The Civil War

Feb. 12th is a big day for me. Not only is it my birthday, but it is the birthday of two of the towering figures of the 19th century, born on the same day, same year: Charles Darwin and Abraham Lincoln. 2009 is the 200th anniversary of their births.

I want to focus on Lincoln in this article. Recently I was, coincidentally, reading some old reference books I have and some things about the Civil War struck me. First off, one thing is clear: Abraham Lincoln, though a great man in his own right, would have been a minor figure in history and a minor, probably one-term, President had it not been for the Civil War. By seceding, the Southern States catapulted Lincoln into history. Lincoln won below 40% of the popular vote. Lincoln's Republican Party won a majority in neither House of Congress. According to The Presidents, edited by Henry Graff, Stephen Douglas felt that had the Southern States not seceded, Lincoln would have been powerless:

...an object of pity and commiseration rather than of fear and apprehension by a brave and chivalrous people.

But that is not what happened. The South DID secede and this gave Lincoln the opportunity to be a great figure in history. And Lincoln certainly rose to the occasion.

The claims that secession had nothing to do with slavery is bunk, mere revisionism by the losing side that didn't want to be tarred forever for defending slavery. Southern secession was EXPLICITLY (though not necessarily exclusively) about slavery. The North did not fight primarily over the issue of slavery, but of preservation of the Union. But for the South, preservation, and even expansion, of slavery was the prime issue for at least 2 decades before the Civil War, and was the main reason stated for secession. In fact, the issue of slavery almost led to secession more than once before South Carolina finally made good on the constant Southern threat. Slavery was the issue that dominated American politics. Perhaps the South and individual Southerners had reasons other than JUST slavery for fighting. But the issue that led to secession was slavery. Period. Any other claims are false.

When Texas declared indpendence from Mexico in 1836, the issue of the annexation of Texas was avoided by Andrew Jackson and Martin van Buren. Jackson did not even recognize Texas independence until his last day in office and Martin van Buren declined Texas' offer to accept annexation. The reason was simple. Annexation of Texas would immediately raise the question of slavery because Texas would enter as a slave state. From the moment President Tyler raised the issue of annexation to the final entry of Texas into the Union the issue of slavery was a constant companion to the issue of the annexation of Texas. In fact, Secretary of the Navy Calhoun SPECIFICALLY tied the annexation of Texas with a justification of slavery. Calhoun claimed that opposition to annexation of Texas would place slavery in jeopardy.

The same constant preoccupation with slavery applies to the entry of every state in the Union between then and the Civil War. Political debate, manouvering and compromise, all about slavery, surrounded each and every possible entry of a state into the Union. Even President Polk, when he couldn't find a proper compromise for the entry of California and New Mexico into the Union, left the issue for his successor. (As an aside, it seems Polk was the first president to complain of lobbying of Congress by private interests...so this is NOT a new problem).

In the case of California, Southerners initially blocked statehood because it would enter as a free state. It took the HUGE, complex compromise of 1850 to resolve statehood for California, involving the status of several other new states as well and the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850, which imposed Federal control over fugitive slave laws in every state, forcing states to enforce slavery even it they were free states. Jefferson Davis, during this debate, even raised the specter of secession over the supposed attack on slavery and Southerners after its adoption threatened secession if that compromise was in anyway threatened.

In the case of Cuba, although several Presidents considered annexation of Cuba, no compromise was ever reached that coincided with such annexation interest, so Cuba, a potential slave state, never entered the Union. In the case of Kansas, compromises were cirumvented, leading to bloodshed that presaged the Civil War. In most other cases, compromises were reached maintaining a balance between slave and free states. In no case was slavery not an issue.

States rights, though consistently an issue in American history from its foundations until today, was not a consistent issue for either pro- or anti-slavery sides. America has always, probably SHOULD always, have an ongoing debate between Federalist and States Rights factions. Our Founding Fathers were split on the issue, and the balance between the two probably more than anything defines America. But the claim that Southern States consistently favored States Rights over the Northern advocacy of Federalism is wrong. Some Southerners argued that no state could outlaw slavery because of a Federally guaranteed right to property even as one moves from one state to another. This is certainly not a States Rights arguement, but IS a pro-slavery arguement. Others argued that no individual state or territory should have the right to exclude slavery because this would create an imbalance between free and slave states. To many Southerners, this balance outweighed any sentiment in regards to States Rights. Northerners were split over whether Congress, territorial legislatures or states should determine the status of slavery within a state/territory.

Similarly, the South opposed States Rights on fugitive slave laws. The South believed the Federal government should force states to enforce fugitive slaves laws to the South's favor. In fact the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 was a Federal law enforcing the slaveholder's property rights, using Federal agents, over the laws of individual states. Federal judges and Federal marshals enforced the law and could fine anyone who aided a fugitive slave. This is about as Federalist a law as you can get, yet it was supported by the South. Northern states responded by passing state level laws asserting the right of each state to refuse to recognize slavery even in the case of a fugitive from another state. Wisconsin even passed an act of nullification against the Federal fugitive slave law of 1850, a strong exertion of States Rights. Other Northerners, of course, preferred a Federal solution to fugitive slave laws, but Southerners were more than willing to give the Federal government control if it meant enforcing slavery, and Northerners were willing to exert States Rights arguements if it meant refusing to return fugitive slaves. Similarly, many Southerners opposed letting Nebraska and Kansas choose whether to be slave or free, and wanted a Federally imposed solution to maintain a balance. The defining issue was slavery, with Federalism vs. States Rights being inconsistently used by many to justify their position on slavery. Northerners disobeyed the Federalist fugitive slave laws, but did not threaten secession over them. Southerners often threatened secession over opposition to slavery even when that opposition was by a state over Federal objections.

In fact it was the imposition of Federal control over how they treated fugitive slaves that finally split the Whig party. Southern Whigs thought it was a perfect compromise while Northern Whigs despised it. Northern Whigs gave up on their party aruond 1854, helping to form the Republican Party. Meanwhile, to avoid similar division in 1852, the Democratic Party had to find a pro-slavery Northerner, Franklin Pierce. Slavery was dominating and splitting BOTH major parties with each party shifting stands on Federalism and States Rights as needed.

The Southern states threatened secession if a Republican was elected. When Lincoln sqeuaked to victory, the Southern states followed through with the threat. In their declarations of secession, it is precisely the institution of slavery and the Northern refusal to enforce the Federal fugitive slave laws that were cited as the reasons for secession. States Rights arguements were asserted within this context, but no other issue of States Rights was mentioned nor was the Federal fugitive slave law a cogent States Rights arguement. The South Carolina declaration of secession is the most reasoned and interesting of those I have read and does emphasize the individual states indpendent actions in forming the Union, and hence asserts that each individual state has the right to break its ties to that Union. Though again, the primary grievance was that individual Northern States have exerted their individual wills against the Federal fugitive slave laws:

The states of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa have enacted laws which either nullify the acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these states the fugitive is discharged from the service of labor claimed, and in none of them has the state government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution.

Thus it is the exercise of States Rights by Northern States against acts of Congress that South Carolina cites as their primary grievance. And again, no other grievance other than ones relating to slavery are cited.

The Virginia article of secession is one of the shortest and least defensive, simply repealing their state's ratification of the Constitution, and it cites Federal "oppression of the southern, slaveholding states" without citing specific instances. This could ultimately be viewed as placing States Rights at the heart of secession, though since it is unclear what Federal actions they are referring to, it is hard to judge.

