History

Comment Of The Day: The Alamo, March 4, 1836

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments

I hope a lot of you are enjoying Michael West‘s generous labor of love during the countdown to the Alamo’s fall. It is, as I’ve said here often, one of the most vivid and fascinating of all ethics chapters in U.S. history, and the fact that it is neglected in popular culture and public education to the degree it is disgraceful, like much of this nation’s negligent and cavalier attitude toward history.

I want to apologize to readers and especially Michael for a mistake I have made. One of my sources, echoing others, printed the Mexican dictator’s name as “Santa Ana,” with one “n.” Convinced that I had been perpetrating an error, i began lnocking off the second “n” in Michael’s posts and my own, though I always had assumed that “Anna” was correct.

Well, it was and is correct. His full name is Antonio de Padua María Severino López de Santa Anna y Pérez de Lebrón. Now I have to go back and correct the correction.

Here is Michael’s focus on Day 11 of the siege, March 4, 1836.

***

It was cold that evening that the Mexican Artillerymen of the 1st Brigade under command of General Gaona settled down into their camp somewhere south of modern day Yancey, Texas. They had been on a forced march since late January. The moon was full that evening, perfect for night operations – and despite the Texans being bottled up about 45 miles away, Native American raiders were still a possible threat. Reports had been received that straggling soldiers had been ambushed. Continue reading →

Comment Of The Day: “The Supreme Court Reinstated The Death Sentence Of Boston Marathon Bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. Good.”

/ Jack Marshall / 4 Comments

Certain themes and issues are certain to recur on an ethics blog and never be resolved. Among them are abortion, “hate speech,” illegal immigration, reparations for slavery, drug legalization, gun control, war (HUH! What is is good for?], climate change and capital punishment. From the captain’s chair at Ethics Alarms, some of these seem more difficult than others. Capital punishment is not among them. [Above is the sensational and illegal photo in 1925 of the first woman ever sent to the electric chair as the switch was pulled. Ruth Snyder, a housewife from Queens, New York, took a lover and recruited him in a plot that ended with her husband’s brutal death; a reporter had a secret camera device strapped to his leg. Her story was the basis of many fictionalized versions, including the classic film noirs “Double Indemnity” and “The Postman Always Rings Twice” and the brilliant expressionist stage drama “Machinal” by Sophy Treadwell.]

The recent SCOTUS decision restoring the death penalty sentence to Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev (where it belongs) once again raised this issue, which has been taken up hear often. In Steve-O-in-NJ’s Comment of the Day on that post, he provides fodder for debate within the debate: as he delicately puts it, “how high should the bar be set before someone fries?” Steve offers his top 20.

I’ll play: I believe non-lethal crimes that ruin lives to the magnitude that Bernie Madoff did with his Ponzi scheme ethically support a death sentence. Last week the late investing whiz’s sister and her husband were found dead in an apparent murder-suicide that was probably another consequence of his crime.

Here is Steve-O’s Comment of the  Day on “The Supreme Court Reinstated The Death Sentence Of Boston Marathon Bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. Good.”

***

I read the Bucklew case, where the SCOTUS decided, quite sensibly, that there is no right to a painless execution. What stuck out to me is the penultimate paragraph in Breyer’s dissent, in which he states that as we move forward there may be no constitutional way to implement the death penalty. That, I submit, is one more reason we needed to either get that sixth conservative justice on the Court or get Breyer out of there. Continue reading →

Comment Of The Day: The Alamo, March 3, 1836

/ Jack Marshall / Leave a comment

Michael West’s dedicated account of the last days of the Alamo in 1836 continues with Day 10 of the siege, March 3. Michael’s mention below of the Alamo couriers reminds me of what I found to be the most moving of the commemorative bronze plaques at Alamo National Monument in San Antonio. It lists the couriers, and reminds us that every one of them headed back to the make-shift fort, knowing what was probably in store for them.

