A timeless masterpiece by Heather

April 8, 2023

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

On April 8, 1865, General Ulysses S. Grant was having a hard night. 

His army had been harrying Confederate General Robert E. Lee’s for days, and Grant knew it was only a question of time before Lee had to surrender. The people in the Virginia countryside were starving, and Lee’s army was melting away. Just that morning a Confederate colonel had thrown himself on Grant’s mercy after realizing that he was the only man in his entire regiment who had not already abandoned the cause. But while Grant had twice asked Lee to surrender, Lee still insisted his men could fight on.

So, on the night of April 8, Grant retired to bed in a Virginia farmhouse, dirty, tired, and miserable with a migraine. He spent the night “bathing my feet in hot water and mustard, and putting mustard plasters on my wrists and the back part of my neck, hoping to be cured by morning.” It didn’t work. When morning came, Grant pulled on his clothes from the day before and rode out to the head of his column with his head throbbing.

As he rode, an escort arrived with a note from Lee requesting an interview for the purpose of surrendering his Army of Northern Virginia. “When the officer reached me I was still suffering with the sick headache,” Grant recalled, “but the instant I saw the contents of the note I was cured.”

The two men met in the home of Wilmer McLean in the village of Appomattox Court House, Virginia. Lee had dressed grandly for the occasion in a brand new general’s uniform carrying a dress sword; Grant wore simply the “rough garb” of a private with the shoulder straps of a lieutenant general.

But the images of the wealthy, noble South and the humble North hid a very different reality. As soon as the papers were signed, Lee told Grant his men were starving and asked if the Union general could provide the Confederates with rations. Grant didn’t hesitate. “Certainly,” he responded, before asking how many men needed food. He took Lee’s answer—”about twenty-five thousand”—in stride, telling the general that “he could have…all the provisions wanted.”

By spring 1865, the Confederates who had ridden off to war four years before boasting that their wealthy aristocrats would beat the North’s moneygrubbing shopkeepers in a single battle were broken and starving, while, backed by a booming industrial economy, the Union army could provide rations for twenty-five thousand men on a moment’s notice.

The Civil War was won not by the dashing sons of wealthy planters, but by men like Grant, who dragged himself out of his blankets and pulled a dirty soldier’s uniform over his pounding head on an April morning because he knew he had to get up and get to work.

Notes:

U.S. Grant, Personal Memoirs of U.S. Grant (New York: Charles L. Webster & Company, 1885), volume 2, chapter 67, “Negotiations at Appomattox,” at https://www.gutenberg.org/files/4367/4367-h/4367-h.htm#ch66

Share

© 2023 Heather Cox Richardson
548 Market Street PMB 72296, San Francisco, CA 94104

Start writing

NY Times cites John Yoo’s defense of Black Klansman Clarence Thomas

In light of recent revelations that Clarence and Ginni Thomas took many undisclosed lavish paid vacations (including a half million dollar luxury cruise in Indonesia) with, and recieved obscenely expensive gifts from, a right-wing billionaire and funder of the Federalist Society and other right wing causes, a far right real estate mogul named Crow who inherited great wealth from his father, the New York Times closes their short piece about the scandal with a quote from a former government official who also clerked for Clarence Thomas.

Coincidentally the former official was an author of the fucking torture memo, that secret legal fig leaf that made it “legal” for US contractors to violate international law and treaties that the US had signed, in order to go to the dark side fighting the “War on Terror.” Here’s fucking John Yoo with the last word on the latest unfair attack on Thomas in the “liberal” NYT’s short account:

John Yoo, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, who clerked for Justice Thomas and served in President George W. Bush’s administration, said he did not believe that vacations or gifts would play any role in the decisions he issued. The criticism of the justice’s ties to Mr. Crow, he added, reflected a broader campaign.

