made it hard to hit anyone. Besides, with a small bore, you didn’t kill.

There are a couple of problems with using hair-trigger pistols, though. They can go off prematurely, even if you know the trigger’s been set [4], and it’s worse if you are not quite sure you’ve set the trigger. The Wogdon guns intentionally made it hard to tell if you have set the trigger or not, and made it impossible to unset the trigger without firing. I suspect that Hamilton cleaned his glasses, fiddled with the trigger, and sighted his aim because he was unsure whether he’d set the hair-trigger. My theory is he came to the wrong conclusion. According to the seconds, Burr’s shot was almost simultaneous, but his apparently achieved a lucky/ un-lucky hit. Burr killed his rival, but also killed his own political career, the unhappy end to a beautiful animosity, discussed in the play, and discussed by me from a different angle. [5]

References:

1. Testimony at trial, Centinel of Freedom, November 24, 1807, cited in Winfield, 1874, p. 220.

2.  Nathanial Pendelton’s Amended testimony of Nathaniel Pendleton and William P. Ness’s Statement of July 11, 1804. Amended after the pair revisited the site and found the bullet.

3. “Pistols shed light on famed duel”, Merrill Lindsay, Smithsonian Magazine. 1976.

4. ibid. Hamilton told his second not to set the hair-trigger, and then seems to have set his own. Linsay’s theory is that Hamilton knew he’d set the trigger, but squeezed it too early.

5. Since the witnesses looked away, you might think of another explanation: that Burr fired first and Hamilton’s gun then went off in death throw, in the general direction of Burr. A couple of problems with this theory: for the gun to go off like that, Hamilton would have had to set the hair-trigger. The ordinary 10-15 lb trigger would require a determined squeeze. Also, for the bullet to hit the tree like that, Hamilton would have had to raise his gun past Burr, though not to the side or down as one might if he wished to throw away his shot. And Burr would have to have set the trigger himself to shoot so fast and so well. Randall’s book, “Alexander Hamilton, a life”, claims he did, p. 424, but looking at this video of the hair-trigger mechanism, I find the mechanism is too cleverly hidden for Burr to have noticed. It escaped detection for 170 years. Finally, for Burr to shoot to kill without provocation, would require that he murder in cold blood, and Burr shows no evidence of that. Besides, Burr would have had to worry that the witnesses might turn around and see his dastardly deed. As it was, even with Hamilton’s gun going off, Burr’s reputation was ruined. I reject this theory, and assert as others have: “Hamilton did fire his weapon intentionally, and he fired first.”

Robert E. Buxbaum, May 10, 2017. You may like these other songs from Hamilton, “your obedient servant,” and “the ten duel commandments.” And you may like this essay about Burr, Tammany Hall and the Manhattan bank.

May 1, St. Tammany day

5 Replies

May 1 is St. Tammany day, a day to rejoice in the achievements of Tammany Hall, and of St Tammany, the guardian of crooked politicians everywhere. The Sons of St. Tammany started in 1773 as a charitable club of notable revolutionary-era individuals including Benjamin Franklin, John Hancock, and John Dickenson, but evolved into perhaps the most corrupt, and American, of political organizations. The picture of a US politician – the cartoon version at least — is the Tammany Democrat: a loud, drunken, womanizer, willing to do or promise whatever the people seem to want at the moment. Tammany and its bosses helped form this image. They helped new immigrants, but did so by creating needless government jobs, by filling them often with incompetent loyalists, and by overcharging on government contracts. Today, these Tammany ways rule in every major American city; the other clubs of the day are gone or influence-less.

John Hancock leads a meeting of the St. Tammany (Columbian) society. Note the "Appeal to Heaven flag and the Indian, real or imagined. Indians participated in several, early St. Tammany meetings.

John Hancock leads a meeting of the St. Tammany society. Note the “Appeal to Heaven” flag. While Indians participated in some, early meetings, the one here is, I suspect, a ghost: St. Tammany.

In revolutionary-era America, the Sons of St. Tammany was just one of many social-charitable clubs (Americans like to form clubs), in many ways it was similar to the Masons and the Cincinnati, but those clubs were international and elitist. The sons of Tammany was purely American, and anti-elitist. It was open to anyone born on this side of the Atlantic, and had Indian customs. The Cincinnati society, for comparison, started with members who were as notable (Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, Marie, Marquis de Lafayette, Henry Knox, etc.) but was originally open only to high officers of the regular army, including foreigners like Lafayette, but not ordinary soldiers, minutemen (militia), or the general public. The symbols of the Tammanies were American: the liberty-cap and the “Appeal to Heaven” flag, now a popular symbol of the Tea Party; the leader was called by an Indian name: Sachem. By contrast, the Cincinnati society symbol was the Imperial Eagle (Washington’s was gold with diamonds), and the leader was called “general”. The Tammany society began admitting immigrants in 1810 or so, while the Cincinnati society remains closed to this day, except to descendants of Revolutionary officers — an aristocratic affectation in the eyes of some.

It was Aaron Burr who first saw the opportunity to use the Tammany organization as a for-profit, political machine. In the years 1795-9, New York was suffering from yellow fever and a variety of other diseases that were taken to be caused by a lack of clean water. Burr proposed, with Tammany support, the creation of a corporation to build a new water system to bring fresh, clean water from the Bronx River to lower Manhattan via iron pipes. The Manhattan company was duly chartered, with directors who were primarily Tammany men, Republican-Democrats, and not Federalists. Federalists (Hamilton, primarily) controlled the only NY banks at the time and controlled the directorate of every chartered company in the city. The Manhattan company requested a $2,000,000 perpetual charter, twice as big as the charter of Hamilton’s Bank of New York, and a monopoly on water distribution. These were reasonable requests given the task, but unusual in the lack of Federalist or governmental oversight. But the Manhattan company was a water company, and water was needed. But Burr’s intent, all along, it seems was to build a bank, not a water company. After the charter was approved, but before signing, he amended it to allow any excess funds to be used for any legal purpose. 