As far as I can determine, two of Travis’s final couriers didn’t arrive in time to participate in the final battle, and thus lived to tell the tale. James L. Allen (1815-1901) was probably the last courier to be sent by Travis, as he carried a final appeal to Fannin at Goliad. He reached Goliad on March 8, and was preparing to return to the Alamo when he learned that it had fallen. John William Smith  (1792-1845), who had been sent out from the Alamo by Travis previously, was sent again on March 3 1836. Smith was returning with 25 volunteers from when the Alamo fell. In John Wayne’s movie, Smith is played by Frankie Avalon, and is a composite of Allen, who was young (21) like Frankie, and the real Smith, who actually made it back only to find that the battle was over. Frankie’s big scene occurs when, having delivered a message relaying the fort’s dire situation to Sam Houston (Richard Boone), Houston offers him food and rest. “No sir!” “Smitty” says, turning his horse. “I gotta get back to the Alamo!”

Here’s Michael’s Comment of the Day on Day 10 of the Alamo story...

Continue reading →

Comment Of The Day: The Alamo, March 2, 1836

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments

Michael West has been counting down the days of the Alamo Siege for us, which is generally regarded as beginning on February 3, 1836, and ending on March 6. That makes March 2, yesterday, the 9th day of the iconic historical event. (As Michael reminded us in an earlier post, 1836 was a Leap Year, so there’s an extra day in there.)

Reflecting on The Alamo is always appropriate, but perhaps more this year than usual. The siege of Ukraine has more than a little in common with the desperate stand of the Texans against another ruthless dictator, and the values at stake are the same. Travis, Bowie, Crockett, Dickinson, Bonham and the rest decided to stay and fight for what they believed in and also for those seeking to establish their independence, though they were outnumbered and surrounded. Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, resembles the Texas patriots in his determination to stay with his nation’s endangered citizens, because he knows his courage, sacrifice, and likely martyrdom, will be crucial in preserving his nation in the long run.

In many ways Zelenskyy resembles Davey Crockett, a celebrity known for his humor who found himself first thrust into politics and later in deadly fight that required him to rise to new heights of character.

My favorite Alamo history is “Three Roads to the Alamo” by William C. Davis, who makes the case that the mission’s story is a microcosm of the American saga. Each of the three major players in the drama, Travis, Jim Bowie and Crockett, embody an archetype of how the nation came to be. Crockett was the restless pioneer who ventured first into unsettled lands. Bowie, apart from being the bona fide frontier fighter that the public believed Crockett to be, was the land speculator, part of a group that brought business, finance, and corruption to the West. Finally, Travis was the law-maker and politician, who promised to build a civilized structure where families could thrive.

Indeed the Alamo and its participants would support a whole course that would teach young Americans about history, politics, war, human nature, ethics, economics, law and more. Teaching its many complexities and lessons would definitely be more enlightening and productive than focusing on slavery as the defining feature of U.S. culture.

Here’s Michael’s Comment of the Day on Day 9 of the Alamo story...

***

Continue reading →

The Snake Island Episode Is A Perfect Opportunity To Explain Moral Luck To Your Family And Friends

/ Jack Marshall / 8 Comments

The legend was quick to take hold. The account was that as the Russian military pounded targets across Ukraine with bombs and missiles, a small team of Ukrainian border guards on rocky, desolate Zmiinyi Island, “Snake Island” to its friends, received a warning that the Alamo defenders would have recognized: Surrender or die. “I am a Russian warship,” the invaders said, according to a recording. “Lay down your arms and surrender to avoid bloodshed and unnecessary deaths. Otherwise, you will be bombed.”

Travis answered the equivalent message with a cannon shot. The defenders of Snake Island’s answer was more reminiscent of the famous reply of the 101st Airborne Division’s acting commander Anthony McAuliffe during the Battle of the Bulge. Defending Bastogne, McAuliffe gave a one-word reply to a German surrender ultimatum: “Nuts!” The Ukrainians’ version: “Russian warship, go fuck yourself.”

[Quick digression here: As I have mentioned before on EA, my WWII vet father, who fought in the Battle of the Bulge and got a Silver Star for his efforts, insisted that nobody in the Infantry believed for a second that “Nuts” was the actual reply. He said the consensus of those who knew McAuliffe as well as the way soldiers talked in the field were certain that he had really answered exactly like the Ukrainians. Meanwhile, how absurd is it for today’s media to celebrate the courage and defiance of the Snake Island defenders’ response, yet feel compelled to censor it by printing “f—“? ]

Digression over. The story reported in the news media was that the Russians opened fire, killing all 13 border guards. They became instant martyrs and their fate became inspiration for the brave Ukrainian refusal to accept Russian domination. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky later announced the deaths and said that the island’s defenders will be bestowed with the title “Hero of Ukraine,” the highest honor the Ukrainian leader can award.