“This is part of this attack on him that goes back to ever since he joined the court,” Mr. Yoo said. “That somehow he couldn’t hold these views from his own free thoughts.

source

Just the facts, ma’am

The Manhattan DA’s statement of facts in People of New York  v. Donald Trump begins:

1. The defendant DONALD J. TRUMP repeatedly and fraudulently falsified New York business records to conceal criminal conduct that hid damaging information from the voting public during the 2016 presidential election. 

2. From August 2015 to December 2017, the Defendant orchestrated a scheme with others to influence the 2016 presidential election by identifying and purchasing negative information about him to suppress its publication and benefit the Defendant’s electoral prospects. In order to execute the unlawful scheme, the participants violated election laws and made and caused false entries in the business records of various entities in New York. The participants also took steps that mischaracterized, for tax purposes, the true nature of the payments made in furtherance of the scheme.

Which, of course, is just the DA’a highly prejudiced personal opinion and another totally baseless, partisan witch hunt (like Mueller, the Rusher Thing, The Perfect Call to Ukraine Thing, The So-called “fake” electors thing, The Perfect Call to Georgia Thing, the Legitimate Political Discourse Thing, The Illegal Deep State Raid on Mar-A-Lago Thing), and, obviously, persecuted Defendant would have paid off the porn star he’d had a sexually explicit moment with ten years earlier even if he wasn’t running for president.  Then, this total LIE:

19. The Defendant directed Lawyer A to delay making a payment to Woman 2 as long as possible. He instructed Lawyer A that if they could delay the payment until after the election, they could avoid paying altogether, because at that point it would not matter if the story became public. As reflected in emails and text messages between and among Lawyer A, Lawyer B, and the AMI Editor-in-Chief, Lawyer A attempted to delay making payment as long as possible. 

20. Ultimately, with pressure mounting and the election approaching, the Defendant agreed to the payoff and directed Lawyer A to proceed.

It’s a quick read, and to me, a breath of fresh air after years of accelerating highly gaseous gaslighting.   You can see the “racist, degenerate, sick animal” DA’s entire statement of so-called facts here:

Statement of facts

The death of a 1000 cuts

The funny thing about the death of a thousand cuts is that sometimes you can be cut 980 times before you realize you’re being subjected to the death of a thousand cuts. In the end you’ll be cut to shreds, in fact, you already are, even as you’re deluded by protestations of love from the folks with the knives.

It’s like walking around with a wounded friendship, carrying it on your back with no idea that it’s already dead. And worse than dead, really, the corpse you’re hauling on your shoulders is actually a biting zombie intent on having a nice snack.

The familiar stink of Bill Barr

Barr, speaking on FOX, echoed the Trump defense talking point that the payment to the porn star was a purely personal matter having nothing to do with the election and that therefore the prosecution of him for hiding the payment is another politically motivated Mueller witch hunt.  

Trumpie had a few seconds of sex with Stormy Daniels ten years before he made the hush money payment.  The reason that he paid her three days after the Access Hollywood tape was released was his fear that her story would have fatally damaged his chances to become the 45th president in a very tight race.  The reason he covered up this valuable campaign contribution was to avoid the scandalous payment becoming known, right before the election, defeating the purpose of the payment.  If there ever was a $130,000 well-spent in a tight presidential campaign, the payment to Daniels was it.

As for the possibility of conspiracy and fraud charges bumping the false accounting charge up to a felony, fraud, says Barr, requires a victim, as a matter of law. Voters can’t be defrauded by a cover-up, in Barr’s view, they can only commit fraud, OBVIOUSLY, even if it is fleetingly rare.

Barr also scoffs at NY being the venue for the indictment, citing New York City’s irrational hatred of Trumpie.  He and Trumpie had already designated NYC as an “Anarchist Jurisdiction” (also an “AntiChrist jurisdiction”) and therefore anything coming out of there is presumed to be simply “Trump derangement syndrome” since “anarchists” hate the law and order president.  

Plus, and it goes without saying, Alvin Bragg, the NY County DA, is Black and most Blacks irrationally hate Trumpie, their best friend since Lincoln.