The Texas articles of secession had perhaps the most disgusting justification: upholding racism per se. Their main objection was that the North was "proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color", and that blacks "were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race." Sorry, Texas, but this is a horrible justtification for secession. But it was also perhaps the most honest since at heart, it was the Southern states' desire to hold one race as inferior and as property that led to secession. The Southern States wished to exploit and abuse other human beings without interference.

Confederate Vice President, Alexander Stephens, made all of this explicit:

The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution — African slavery as it exists amongst us — the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted...

[Jefferson's] ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. ... Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner–stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery — subordination to the superior race — is his natural and normal condition.

Again, disgusting and immoral.

Despite many later claims after the South lost, economic factors were not cited as a main factor in the articles of secession. This does not mean they didn't play a role, but it was not a major reason for secession.

Was secession justified? Immoral reasons aside, could a state secede? President Andrew Jackson didn't think so in his "Proclamation to the People of South Carolina" during the nullification crisis:

...each State having expressly parted with so many powers as to constitute jointly with the other States a single nation, cannot from that period possess any right to secede, because such secession does not break a league, but destroys the unity of a nation, and any injury to that unity is not only a breach which would result from the contravention of a compact, but it is an offense against the whole Union. To say that any State may at pleasure secede from the Union, is to say that the United States are not a nation because it would be a solecism to contend that any part of a nation might dissolve its connection with the other parts, to their injury or ruin, without committing any offense. Secession, like any other revolutionary act, may be morally justified by the extremity of oppression; but to call it a constitutional right, is confounding the meaning of terms, and can only be done through gross error, or to deceive those who are willing to assert a right, but would pause before they made a revolution, or incur the penalties consequent upon a failure.

George Washington had this to say:

each State having expressly parted with so many powers as to constitute jointly with the other States a single nation, cannot from that period possess any right to secede, because such secession does not break a league, but destroys the unity of a nation, and any injury to that unity is not only a breach which would result from the contravention of a compact, but it is an offense against the whole Union. To say that any State may at pleasure secede from the Union, is to say that the United States are not a nation because it would be a solecism to contend that any part of a nation might dissolve its connection with the other parts, to their injury or ruin, without committing any offense. Secession, like any other revolutionary act, may be morally justified by the extremity of oppression; but to call it a constitutional right, is confounding the meaning of terms, and can only be done through gross error, or to deceive those who are willing to assert a right, but would pause before they made a revolution, or incur the penalties consequent upon a failure.

Leaves open the possibility of secession, but denies it as specifically a Constitutional right.

Similarly, James Madison claimed that a state could not secede at will from the union with other states without their consent or a violation of the compact:

A rightful secession requires the consent of the others or an abuse of the compact absolving the seceding party from the obligations imposed by it.

This is, of course, why most of the articles of secession tried to justify their secession by claiming abuse by the Northern states. I would argue that claims based on the refusal of Northern states to enforce slavery in the form of enforcing fugitive slave laws imposed on them by the Federal government is not a convincing arguement. It certainly lacks any moral high ground and it also is not convincing from a States Rights point of view.

I should note, as was once pointed out to me by a Southerner, that although slavery was the true reason for secession, it was not the reason why most Southerners fought for the Confederacy. In reality, a form of nationalism that put state loyalty ahead of Union loyalty was why most individual Southerners, including anti-secessionist Robert E. Lee, fought. The South seceded over slavery and fought largely out of pride. The North primarily fought, initially, for preservation of the Union based on their interpretation of the Constitution (where secession was seen as treason), but in the end added abolition of slavery as a reason to fight. With the emancipation of the slaves, Lincoln gave the North a moral cause to fight for, which neither side previously really had. Perhaps that was Lincoln's biggest accomplishment, realizing that to win the North needed a moral justification for their side.

Secession made war inevitable. Lincoln in theory could have let them go, but in reality he honestly believed they were not within their rights (for the reasons quoted from Andrew Jackson, George Washington and James Madison above) and so he saw it as HIS moral duty to defend the Union from treason.

Much has been written about the give and take of the actual war. There is little I can add. I was looking at a very brief thumbnail sketch of the war as presented in the Times Atlas of World history. What struck me was how there really was no way that the South could win short of foreign intervention or a major blunder by the Union. Neither of these were impossible, but I think the South really had no chance.

In 1861, the Union had all the advantages. With a higher population (particularly when only free citizens were taken into account), more wealth, merchant and naval shipping, factory capacity, iron, coal and firearms production and food production, the Union had every advantage. The South had only one material advantage: cotton production. But cotton alone can't win a war. Barring major mistakes by the Union or foreign intervention, the South was doomed from the start. It just didn't have the manpower or resources. This is no big revelation, but I think this overwhelming advantage is often not appreciated when the details of battles and generalship are examined in minute detail.

The South without a doubt had the better generals...by far. And this is probably the main reason the war dragged on for so long. In fact, this is also reflected in the fact that even though nearly three times more soldiers fought on the Union side, the Union lost more men, killed or wounded. Generally, when one army is outnumbered, it has far higher casualties. But when well led, a smaller force can out do a larger one almost every time. Good generalship kept the South alive for as long as it could before sheer exhaustion defeated them.

But leadership wasn't enough and in some ways it didn't extend to an overall vision for the war. When I look at the broadest view of the war, campaign by campaign, the Union had the better overall vision for the war because they fought it in a way that losing key battles would not lose them the war. They focused on isolating the heart of the South, and they kept at this despite whatever dramatic defeats they suffered in the most famous theater of the war in the East.

There really were two main fronts: the Vriginia/Maryland region, where most of the famous battles were fought, and the periphery. Most attention both then and now is given to the Virginia/Maryland front. But looking at the big picture, it seems to me the war was won and lost in the periphery. The Virginia/Maryland front involved successive unsuccessful invasions. Mostly the Union, with mediocre leadership, tried to invade Virginia and were driven back by better generalship on the part of the South. I think an invasion by the North that succeeded could have ended the war quickly. I think an invasion of the North by the South could never have won. And I think they knew that. Mostly the South played a defensive war. It wasn't until June 1863 that the South invaded the North in what was probably a desperate move. Their loss at Gettysburg, of course, is recognized as the turning point of the war.

But I think the war was lost before then and it was lost on the periphery. The Virginia/Maryland fighting took up a tiny area and until the very end accomplished little. It was here the South fought at its best. But strategically the South lost the rest.

The Union spent a great deal of effort methodically cutting off the deep South from the rest of the world, including the trans-Mississippi Confederacy. This was the plan of General Winfield Scott. It was this strategy that won the war, and it was possible because of the Union's superior manpower and resources. Had they kept exclusively to it, and not tried successive invasions of Virginia, the Union probably would have done far better. And the Scott strategy didn't take superior generals, merely methodical ones like Grant.