Continue reading →

President’s Day On Ethics Alarms: The Nation’s Incompetent, Disrespectful, Unethical Treatment Of George Washington’s Birthday [Corrected]

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

How many Americans of our rich national past have a birthday celebrated as a national holiday? One: Martin Luther King. That surely makes the anti-white racists and the “the most important aspect of the United States is its racial divisions” gang—you know, Democrats—happy, but it is also misleading and ridiculous. The most important single figure, black, brown, white or whatever it is currently acceptable to call Asians and Native Americans (I haven’t checked this morning), is George Washington. He was, as George Will likes to say, “the indispensable man”—no George, no U.S. His birthday absolutely should be a national holiday.

Yet it isn’t, due to a confluence of factors. You can’t call today “George Washington’s Birthday,” because the date is February 21, and George was born on the 22nd. In the just-launched 4th season of Amazon’s clever and brilliantly cast comedy series “The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel,” the heroine, on the road, learns that her parents are having a birthday party for her young son. “The real date wasn’t good for me,” her very weird father (Tony Shaloub) explains. “He’s five! He won’t notice.” “What kind of people change a kid’s birthday?” she protests.

Americans. And worse, we did it to the man to whom we owe the greatest debt of all.

Continue reading →

Remembering The Donner Party

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

On February 19, 1847, rescuers finally reached the surviving members of one of the great ethics challenges of U.S. history, the Donner Party, a group of California-bound emigrants stranded by snow in the Sierra Nevada Mountains that ended up resorting to cannibalism when they were trapped by bad weather.

89 pioneers including 31 members of the Donner and Reed families set out in a wagon train from Springfield, Illinois the previous summer. They decided to try the so-called “Hastings Cutoff,” a supposed short-cut that an ambitious attorney, Lansford Hastings, had mentioned in 1845 in “The Emigrants’ Guide to Oregon and California,” his well-selling book that claimed to be one-stop guide to traveling West.

The book contained a passing reference to a route that would save more than 300 miles over the traditional California Trail that previous emigrants had used, saying, “The most direct route, for the California emigrants, would be to leave the Oregon route, about two hundred miles east from Fort Hall, thence bearing west southwest, to the Salt Lake; and thence continuing down to the bay of St. Francisco.”

Continue reading →

An Indiana School Allowed Parents To Let Parents Opt Their Kids Out Of Black History Month Lessons? GOOD!

/ Jack Marshall / 22 Comments

Two Washington Post Ethics Dunce-worthy episodes, back to back!

The Post published this headline as if it was an obvious, res ipsa loquitur, outrage:

An Indiana school planned Black History Month lessons. A letter sent to parents allowed them to opt out.

“Those crazy, racist conservatives again!” was the unstated assumption of the Post’s article. After the consent form…

….was circulated on social media, such an uproar was raised by fans of anti-America indoctrination in the public schools that the school district Superintendent Emily Tracy felt that she had to send a letter to families and staff members, acknowledging the opt-out form and promising that the school district is “gathering more information on the matter” but “In the meantime, know that we support teaching about the facts in our history including historical injustices. Our District is and will continue to be committed to having compassion for all and supporting an education community that will allow all students, staff, families and community members the opportunity to feel welcome.” Continue reading →

Comment Of The Day: “Ethics Quote Of The Week: American Thinker…(With A Flashback And Regrets)”

/ Jack Marshall / Leave a comment

Steve-O-in NJ’s Comment of the Day inspired by the discussion of “Black Lives Matter” (and Black Lives Matter without quotes, which thrives on the confusion) requires no introduction. Here it is, a comment on “Ethics Quote Of The Week: American Thinker…(With A Flashback And Regrets)”:

***

“There is no god but God, and Muhammad is His Prophet!”

“Deus vult!”

“Workers of the World, Unite!”

“The World Must Be Made Safe for Democracy!”

“Peace, Bread and Land!”

“Asia for the Asians!”

“Make Love, not War!”

“Give Peace a Chance!”

“Black Lives Matter!”