Everything that comes out of the smugly confident Bagpiper’s hideous maw has the same stink.

The prison of our minds

There’s a famous story I’m thinking of, as I can’t find my way out of the loop of my two closest friends suddenly and irrevocably withdrawing their friendship from me.   The final communication was now almost four months ago, and it was just my old friend confirming that he would not be honest in trying to resolve our senseless conflict.  I have no illusion about anything involving that long running shitshow, understanding fully now how deadly any conflict is with this inexorable personality type. 

Yet, almost every day, as similar things are played out constantly in mainstreamed extremist politics — projection, incoherence, lies, vilification — I am reminded of my painful struggle to prevent the fatal falling out with my two old friends. They shocked me by continually using every familiar MAGA technique to blame and silence me.

Two monks who haven’t seen each other in many years meet in the forest.  They greet each other and one asks the other “do you still think about those sadists who held us captive and tortured us?”

“No,” says the monk “how about you?”

“I think of them every day and I never think about them without wishing karma to descend on them so that they hurt the way we did when they tortured us” says the other monk.

“Then you are still their prisoner,” says the more enlightened monk.  

True enough.

The thought that consoles me, as I am still the prisoner of thoughts of the brutal unfairness of the mistreatment I experienced at the hands of people who claimed to love me, is that I have no ability, at the moment, to blow off much  steam, to get things out of my system physically.  Strenuous exercise is always good for relieving much of that kind of tension.  In recent years I’d go for long, fast paced walks to clear my head, now I can only walk a block at a time, painfully, before I have to sit and rest.  Try clearing your head with that kind of halting walk. 

So the pain in my ailing knees reminds me to go easy on myself for not being able to break fully out of the prison I can’t think my way out of at the moment.  Mercy is a great gift to give yourself. When I am back in shape, after my knee replacement and rehab, I intend to flush the rest of this ugliness out of my system, daily.

BARR is back, baby!

Corrupt culture warrior Bagpiper Bill Barr is back, full stink, baby. Never one to shrink from a fight about who is the complete, evil asshole and who fights for Christ, Barr confidently dismisses the Manhattan DA’s case against Trump as a weak, pathetic, misguided political hit job on his boy. With great confidence he dismisses the theory of the case and the sealed charges that none of us have heard yet, with charge by charge theoretical analysis, no less. He then opines at great bad breathed length about how the case is held together with paper clips, string and spit. His summary is also great, I’ll spare you the 10 minutes, you can hear an odiferous bit of it here.

Meantime, Rupert Murdoch’s fair and balanced propaganda machine keeps pumping it out. As the imbecilic Jim Comer claimed on Fox yesterday, Alvin Bragg only thinks he has more power than the Congress of the United States of America and he’ll learn that when they drag him down there kicking and screaming (like the sick, deranged animal he is), subpoena be damned.

You have to picture it from these racists’ point of view, it would be like being a high ranking Nazi in Germany and having all these Jew lawyers drag you in front of Jew juries presided over by Jew judges. Who in their right mind would consent to a rigged game like that?

The uninterestings

The smartest woman in the room, a Harvard graduate with a successful literary agent practice who has read countless books, loved The Interestings, by Meg Wolitzer.   It is the epic fifty year story of friends from summer camp, who met the summer after my closest friends and I met at summer camp, and stayed close thereafter, their lives intertwining over the decades, as, amazingly, ours had.  My two closest friends were so excited by the book that they bought me a hardcover copy, in large print, no less, a kindness to my old eyes I always appreciate.  

I began reading the book, which starts from the point of view of an insecure, working class teenager Julie, a girl who is flattered to be taken in by a group of the coolest kids at camp, who rename her Jules.  This little group, The Interestings, forms the dramatis personae for the rest of the book.  I confess, I had a hard time making progress with the book, it struck me, from the start, as profoundly uninteresting, though context may have played a large role, as I will describe.  I got the audio version from the library and listened to it, determined to hear the whole thing.