And Grant began by methodically capturing key positions along the Mississippi, Tennessee and Cumberland rivers in 1862. This was a HUGE strategic move. One attempt by the South to stop him was beaten back at the battle of Shiloh. His victory at Shiloh allowed Grant to continue cutting off the South. At the same time, Admiral Farragut and General Butler took the same approach at the lower end of the Mississippi. A naval blockade all along the Southern coastline was carried out with limited, but increasing, effect by the superior Union navy. Combined, these three efforts aimed at surrounding the deep South completely, and even before it was complete, it doomed the South. One attempt by General Bragg in Kentucky to break this effort ultimately bogged down. Bragg's failure ensured the loyalty of the border states to the Union. This encircling effort culminated in the complete cutting of the South in two when Grant finally captured Vicksburg in 1863. The entire Mississippi river and the border states were in Union hands, and the sea was largely dominated by the Union. Gettysburg occurred at about the same time as the capture of Vicksburg. Gettysburg represented one more turning back of an invading force on the Virginia/Maryland front (yes...Gettysburg is in Pennsylvania, but this was just a brief extension of that front). Vicksburg, I would argue, cut off the South irrevokably and opened the way for the devastation of the Southern heartland.

Which is what General Sherman proceded to do. His famous/infamous march through Georgia cut the South in two diagonally. This wouldn't have been possible without the previous cutting off of the South along the Mississippi, the border states and ocean peripheries.

The superiority of Union resources even in the face of superior Southern generalship, made Union victory inevitable. This is illustrated in the fact that the Union by 1864 had some 44% of its free male population, aged 16-60, in military service. That is a HUGE percentage. Imagine nearly half of the men you know, age 16-60, in uniform. But the South had 90% of its free male population aged 16-60 in arms, a level that is simply unsustainable. The Union was overextended, but the South was way past that. They were ruined by the war. The Union had a frontline and normalcy behind it. The South had no normalcy.

What about foreign intervention? Could the South have been saved by intervention? After all, the American Revolution probably would not have succeeded without French aid to the rebels. Seems to me that the one foreign power that could have swayed the balance from the Union was Britain. And Britain might have had an interest in hobbling America. After all, it was only about 50 years since the last war between Britain and America where Britain practically destroyed America. But, since Britain had taken a strong anti-slavery stance some time before, it was probably unlikely that there would be a political will within Parliament to side with the slaveholding South. This was another example of how the immoral foundation of the South's secession worked against them. By linking their cause with slavery, they lost any moral justification and made foreign intervention far less likely.

What of Lincoln? What role did he play? Lincoln won on a platform not of abolition, but merely opposing any further extension of slavery. Even this was unacceptable to a South that had demanded either expansion of slavery within the Union OR secession. In effect Lincoln drew a line in the sand. He allowed the South their peculiar institution, but refused to allow them to extend it beyond it's current extent. Had the South acceped that, Lincoln may well have been rendered obscure. But the South seceded and it was at that extreme moment that Lincoln's greatness became manifest. He justfied first the preservation of the Union to America using the arguements of Madison and Jackson, and when the slow, methodical strategy of the Union was taking its toll on American morale, he further justfied the war as a war against slavery, giving the Union the moral high ground. That was the extent of his greatness. And it succeeded.

What if he had not been President? Secession might not have occurred. What then? The South was in no way near abandoning slavery. This immoral institution would have continued longer. But the constant conflict between free and slave states would have continued. Secession would have happened eventually. It is possible that a weaker President would have allowed secession or been unable to rally America to the cause of Union. Had that happened, the history of the Union might have been similar, though possibly further secesson would have reduced the Union. I am convinced that the South, with little industrial strength and maintaining the immoral system of slavery, would have become somewhat of a third world nation and probably even have further split. Texas and the deep South had little in common. That alone would have been a rift. Other rifts might have occurred. Division and economic weakness would be hard to overcome. The Union would have had more of a chance as long as further secessions didn't occur. But the worst aspect would have been the further perpetuation of slavery.

Lincoln's refusal to allow secession finally enforced the views of Madison and Jackson of the invalidity of secession. Until Lincoln put the might of the Union army behind those views, they were merely opinions of great Americans, but not necessarily definitive. And his realization that the moral high ground lay in finally accepting abolition as Union policy was a risk, but one worth taking and one that defined his greatness.

Had he survived longer, there is evidence that Lincoln's view of reconstruction would have been similar to Grant's, but probably better executed. As it was, reconstruction was left to the problematic Johnson and the competent, but certainly not exceptional, Grant. This allowed Southern racism to defeat reconstruction despite early gains for blacks in the South. Had reconstruction been better carried out in the South over the racism of the defeated South, the Northern forms of racism would have had a much harder time standing the test of time. As it was, re-establishment of Southern racist policies in Jim Crow laws prevented America from fulfilling its ideal of all men being created equal for many, many more years. I should note that the South was not alone in having racist laws, but the defeat of the South in the Civil War gave the nation a chance to allow more equal treatment even to the point of allowing blacks to run for political office. The resistance to this in the South prevented progress for almost 100 years. Had Lincoln survived, I believe his greatness would have been even more manifest and even more critical for the reconstruction of the Union along better lines where Jim Crow, North and South, would have been far weaker. As it was, Lincoln's Presidency and the Civil War are one story.

Michael Tobman: Losing Sleaze Consultant in NYC

I was surprised to find out that even after Michael Tobman managed to badly bungle a Brooklyn judicial race in 2008 (against a friend of mine, I will note) despite a massive money advantage, someone would hire him for a 2009 campaign. Tobman ran a very well funded, sleazy, Karl Rove style campaign on behalf of Roger Adler for a civil court seat and yet lost. The fact is that had Tobman run a cleaner, more mature campaign, he may well have won. But instead he took the nasty route and lost. I can't tell you how many people on primary day told me how turned off they were by the mailers on Adler's behalf that presumably Tobman approved. Dozens of people pointed out to me that Adler's mailers said nothing positive about Adler, merely smear attacks on Cohen. Bottom line is Tobman flubbed it.

So why is former judge Leslie Crocker Snyder hiring Tobman for her 2009 campaign for Manhattan DA? Snyder ran for Manhattan DA once before and lost, so is it a fellow feeling between losers? Actually that is probably not fair to Snyder, who may well be a good candidate, but her choosing a sleazy consultant who bungled the last race he worked for calls her political judgement into question. She is well known as a hard-ass in the courtroom, but it sounds like she has been conned by Tobman into hiring a lousy consultant.

I have only looked into the Manhattan DA race briefly. I am familiar with the Brooklyn DA, but I have little experience with the Manhattan DA's office. Robert Morgenthau has served for 9 terms as Manhattan DA, so he can be considered responsible for both the good and the bad during that period. Richard Davis sounds like a good candidate as chair of Citizens Union who has served on the Watergate Special Prosecution Force and in the United States Attorney’s Office. But so far I don't know enough about any of these folks to have a strong opinion other than leaning towards Davis.

But I do know Michael Tobman and find him among the most oily, distasteful individuals in local politics. And not very good at his job from everything I have personally observed.

I first encountered Tobman when he worked for Schumer. I was part of a MoveOn.org delegation that presented a petition to Schumer in opposition to funding Bush's Iraq War. This was after it was discovered that there WERE no WMDs and that we had been lied to by Bush, so we had good reason to oppose a war we all KNEW was based on lies. The delegation was a mix of young, idealists and old women who cut their teeth on activism in the 1970's. We were very typical NYC democrats who donated to candidates and causes, joined organizations, and helped campaigns.

Michael Tobman was sent to manage us. He didn't even invite us in but, even though our delegation included elderly New Yorkers, kept us standing on the sidewalk. He tried charming us with an oily smile and told us that Schumer knew the war was based on lies, that the war was wrong, and that giving more funding was wrong...but that Schumer was going to vote for the funding anyway.