In this cartoon by Dr. Seuss, The Tammany Tiger says, "Today is the Big Day Folks. Vote Early and Often."

In this cartoon by Dr. Seuss, The Tammany Tiger says, “Today is the Big Day Folks. Vote Early and Often.”

Money was raised, but only $100,000 used for the water system. The remaining 95% of the charter funds, $1,900,000, went to found “The Bank of The Manhattan company” — later to be known as “The Chase Manhattan Bank” or “The Manhattan Bank of Cholera.” Instead of building the reservoir in upper Manhattan and filling it with clean water as originally proposed, Burr’s Tammany trustees voted to dig wells in lower Manhattan, and placed its reservoir in lower Manhattan too, near Chamber’s St,  next to a cemetery where Cholera victims were buried. New York suffered with Cholera, Typhoid, and leaky, wooden pipes until 1842 when Peter Cooper brought clean water to lower Manhattan from the Groton River via iron pipes. To this day, crooked water contracts are a staple of Tammany politics. 

The Bank of the Manhattan company opened at 40 Wall St on September 1, 1799, a mere four months after the water company’s incorporation. Hamilton was furious. The company continues today as The JP Morgan, Chase Manhattan Bank, one of the largest banking institutions in the world. Burr used the money and power of his company to reward supporters and to run for vice president with Thomas Jefferson’s tacit support. Except for his Tammany candidacy, John Adams would have won New York and a second term as president. Burr’s career pretty-well died after the Hamilton duel, but Tammany did well without him. By 1812, the Society built its first Tammany Hall, officially called the Wigwam, a $55,000, five-story building with a meeting hall for 2000. New York Democratic politics would center on Tammany Hall for the next century at least.

Following disappointment with John Quincy Adams, “the bitter branch of the bitter tree,” Tammy leaders went national. They recruited Andrew Jackson, a war hero and early recruit of Burr’s. They’d support Jackson if he’d hand over spoils, control of government jobs. He agreed and, as president, fired perfectly good, long-standing government employees He replaced them with Democratic loyalists. When Jackson stepped down in 1833, Tammany elected an equally corrupt New Yorker, Martin van Buren. Though there were periodic Whig and Republican reforms, Tammany learned they could wait those out. They always re-emerged like mushrooms after a rain.

Boss Tweed and other Tammany leaders: who stole the money?

Boss Tweed and other Tammany leaders in a cartoon by Nast, Tammany Ring. “Who stole the money? He did.”  

A key vote-getter in the Tammany system is to provide Thanksgiving dinners and other charitable giveaways for the poor, as well as promises of jobs. By the late 1800s, William J. Brian added promises of soft money and wealth redistribution, cornerstones of the Democratic platform to this day. Tammany also tends to be for low tariffs as opposed to the high tariff ideas of Hamilton and many Whigs and 19th century Republicans. A case can be made for either view.

Tammany helped New York immigrants, particularly the Irish to get citizenship and avoid legal troubles in return for votes and occasional muscle. In other cities, Democratic clubs were less open to Catholics, reflecting the views of the common voter in each state. In the North they were pro-union, in the South anti, electing Klu Kluxers like George Wallace, Sam Ervin, and Robert Byrd. This lead to a famous split in the Democratic party about the 1968 convention. Famous Tammany leaders include William M. “Boss” Tweed, “Big” Tim Sullivan, and “Gentleman” Jimmy Walker. Sullivan famously authored the first anti-gun law, the Sullivan act; it was designed to protect his thugs against private citizens shooting them. It didn’t always work.

Edwin Edwards, Democratic Governor of Louisiana. 1972-1996. Who would not trust this man?

Hon. (?) Edwin Edwards, Governor of Louisiana. 1972-1996. Tammany lives

If you want to see Tammany politics in action, visit almost any large US city, or read its newspaper. In Chicago, the dead vote, and 4 of the last 6 governors have gone to jail. Mayor Daily famously told Kennedy that 90 percent of the registered voters of Cook County would vote for him. They did (sort of); because of this, JFK won Illinois and the presidency. In New York, voters discovered only in the 1960s that Tammany’s leader, Carmine DeSapio had been working for 30 years with known gangland murderer, Charles “Lucky” Luciano. In Detroit, where I live and corruption in the water department is legendary. Race-based job handouts, unemployment is high along with high minimum (living) wages. We’re now in the process of a $70,000,000 project to replace 100 feet of sewer pipe, and we’re building a $140 million, 3.3 mile trolley. Tammany loves all public works.

Then there is Louisiana, home to St Tammany parish. Louisiana Democrats like Huey Long and Edwin Edwards (shown at left) are unusual in that they’re proud to say that their corrupt methods are corrupt. Edwards has had two long runs as governor despite several convictions for doing illegal things he admits to doing. When Edwards was asked why he did favors for his friends. He responded: “Who should I do them for? My enemies?” Or, to quote one of Edwin Edwards campaign ads. Vote Edwin EdwardsPeople seem to love it, or did until the levy broke. There is a particularly American grandeur to all this. As Will Rodgers said, “America has the best politicians money can buy.” Today is the day to be proud of that uniquely American tradition. You too can grow up to buy a president.

Robert Buxbaum, April 28, 2017. I ran for water commissioner, and have written about sewage treatment, flood avoidance, and fluoride, as well as the plusses and minuses of trade unionization, and the difference between Republicans and Conservatives.