Toward the end of the book the depressive husband of Jules tells his wife that her lifelong fixation with these Interestings has always been a mystery to him.  Aside from sharing an intense bond as teenagers, what was actually so interesting about any of these interestings?  He certainly spoke for me, and I suspect, many readers.

The pretty rich girl who was the queen of this little group wound up rich and successful, and married to a billionaire.  Her brother, a charming kid much loved by the females, wound up an expatriate in France, when it became clear he might be indicted for rape.  The eccentric, creative kid who couldn’t stop drawing and making little animations, became a billionaire, which is what happens to real geniuses, I suppose.  The musician became an engineer, I.  forget what became of the rape victim, though I think she remained friends with the others.  Jules became a social worker, I think. 

We didn’t wind up talking about the book my friends of fifty years had loved so much they bought me a copy of it.  Now that I think about it, we’d rarely discussed any books we’d read in common, beyond a thumbs up or a thumbs down.  It was not terribly long after I read The Interestings before a fifty year friendship with my two closest friends was over.  That’s fairly interesting, I think.

My friend flew into a rage at me over a conflict that, were she not so angry, could have been easily resolved.  Her righteous husband forced her to apologize to me the next morning, after I’d had a sleepless night, traumatized that my closest female friend had glared at me with a contempt I’ve only seen from my long dead father.  This famously willful woman’s loss of control, the show of rage, and the forced apology, I now understand, were mortifying to both of my old friends. 

Although I immediately accepted her crabbed apology, which, while blaming me for the entire incident seemed nonetheless sincere and the best she could do, they couldn’t accept my apology the following day for using the fucking “f-word” in a moment of anger.  Her husband rallied to his wife’s side, telling me I had no right to expect him to understand my feelings, because he was too upset by what I’d done (the f-word!) to hear about them.  In the space of two days, it was grimly clear these lifelong friends were no longer my friends.  It took me over a year to stop agonizing and see the obvious because it all made no sense to me.

My old friend called after the hellish five days in a beautiful rented house that ended our friendship and began “wasn’t that a great vacation?”  It went quickly downhill from there.  Next stop, a month or so of silent treatment from a friend I always communicated with a couple of times a week.  Then a demand to meet, and at that meeting, his wife beside him, he began “I’ve walked away from friendships for less than what you did to me.”  Instead of verbally punching him in the mouth, which, in hindsight would not have been unreasonable, I reassured him of my friendship and he accepted my assurance, handed me a great book they’d bought for me.

Reading this book, some part of me must have understood the superficial aspect of the whole thing, the intimate friendship beyond question, the need to tell the same cover story, stick to the dramatic script, swallow hurt because your hurt is humiliating to someone who claims they love you like family.  And, like family, you simply have to unconditionally accept the faults of your parents, your siblings, your flawed uncles and cousins. 

The rap goes like this: being family means that nobody ever has to hear or understand why what they’ve done hurt the other family member.  Family is a sacred bond that cannot be broken, except by vicious, unforgiving, treacherously angry people falsely claiming to be hurt and who can’t let go of their childish grievances.  You understand that if I hurt you, I love you more than you are hurt, so it’s a wash and stop trying to talk about whatever you claim I did to you.  It is your problem, not mine, not the family’s, dummy up, be quiet, swallow our version of what you think happened quiescently or you’re going to be fucking sorry.  You don’t threaten the family, you fucking filthy mouthed fuck!

Interesting, maybe.  On their influencer daughter’s Substack page recently there was a long post with advice about how to endure difficult people, presumably those who intrude with strong opinions and feel they can never be wrong.  These people, she suggests, must be placed on an UNSAFE list and only dealt with when you have all of your personal matters for the day taken care of.  Funny to find myself on that list, but, yo, that’s family for yuh!  You’d have to be a reckless idiot to risk a million dollar inheritance to indulge the need for someone your family deems unsafe to have a word in your ear.