He then seemed genuinely frustrated that we weren't satisfied with that cop-out answer. I felt a little sorry for him as he was yelled at for quite some time by these old ladies, with some yelling from Joy and me as well. I tried calming things down by pointing out to him that we all were Democrats and were, in fact, Schumer's real base, his strongest supporters. He gave a sarcastic "Yeah, right" to me, basically showing me that he had no clue what a Schumer supporter in NYC looked like. He basically insulted a group of Democratic donors, activists and voters right to our faces. Joy and I met with several of the group (none of whom we had met before) and they had nothing but contempt for Tobman and anger for Schumer. I found my own liking for Schumer shaken by the encounter. That is not what a staff memebr is supposed to do for his boss.

Yet that is how Tobman handled eager Democrats who wanted to express their opinions to Schumer.

When I lived in Los Angeles I was in a similar situation vis a vis Congresssman Mel Levine's office regarding funding of the repressive El Salvadoran military. In that meeting I was actually with a more militant group than MoveOn ever has been, and yet we were invited in, given a similar non-answer, and had a similar confrontation. And yet the gentleman who had the job of handling us handled us with respect and sympathy. I had a lengthy exchange with Congressman Levine by letter regarding the situation and was left with respect for both the staffmember and Conrgessman Levine himself. This was in sharp contrast to Tobman's mishandling of a far less militant crowd of young activists and elderly ladies.

Tobman couldn't handle even Democratic supporters who had a difference of opinion with the Senator. I have since met Schumer himself and found him a far better representative of his own opinions than Tobman had been.

So that was my first encounter with oily Tobman.

Since then, I guess Tobman became a consultant for Teach NYS, an organization lobbying for tax money to be used to support private and religious schools, something I strongly oppose and feel, in the case of religious schools, violates the separation of church and state. So I can safely say that this is a second strike against Tobman, basically taking up a right wing Republican issue. I am certainly open to disagreement on this issue, but Tobman nevertheless is working for a primarily right wing position.

But my main experience with Michael Tobman was when he ran a the judicial campaign of Roger Adler, a very conservative lawyer who cited the judicial philosophies of Supreme Coury justices Scalia and Thomas as his inspirations and whose main political donations have been to Republicans and the Conservative Party. Adler's main legal contribution has been to write the amicus brief for the Conservative Party opposing marriage equality. Tobman worked with Adler's campaign and ran it in the nastiest possible way. Many people were horrified by how Tobman ran the campaign. Personally, I went from admiring Adler, despite my disagreement with him and my opposition to him, to dispising both Adler and Tobman for running a campaign low enough to be worthy of Karl Rove.

In short, Tobman is untrustworthy, nasty, and seems to favor right wing positions (tax breaks for private school tuition, funding the Iraq war, support for right wing judicial candidates...). What is more, Tobman bungled Adler's campaign very badly. He bungled it so badly that despite having far more money, they so repulsed Brooklyn politicians that almost no one was willing to endorse Adler, with the possible exception of Vito Lopez acting only behind the scenes. Lopez was reported to support Adler but as far as I could tell, never gave him much support. If Lopez did back Adler, it must have been lukewarm support, though it seems Adler got handed a consolation prize by the Senate Dems, something Lopez may well have helped with (speculation on my part, not based on inside knowledge).

So Tobman is the sleazy loser that Leslie Snyder is hiring for her 2009 campaign for Manhattan DA. Well, whether or not Snyder is a good candidate (and I know at least one person who found her courtroom so poorly run that she yelled at judge Snyder...though Snyder apparently took it well and apoligized, to give her credit), her choice of Tobman suggests very poor political judgement. I hope her legal judgement is better than her political judgement.

Dear Bank of America

Dear Bank of America,

I am a customer. That's right. I have a couple of Bank of America credit cards. My wife and I are also looking for a bank for some accounts. But you know, your ingratitude leads me to refuse to bank with you and to consider cutting up those credit cards.

First off, you never thanked us for that bail out. Yeah. WE bailed you out. That was OUR money that you so eagerly grabbed from the government.

Okay, so I was willing to overlook that little act of ingratitude on your part. But now I find out that your ingratitude goes even further. You see, after eagerly grabbing a government hand out (paid for by us taxpayers!) you then turned around and stabbed us in the back. You took the money and used part of it to lobby against the Employee Free Choice Act, a labor bill that is supported by a large majority of Americans.

From the Huffington Post:

Three days after receiving $25 billion in federal bailout funds, Bank of America Corp. hosted a conference call with conservative activists and business officials to organize opposition to the U.S. labor community's top legislative priority.

Participants on the October 17 call -- including at least one representative from another bailout recipient, AIG -- were urged to persuade their clients to send "large contributions" to groups working against the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), as well as to vulnerable Senate Republicans, who could help block passage of the bill...

Donations of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars to Republican senatorial campaigns were needed, they argued, to prevent America from turning "into France."

Boy, you guys were eager as hell to grab taxpayer money from the government, but as soon as there is a fair labor bill coming up, suddenly it is the fucking end of civilization? And in the midst of huge popular support for Obama and the Democrats, many of whom supported your bail out, you decide now is the time to support the party that just ruined our economy over the last 8 years. This really is pretty disgusting on your part. I agree with the observations made on Daily Kos regarding your igratitude:

So Bank of America, fresh with taxpayer bailout boodle courtesy of American workers, is spending its time and money trying to screw those same American workers...

It's little wonder that the SEIU has called on BofA to fire CEO Ken Lewis. It's unconscionable for the receipients of government handouts to spend their time and money to try and defeat the Employee Free Choice Act -- the cornerstone of long-term economic revitalization. It's time for change in the boardrooms.

Bank of America: your actions have consequences. Next time you come for a government handout, I will lobby my Congressional Rep and Senators (all Democrats, I will add) that I oppose bailing out any banks because you use OUR money to lobby AGAINST us.

Furthermore, any Bank of America credit cards I now have will be shoved aside. I won't use them anymore. I don't want to patronize an ungrateful company that will turn against me right after I helped bail them out.

Of course should you decide that CEO Ken Lewis has overstepped the bounds of decency and fire the bastard, I will consider patronizing your company once again.

Sincerely,

A Customer

Eric Idle's FCC Song (Video versions)

Republican Election Fraud in Georgia 2002: a second whistleblower speaks out

I still hear people dismissing accusations of Republican election fraud as crazy conspiracy theories. This dispite mounting evidence that Republicans and their corporate allies, like Diebold, HAVE systematically explored vote tampering. Right now the evidence is strongest for the 2002 Senate race in Georgia and now evidence links Karl Rove with election fraud in that race.

Anyone who first makes such accusations is almost bound to be accused of being crazy. One of the earliest whistle blowers was Clint Curtis in Florida, a former Republican and computer expert, who claims he was approached by his Congressman, Tom Feeney, and asked to design software that could alter vote totals on touch-screen voting machines. This was in 2000 BEFORE the Presidential election. Clint Curtis was horrified, left the Republican Party in protest and even made two runs against Feeney (whose corrupt ass was finally brought down this year by Kosmas). Many criticized Curtis for claiming that people were trying to subvert the touchscreen machines BEFORE the 2000 election when supposedly no one was thinking touch screen. Well, some actual investigativg journalism by Dan Rather eventually revealed that people WERE thinking touch screen before the 2000 election and, in fact, the problems that arose in 2000 in Florida may have been part of the push for touch screen machines. That makes two reports of Republican scheming to commit election fraud in Florida. Add to that evidence that Republicans deliberately tried to create an undercount in Florida's 2006 Congressional race in the FL-13 district (see here and here) and you have a pretty good case for Republican Fraud in Florida.