On their faces, all these slogans sound benign and inspirational. Maybe even the intent behind them was good, or at least the true believers thought so. Muhammad was looking to move the Arab world, forward, not back, when he introduced his own brand of monotheism, and I don’t doubt he thought he was creating a framework for a good and honest life when he wrote it all down and proclaimed this the complete record, with nothing more to come. However, there is no doubt he was also using it to cement his own power, and the evil that was later done in his name and that of his early slogan is history.

When Pope Urban shouted “Deus vult!” (God wills it!) on that hill outside Clermont, there is no doubt he thought that he was doing the right thing by rallying the attending nobles and knights to form and army and take back the Holy Land from the Muslims, who had stolen it away from the Byzantines and were not respecting the rights of Christians there. History also tells us what happened after that, and none of it is humanity at its best.

When Karl Marx wrote “Workers of the World, unite!” he probably meant it, but it was clear he hadn’t really thought it through. He himself was no working-class hero, just an expatriated writer and philosopher who avoided bankruptcy more than once because his well-to-do fellow traveler Friedrich Engels bailed him out. In 1848 he published the Communist Manifesto, fuel to the fire of the already smoldering problems that became the Revolutions of 1848, which you can look up. We all know what came later as a result of his crazy and unrealistic ideas.

“The World must be Made Safe for Democracy!” So shouted Woodrow Wilson to Congress as he led this country into a war that he had campaigned months before to keep it out of. I don’t doubt he really meant to do this world some good as a missionary for his rigid, hypocritical morality. I also don’t doubt that America’s contribution to WWI was a net positive for many people in Europe who would have suffered longer or more without it. However, it was also the first of a series of dominoes that led this world into a lot bigger problems later on, and arguably made the world less self for democracy in the long run.

Continue reading →

Comment Of The Day: “Comment Of The Day: ‘Catching Up: Professional Ethics And The Challenger Disaster’”

/ Jack Marshall / 2 Comments

Matthew B. scored a Comment of the Day by raising an issue I had never thought about before: how the misapplication of PowerPoint leads to inadequate training and information dissemination within organizations and bureaucracies. He also references the reluctance of managers to know when to hand over decision-making to subordinates. That is something I have thought about, a great deal.

Two of my favorite movies illustrate how competent leaders and managers know when to delegate a crucial decision down. “Topsy-Turvy,” the superb 1999 film depicting the creation of “The Mikado” by Gilbert and Sullivan, accurately depicts the real incident when, after the final rehearsal, W.S. Gilbert told the “Mikado” cast that he was cutting “My Object All Sublime,” also known as “The Mikado’s Song.” Gilbert was a tyrannical director, and the cast was terrified of incurring his wrath. This time, however, they stood up to him. The cast as one told him that he was making a mistake. The soloist, Richard Temple, they told their shocked and steaming director who also had conceived of the song, should have the chance to perform it in front of an audience. His fellow cast members  were certain it would be a hit. Gilbert, recognizing the certitude the cast must have had to risk his fury at being contradicted, decided that his performers might have a clearer understanding of the show even that he had, and relented. Temple would sing about letting “the punishment fit the crime” on opening night.

The song was an instant sensation, like “The Mikado” itself, and is still one of the most quoted of all G&S songs.

The other example is at the climax of “Hoosiers,” the great basketball film based on the true story of the miraculous Indiana state championship won by a tiny school from Milan, Ind. in 1954. During the last time-out before the team’s last chance to score, which would, if successful, give the team a one-point victory over their greatly favored competition in the championship game, the coach (Gene Hackman), who has led the ragtag group this far by emphasizing teamwork over individual achievement, lays out a play in which the team’s superstar, Jimmy Chitwood will be a decoy. He plans for another player to take the final shot, but the team doesn’t move. “What’s the matter with you?” he shouts as his players just stare, looking hesitant. “If I get the shot, I’ll make it,” Jimmy says, after a long pause. So the coach, who has insisted all season that his word was law, makes the same decision Gilbert did. When your subordinates are that sure, trust them. They know better than you.

Jimmy shoots and scores the winning basket as time runs out.

Here is Matthew B.’s Comment of the Day on “Comment Of The Day: ‘Catching Up: Professional Ethics And The Challenger Disaster’”:

Continue reading →