Now let's turn to Georgia where a second whistle blower is confirming that fraud was probably committed in the 2002 Senate election. Previously, I have written about Stephen Spoonamore, a REPUBLICAN cyber-security expert and former adviser to Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who claims there is clear evidence that Diebold deliberately tampered with their own machines in Democratic districts in Georgia in 2002. Essentially, a computer patch was installed in person by Diebold CEO Bob Urosevich, who flew in from Texas to apply this patch in DeKalb and Fulton counties, both Democratic strongholds. Georgia's election board was not aware of this change in the voting machines until after the election. The patch was claimed to be to fix a problem with the computer clock but did NOT fix it. Democrats raised the alarm over this at the time but were, as usual, dismissed as crazy. Then Spoonamore (again...a REPUBLICAN) came out supporting their accusations. I should add that Spoonamore aslo believes there is evidence of Republican election fraud in Ohio in 2004.

Now comes another whistle blower confirming this story:

...a former Diebold vote machine contractor who was in charge of preparing the 2002 election between Saxby Chambliss and Max Cleland has stated that the software patches placed on the voting machines in the weeks prior to the election could have rigged the election in favor of Republican Chambliss.

We get confirmation directly from a former Diebold contractor. So, a Republican cybersecurity expert AND a former Diebold contractor agree that the 2002 Senate election in Georgia was probably rigged by Republicans and Diebold. But the conspiracy (a real one, it seems) goes one step further. The same article claims that Karl Rove himself was part of the fraud.

Three pieces of clear evidence for fraud in Florida in 2000 and 2006. Two pieces of clear evidence for fraud in Georgia in 2002, with a clear connection to Diebold's president, and a possible connection to Karl Rove. And the same cybersecurity expert who blew the whistle on Georgia's election fraud considers Ohio 2004 also suspicious.

How much evidence will it take before the Republicans and Diebold are held accountable for their fraud?

Women, Rape and Poverty in Indian Country

Last year the progressive blogsphere did a wonderful thing. We saved a woman's shelter on the Standing Rock Indian Reservation. Amnesty International published a report that became the focus of a series of Daily Kos diaries. The jist of the Amnesty International report is that, one in three Native American women are victims of rape...and most of those rapes are committed by outsiders, not fellow Native Americans. This Daily Kos article covers some pretty nasty aspects of American law covering Native Americans that allow this kind of crime to thrive with almost no consequences. Many laws relating to American/Native relations were written in the 19th century during a period of extreme abuse by the dominant American culture against Native cultures...and many of those laws are still in force.

Related to this was the fate of a woman's shelter called Pretty Bird Woman House. This shelter, one of the few facilities set up to help those one out of three Native American women who are raped, mostly by outsiders, was about to close due to lack of funds. Daily Kos, for all its faults, can do wonders. In no time a site was set up to collect funds for the Pretty Bird Women shelter, and within days thousands of dollars were raised, saving it from immanent closing. But then vandalism nearly closed the house again due to a lack of security. Ultimately, Daily Kos and the rest of the progressive blogsphere raised enough money to help purchase a house and home security system for the shelter.

Even now the progressive blogshere is working to keep this shelter supplied and to buy them a new heating system. As long as rape remains a major problem, women's shelters will need out help. From Daily Kos:

Many of you know the story of Kossacks' involvement with saving the Pretty Bird Woman House, which is a women's shelter on the South Dakota side of the Standing Rock Reservation. Last fall we conducted a fundraiser thatraised enough money to buy the shelter an entire new house. Since this week is the beginning of the holiday giving season, I want to give you an update on the shelter and some ideas for donating if you are so inclined...

First, for everyone who donated to the furnace fund drive that we didin memory of Joe Biden's mother-in-law, Bonny Jean Jacobs...We had enough money for the new furnace by the third week in October.I had promised to send the letter before the end of the campaign, and I just squeaked in with it on November 3. Unfortunately, my own mother died of pancreatic cancer just as the fundraiser was ending, so that was the best I could do. The new furnace was installed on November 12th. YAY everybody. Now the women will be warm this winter. They were all SO psyched to get it. A few people have been wondering what they can do for the shelter around the holidays.

Here are a few ideas.

1. Contribute to the general fund The shelter always needs money for expenses that aren't covered by grants (everything is tax deductible).

2. Contribute to the gift card fund for the shelter staff. Women's shelters are always underfunded and the staff underpaid. There is no money for bonuses ever, so if you'd like to see the staff get a few extra prezzies this year, contribute here. I will go buy Visa gift cards from the local bank, so they can use them anywhere they please.

3. Buy some towels. Right now the shelter is having a towel and wash cloth shortage because it lets women coming and going take their towels with them. Anna's Linen online seems to have really good prices. Other general items that are always needed are:

Twin and queen size sheets and blankets, toothbrushes andtoothpaste, shampoo and conditioner, women's hygiene items, diapers of all sizes, baby wipes, first aid kit items, and analgesics such as ibuprofen and aspirin.

Address to send items and checks:

Pretty Bird Woman House
211 First Ave W.
McLaughlin, SD 57642

4. FREE things you can do. The economy sucks, I know,and I for one am one of the Kossacks out of work (don't feel sorry for me, I just handed in a dissertation, so I'm hopeful for the future).There are 2 things you can do that I would call passive giving.

Sign up for: iGive If you do this, whenever you shop at what seems to now be most online stores, the store will donate a percentage of your purchase to the shelter. Everybody has to shop for the holidays, so if you shop online, this is the way to go. Since last year we've raised over $300 in this kind of passive giving, just with 60 people on the list. Imagine of we had 300 people on it?

If you download this GoodSearch bar and use it when you do a search,they will donate 2 cents for each search. That adds up, especially if there are a lot of people doing the searches. Since last year, we've raised $118 on GoodSearch. Passive giving, I like it!

5. Buy Christmas presents for women and children who will be at the shelter. I've been talking to the shelter director about this, but one of the staff just quit so right now she's having a hard time keeping her head above water. Here are some good ideas from another shelter director.

Don't forget socks, underwear and sweats! As a shelter director, I can tell you this - the women & kids who arethere right now, will probably not be there by Christmas I always tell generous donors to send gifts that you and your family members would like to receive for a Christmas present. So, if you are an adult woman, you might want a nice robe or pajamas,slippers or perfume or a long distance calling card or a beautiful warm neck scarf with matching hat & gloves for the winter, a watch, or a clock radio or a nice new hair dryer or straightener or culring iron, diaries, journals, wallets, backpacks, picture frames, photo albums. The majority of children in shelter are between the ages of 2 and 12 with all ages sprinkled in, so legos and action figures are good for boys, coloring books, word puzzles books, games, decks of cards,dolls/barbies of all cultures, leapster learning toys, anything Disney, Bratz, Dora & Diego, Sponge Bob. Don't forget about the batteries if you purchase a gift that requires batteries, please send them with the gift! For the tweens & teens, hand held games, travel games, music by Jonas Brothers, Hannah Montana, Cheetah Girls, sleeping bags, blankets, backpacks, belts, hand bags, cosmetics, hair accessories, small suitcases on wheels, disposable cameras are so cheap these days! Gift cards are always great for all - food, clothing, gas cards, phonecards, shoes. Keep the candles for yourself - it is not usually safe to burn candlesin a shelter home but the temptation is so great if you have one! When thinking shelter, remember storage is at a premium so think smaller, more portable gifts.

The Pretty Bird Woman House operates at capacity nearly all the time. One of their staff just quit (too much stress), and they are quite over their heads right now with the work load. Thanks to YOU this shelter exists. Without you, the women on the Standing Rock Reservation wouldn't have any place to go if they are victims of domestic violence. You are amazing.

PS. We'll need to keep this diary going to raise holiday funds. Feel free to take any of this material as your own to keep it posted.

I still donate from time to time to Pretty Bird Woman House. But the need is far bigger than just one shelter and I do feel like the strong support for just one shelter is missing the big picture. I came across another program and shelter that I make it a point to support whenever I donate to Pretty Bird Woman Shelter, and I hope others will help out this program as well.

I would like to highlight another Women's shelter and health center in the Sioux Nation that could use help. The Native American Women's Health Education Resource Center was set up on the Yankton Sioux Reservation in 1988 and added a women's shelter in 1991. Here's a bit about what they do:

The Resource Center has expanded to include many programs benefitting people locally, nationally, and internationally. Some examples are the Domestic Violence Program, AIDS Prevention Program, Youth Services which include the Child Development Program and the Youth Wellness Program, Adult Learning Program, Environmental Awareness and Action Project, Cancer Prevention, Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Awareness Program, Clearinghouse of Educational Materials, Food Pantry, Wicozanni Wowapi Newsletter, Diabetic Nutrition Program, Scholarships for Native American Women, Reproductive Health and Rights, "Green Thumb" Project, and Community Health Fairs.

This is another center that needs support in another part of the Sioux Nation. They support themselves by selling items to support the center. Purchases made through this site will support their efforts.

I also feel that poverty is one of the main reasons for many of the social problems on Indian Reservations. So I introduce ways for people to help Native Americans economically. Economically, too often Native Americans face rampant unemployment, or work catering to a tourist industry either through casinos or trinket stores. I have two suggestions to build Native Americans' economic strength. First there is Native American Bank. Obviously if you are looking for a neighborhood bank this probably won't help you. But for a Certificate of Deposit, online banking, or some loans, where you don't need a nearby branch, you can do your banking while helping build an economically strong Indian Country. Here is the Dream this bank is built on:

In 2001, twenty Tribal Nations and Alaskan Native Corporations set out with a dream “ to create a national bank to serve all Native people, communities, governments and enterprises across the country” and established Native American Bank, N.A. (NAB).

NAB recognizes that among the many issues facing Native Americans, the absence of access to financial capital and services has been a significant impediment towards the realization of self-sufficiency and financial freedom across Indian Country.

Here are their locations, and here are some of their services. If you are looking for a bank, particularly for online banking, please consider patronizing the Native American Bank.

My second economic suggestion goes along with my continuing focus on Global Warming solutions. Native Energy is a group that seeks to build alternative, green energy production on Native American land (and on American farms), providing jobs, energy and an economy for Native Americans WHILE also weaning America from its oil addiction. Here are their current and past projects. Al Gore and his family offset their entire carbon footprint through Native Energy. So do I (at least in part...I also use other carbon offset programs focused in Israel, Africa, and Central America). You can too. For an average of $12/month (those of us in NYC average only $4/month!) you can offset your personal carbon footprint by investing in alternative energy projects through Native Energy. This could be one of the most significant things you can do to mitigate global warming, and you will be creating a real, solid economy for Native Americans in the process.

I hope this helps to link Immigrant America with Native America and to help build a stronger Indian Country. Such a strengthening would help reduce the abuse that Amnesty International recently revealed.

American Republicans and Japan's Ultra-Nationalists: Tangled Web of Corruption

I have always been a fan of Japan. I have been there four times, including on my honeymoon. I even had the pleasure of living for a year in Kyoto working at Kyoto University. It is, in many ways, a wonderful place and I do hope to go back when time and money permit. I even am teaching my son what little Japanese language I still remember.

But there are always strange undercurrents in Japan. Korean and Chinese friends of mine cannot understand why I ever would visit Japan. They have an anger towards Japan that Americans have a hard time understanding. The presence of the yakuza (Japanese mafia) in Japan is omnipresent, once you are aware of it, which seems strange for an otherwise so law abiding nation. When World War II comes up in conversation, many Japanese still think Japan was justified in its imperialism and that America should apologize for the nuclear bombings and for the occupation. It is a constant source of scandal that Japanese leaders frequently downplay and misrepresent Japanese imperialism in Asia. I was amazed at how unresolved WW II seems in Japan and in Asia.

I just finished a book called Yamato Dynasty, by Sterling and Peggy Seagrave, that clarifies these strange undercurrents and actually makes one wonder if, despite America's military victory, Japan actually won the war in the long term. A collaboration of Japanese ultra-nationalists, many of whom were actual war criminals, and America's right wing Republicans, led by Herbert Hoover and Douglas MacArthur, pretty much conspired to allow Japan to avoid the kind of defeat that Germany suffered where apologies, reparations and structural changes within the German society were required. Japan was let off the hook, allowing war criminals and war loot to dominate Japanese politics and economics from the end of the war to the present, in exchange for sweet business deals for American big business and banks.

In Yamato Dynasty the Seagraves outline a unique kind of society that developed from the earliest period of Japanese history wherein the Imperial throne was a powerless pawn while wealthy families, from the Soga and Fujiwara, through the Shogunates, to modern Japan run by ultra-nationalists, called all the shots and pretty much looted the country for their own benefit. Or perhaps this system is not so unique because I can find parallels in Chinese history, Roman history, Russian history, and, for that matter, in our current Bush-led America where the government became nothing but a thin veil for looting the American and Iraqi economy by companies like Exxon/Mobil,Halliburton, etc.

Japan's history is a sordid structure behind a beautiful and very deliberate facade. Yamato Dynasty traces this history from the so-called Meji Restoration (which the book shows to be little more than a change from one set of strongmen, the Tokugawa Shogunate, to a new set, the rival Choshu and Satsuma strongmen) through the period of Japanese imperialism, led by ultra-nationalists and corrupt underworld figures, to the present day. During the rise of Japanese imperialism, and even on the verge of Pearl Harbor, Japanese militarism was funded by American conservative businessmen, particularly the Morgan banking family. After the war, while victims of Japanese brutality got little or no compensation, Morgan bank and other American companies got their pre-war loans (which paid for Japanese aggression) back largely in full.

Morgan bank began their loans in collaboration with Herbert Hoover, when he was Secretary of Commerce. Hoover and Morgan bank saw Japan as free of corruption, yet this was a complete misunderstanding of Japanese society. In fact, the Japanese elite basically fooled them. It is put this way by a Dutch born expert on Japanese politics:

"Corruption in Japan," says Karel van Wolferen, "is legitimized by its systematic perpetuation. It is so highly organized and has become so much a part of the extra-lefal ways of the Japanese system that most citizens or foreign residents do not recognize it for what it is, but accept it as 'a part of the system.'"

Interestingly, much of the partnership between American conservatives and business interests and imperialist Japan's oligarchs and business interests occurred during a time when Japan was already preparing for war with the West, America and Britain included. Notes from aides to Hirohito reveal as early as 1931 a belief that their aggression would lead to war with the West and Japan was preparing for this future war...with funding from the Morgan bank and unwitting help from American conservatives. What is perhaps even more shocking, is that even as late as 1937, as Nazi Germany and Imperialist Japan were in full swing, Herbert Hoover and conservaitve Republicans, planning a MacArthur/Lindbergh ticket for President, favored an alliance with Nazi Germany and Imperialist Japan. Another member of this conservative, pro-fascist coalition, was British Conservative politician Neville Chamberlain. Meanwhile FDR was in favor of economic sanctions against the fascist regime of Japan after it started its China War, but he was blocked by the Morgan bank, the pro-Japan Wall Street lobby, and their allies in Congress. Remember, this was on the eve of the Rape of Nanking in December 1937. This world would be a lot different if the pro-fascist Republicans, in alliance with Neville Chamberlain, had brought Britain and America into the Japan/Germany Axis. Thankfully, the FDR Democrats prevailed and we joined more reasonable Brits in opposing Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.

Networks of kinship, bribes and backroom deals linked (and still link) Japan's politicians, imperial family, bureaucracy, business elite, and yakuza. This sordid system continued after World War II with little genuine reform, merely some careful repainting of the facade. While Democrats in Truman's government sought genuine change in Japan after the war, Herbert Hoover, Douglas MacArthur, and other Republicans sought to shield war criminals, hide war loot and allow Japan to keep its sordid system with minimal structural changes. The result is that while Germany has moved on from World War II and is no longer hated by the neighbors it vicitimized, in Asia the ghosts of WW II are still very fresh and Japan remains despised by the nations it victimized. The Seagraves put it this way:

Liberal Washington policy makers, particularly New Deal Democrats, wanted to alter the post war power structure of Japan permanently to make it more democratic. MacArthur was a reactionary conservative...He and his inner circle of advisors, including Herbert Hoover, concluded that his success in occupied Japan would depend upon manipulating Hirohito...he would induce Hirohito to give them inside knowledge of Japan's financial cliques and other vital power relationships, so that key people could be put under pressure, deals could be made and Japan's postwar power structures could be rearranged to suit MacArthur's conservative political backers rather than American liberals.

...we will unfold new evidence of the massive fraud that ensued, who was involved, and how major witnesses including General Tojo himself were suborned by MacArthur's staff and forced to falsify their testimony and perjure themselves before the international war crimes tribunal. At least one general was hanged for a crime at which he was not even present, forced to take the fall to protect Hirohit's uncle Prince Asaka, the butcher of Nanking, who escaped punishment of any kind...

This led first to the exoneration of the whole imperial family, then to that of the entire financial and industrial elite of Japan (a group that had been the Allies' explicit target for purge and prosecution)...While Germany paid some [30 billion pounds] in compensation and reparations over the years, Japan paid only [2 billion pounds]. Even today, Germany continues this program of compensation and reparations, but Japan dug in its heels and said it was all settled in 1951.

Does this sound like the behavior of a defeated foe? MacArthur, out of some combination of incompetance, conservative ideology, and greed, pretty much let Japan dictate its own postwar fate while Germany was forced, rightly I'd say, to reform significantly, accept full responsibility for its actions, punish all those who participated in atrocities, and pay extensive reparations. Douglas MacArthur and the conservative Republicans allowed Japan to evade reform even to the present time, allowed many war criminals to escape punishment or even responsibility, and paid only token reparations while even keeping most of the war loot it stole from Asia. Beyond this, MacArthur actively abetted the cover up of the wealth of the Imperial family and ruling elite, allowing them to hide money while feigning poverty. This directly affected the decision to let Japan get away with paying almost no reparations. Japan escaped not only with limited reparations, but kept the loot they stole.

That loot amounted to many billions of dollars worth of gold and other precious materials looted from all over Asia and hidden in a project, codenamed "Golden Lily," which was actively supervised by the Imperial family itself. Golden Lily hid treasure in the Philipines as a stopping point on the way to Japan. Some of the loot made it to Japan, some remained in the Phillipines by the time Japan surrendered. Ships and hidden tunnels containing some of this loot have been discovered. One discovery was made by Phillipines Dictator Ferdinand Marcos, whose greed led him to almost kill an American mining engineer, Robert Curtis, to silence him. Curtis only escaped by hiding the maps to other war loot sites, thus making it necessary for Marcos to keep him alive. Remember that Marcos was another ally of American conservatives until the Phillipine people themselves rejected his brutal corruption.

The Seagraves consider the loot that did make it to Japan as the real reason for the amazing recovery of the Japanese economy after WW II. Simply put, their economy and infrastructure may have been in a shambles, but gold and money looted from all over Asia during the war paid for Japan's recovery afterwards. More bluntly put, the victims of Japan's aggression paid for Japan to recover full prosperity. This is in sharp contrast to how Germany was treated:

Although there have been many investigations of Nazi war loot, there has never been a formal investigation of the looting of Asia by the Japanese, nor has Japan ever been forced to account for the plunder. The amounts involved dwarf the Nazi looting many times over.

More recently, in the 1970's, the John Birch Society (part of the right wing extremist end of the Republican Party) lent nearly half a million dollars to an American treasure-hunter to recover and lauder Japanese war loot hidden in the Phillipines. As the Seagraves put it:

The [John Birch] society seemed to believe that it was perfectly correct to break Americans laws regarding the illegal laundering of money...

Greed, on the part of the Japanese army and politicians, of Ferdinand Marcos, and of the John Birch society, has surrounded this war loot. But in the end it must be remembered this was looted from real people, victims of Japanese aggression in nations all over Asia whose economies suffered because of this aggression and looting. America did nothing to try and restore this loot to its rightful owners. I suspect that the poverty and social disruption caused by Japanese aggression and looting are part of the reason that communism spread so widely in Asia. American conservatives unwittingly helped the very communists they claimed to oppose by basically sacrificing the economies of most of Asia for the benefit of Japanese recovery. Could the Korean and Vietnam wars been avoided if Asia as a whole had bene rebuilt with the loot Japan had stolen?

Beyond allowing Japan to keep its war loot, the American conservatives conspired to allow many Japanese war criminals off the hook. Perhaps most disgusting was the conspiracy to let Imperial Prince Asaka off the hook for the Rape of Nanking. Prince Asaka, with the words "We will teach our Chinese brothers a lesson they will never forget," and with the orders, "Kill all captives," was directly responsible for the atrocities in Nanking. Yet in the trials after Japan's military defeat, Prince Asaka was absolved of all responsibility. Instead, General Matsui, who had done all he could to restrain the Japanese forces before Prince Asaka took control, was coerceed into claiming responsibility and was hanged. Prince Asaka, who ordered the atrocities, got off with no consequences. General Matsui, who had tried to prevent the atrocities, was hanged. THIS was the kind of injustice that Douglas MacArthur perpetrated in order to preserve the Imperial family and the ultra-nationalist Japanese politicians. Similarly, atrocities committed by Japan's bioweapons unit, Unit 731, tied to Imperial Princes like Takeda and Higashikuni, were covered up by direct order from MacArthur and no one was ever prosecuted for this biological weapons program. MacArthur even went so far as to force many American POWs, who had witnessed many of Japan's atrocities, to sign documents that forbade them from speaking of these atrocities. General Bonner Fellers, a close ally of Hoover and MacArthur's and on MacArthur's staff, ordered Japanese Admiral Yonai to tamper with Tojo as a witness so as to absolve Hirohito from all responsibility for the war. Herbert Hoover himself lobbied defense attorneys to prevent their clients from implicating Hirohoto. Only seven Japanese war criminals were hanged. Sixteen were sentenced to life imprisonment, though were then paroled in 1955, only 10 years after the end of the war. The vast majority were let off. Imagine if we had let Nazi Germany off so lightly and allowed most of the the Nazi party big wigs to return to power after only brief imprisonment.

These accusations are not unique to the Seagraves, though they bring new information and a detailed historical context to the accusations. Other sources for this can be found here.

It should also be noted that not all Republicans were part of this. Eisenhower detested MacArthur and MacArthur found it necessary even to lie to Genearl Eisenhower in 1946 in order to carry out his aid to Japanese war criminals.

Even today the ultra-nationalists hold power through threats, bribes and intimidation. When I lived there, my Japanese friends told me about how Japanese journalists would always tread carefully when discussing the imperial family, the yakuza or WW II because right wing thugs would take revenge on any coverage they disliked. A particularly brutal example of the ultra-nationalist power by violence was the assassination of the Nagasaki mayor, Motoshima Hitoshi, in 1990 because he had the audacity to say (truthfully!) that Emperor Hirohito bore some responsibility for WW II. This atmosphere is a direct result of the failure of MacArthur and his conservative allies to reform Japan's system the way Germany's system was reformed:

The emphasis was not on reform but on continuity. During seven years of occupation, 1945-1952, the same Japanese ruling elite that had run the country since the Meiji Restoration was expected to purge itself, slap itself on the wrist and democratize itself...Before the ashes of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were cold, men opposed to reform of any kind regained control in Tokyo and resumed their former monopoly if wealth and power.

This can be seen in who became the leaders and financial backers of Japan's notoriously corrupt and reactionary Liberal Democratic Party (the LDP, which, as is frequently commented upon, is not liberal, not democratic and not really a party) in post-occupation Japan. Among the leaders of the LDP was Hatoyama Ichiro, who was Education Minister in 1928, advocated beheading opposition, opposed trial by jury, and was one of the organizers of the official deification of the Emperor that helped the dictatorship take hold. Then there was Kodama Yoshio, one of the most infamous yakuza thugs, who worked during WW II with the Japanese army to transport war loot from all over Asia. And Kishi Nobusuke was a member of the Choshu elite that had led the imperialist era, and he led the corrupt alliance between oligarchs and the military and made huge profits from the Japanese occupation of Manchuria and the looting of Asia. He was also a close friend of Tojo, whose success he helped fund. Fascist Hatoyama teamed up with yakuza godfather Kodama and war looter and Tojo backer Kishi to found the LDP. And the LDP, despite frequent sacandals, still dominates Japanese politics. Another link in this chain is the Tsutsumi family and the Seibu Corporation they run. Also war profiteers during the war, they helped hide the wealth of the Imperial family after the war and went on to be among the richest people in the world. They are also among the biggest financial donors to the LDP. The Tsutsumi family was caught up in a financial scandal in 2005, but it is likely that they will weather this in the same way Japanese politicians and businessmen weather all such scandals. If you have ever watched Japanese television you see it all the time. The tearful confession before the media, the slap on the wrist in the form of small fines and brief, often suspended, prison terms, and either a return to power or a comfortable retirement.

The lack of reform in Japanese history has another side, though: economic instability. The Japanese economy is seen as one of the stronger ones, but its underlying corruption is a drain that has repeatedly caused the collapse of a bubble economy. The following description of a Japanese bubble economy in the 1920's could be describing the Japanese bubble economy of the 1980's...or now (and, by the way, has some resemblance to the Bush economy in America in my opinion):

Two years before the Wall Street Crash in 1929, panic hit Tokyo. The Japanese banking crisis of 1927, just like the Japanese banking crisis of the late 1990's, had everything to do with systematic corruption and sweetheart deals. Vast sums of money were lent by Japan's biggest banks to business concerns run by the same men or their relatives and friends. Other powerful families did the same thing, creating a false impression of prosperity. The banks did not secure these loans, because in sweetheart deals it would be embarrassing to insist on security. The banks then failed to audit their own conduct. With so much easy money and no supervision, businesses expanded recklessly. As years passed without any payment of interest on the loans, the banks suffered a liquidity crisis and began to hemorrhage. To stop the collapse of the banks in 1927, the government forked over 2 billion yen in emergency loans, but only to ease the pain of the privileged people who had caused the problem...(Seventy years later, Japan's banking fundamentals remain largely unchanged).

What strikes me about this corrupt system is that far from resembling healthy economies, Japan's traditionally corrupt system more resembles the economy of a third world nation. It manages to take this third world style system to occasional levels of great success. Yet that success is often unstable because the underlying system remains basically unsound, thus cycles of bubbles and collapse have plagued Japan since it began its rapid industrial and economic development in the early 1900's. I have invested in Japanese stocks in the past because of the apparent strength of their economy. But I have since stopped investing in Japan because I recognize that as long as they maintain this kind of underlying third world style corruption, they will not have a stable economy but rather one wherein prosperity will always be something of a bubble waiting to collapse. Investors should not view Japan's economy as equivalent to a developed economy despite the superficial resemblance. They are subject to the more wild swings of a developing economy rather than the usually more reliable steady growth of a developed economy. Investment in Japan is inherantly risky because of their sordid political system that invariably protects corrupt oligarchs.

I still love Japanese culture, at least at its best. I even feel some respect for institution (at least in theory) of the Japanese emperor. I feel that cultural identity in the era of globalization can bee considerably boosted by institutions like the British monarchy and the Japanese Emperor. I even feel that Nepal, despite their consderable need for reform, may have made a mistake in completely abolishing their monarchy. In doing so it risks losing something of its unique identity. Similarly I don't believe it is in the best interests of Japan to completely abolish their Emperor. He remains a powerful part of their identity. But as I finished Yamato Dynasty I was reminded of a very striking scene when I was traveling in Japan. I was in Hiroshima, reading a brief history of Japan while sitting right below the famous "A-bomb dome." I was reading about the rise of Japanese imperialism with brutal militarists running the government and victimizing conquered nations. While I was reading this beneath the symbol of the nuclear destruction that ended WW II, I noticed a bus with political slogans on it circling the area blaring a political speech. It was a right wing political party and their slogans and stands aren't really different from those militarists that brought Japan into WW II, victimized Asia, and bombed Pearl Harbor. I knew even then that in some ways nothing had changed in Japan despite defeat and nuclear attack. Reading Yamato Dynasty I understand why. Japan has a concept of "winning by losing." It seems in many ways they won WW II despite our military victory. I will end with one more quote from the book regarding what Japan got away with:

A Japanese scholar put it in the form of a zen parable, or koan: "If a robbe steals $100 billion and successfully hides the money before he is captured and jailed, and then is released after seven years for 'good behavior,' did he fail or did he succeed?