Feral Jundi

Wednesday, November 9, 2011

Books: Pinkerton’s War, By Jay Bonansinga

Filed under: Books,History — Tags: , , , , — Matt @ 12:30 PM

I just read this book the other day, and it was a fantastic read. The author is a gifted writer, and presented this history about Allan Pinkerton more like a movie script than a plain jane biography. The cool thing about this book though is that it is all true, and it is heavily sourced from of all the books written by Allan Pinkerton and from all the other biographers that have written about this man.

The other reason why I like this book is because it highlights the achievements of private industry during war time. Pinkerton and his private detective agency was the best and most innovative private detective agency in the country at the time, and his services became crucial to not only other companies, but to government and military leaders. This company was also crucial to the expansion out west, and so the Pinkerton Detective Agency is a very important part of US history.

How important?  Let me put it too you this way.  If it wasn’t for Allan Pinkerton and his crew of agents finding and stopping the assassins that wanted to kill Lincoln during his inaugural post election train ride to Washington DC, then the Civil War probably would have turned out a lot different. Or maybe it would have never have happened at all? That is how important these guys were, and they accomplished this as a private company and not as a branch of government.

So some of the details in this book that intrigued me was how much of an innovator Pinkerton was. He was the first to use women agents for solving cases. His women agents did some serious kick ass work during the war, and certainly were the unsung heroes during the war.

He also used pictures for detective work, which you might think sounds inconsequential right now. But back then, identifying folks across the country was a difficult task. If a detective had a photo of the person they were looking for, it made it easier to ask around about them, and easier to pick out if that individual was close by. More accurate files could be created using photos as well.

Pinkerton was also a big fan of Lincoln, and had actually met Lincoln before he was president. He was also an abolitionist back then, and a pretty compassionate man according to the author.

As for a trivia deal, I learned in the book that Pinkerton’s son William was the first aerial balloon observer in the history of warfare. The kid was in his teens at the time and was working as a scout and messenger in the war. They put him in a balloon because he was light and small. I thought that was cool, and quite the innovation back in the day.

Finally, the one part that I really liked about the book, was the author’s defense of Pinkerton over the whole debate about McClellan getting fired by Lincoln. Historians and General McClellan fans have bashed Pinkerton in the past over supplying McClellan faulty intelligence during the Battle of Antietam. They claim that because of this bad intel, that McClellan was not able to destroy Lee and his army during that battle. (Lee did a tactical withdrawal) The author said that McClellan had plenty of intelligence that he drew from during the war, and Pinkerton’s was not the only source. That McClellan failed to completely defeat Lee, not because of a lack of good intel, but because he was not aggressive enough to seal the deal. Lincoln wanted the war over, and he wanted Lee’s head on a pike, and McClellan just wasn’t producing the results Lincoln wanted.

But of course I am not going to get into that debate because there are folks out there that are big fans of McClellan, and there are others that think otherwise. My intent with this book review is to discuss Allan Pinkerton’s place in that history, and I certainly recommend this book for doing just that. Perhaps with the author’s film background, this will be made into a movie?

Also, the book will be in the Jundi Gear locker if anyone wants to find it again in the future. Check it out. –Matt 

 


Pinkerton’s War: The Civil War’s Greatest Spy and the Birth of the U.S. Secret Service

By Jay Bonansinga

A thrilling historical account of Allan Pinkerton’s pivotal role in the Civil War and the birth of the Secret Service

Scottish immigrant Allan Pinkerton is best known for creating the Pinkerton National Detective Agency, which gained renown for solving train robberies in the 1850s and battling the labor movement in the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries. But the central drama of his career, and the focus of this book, was his work as protector of President Abraham Lincoln and head of a network of Union spies (including himself!) who posed as Confederate soldiers and sympathizers in a deadly cat-and-mouse game.
As here told in riveting prose by author Jay Bonansinga, Pinkerton’s politics and abolitionist sympathies drew the attention of supporters of presidential incumbent Abraham Lincoln—and Pinkerton was hired to act as his bodyguard. Pinkerton was asked to organize the U.S. government’s first “Secret Service,” and during the Civil War he managed a network of spies who worked behind confederate lines and tackled espionage at the highest levels in Washington. By war’s end, the agency’s reputation was so well established that it was often hired by the government to perform many of the same duties today assigned to the Secret Service, the FBI, the CIA, and, most recently, the Department of Homeland Security.

Jay Bonansinga is the national bestselling author of The Sinking of the Eastland, a Chicago Reader Critics Choice Book, and eleven novels. His latest novel, Perfect Victim, was a Book of the Month Club Alternate. He is also an award-winning indie filmmaker. 

Find the book here.(Jundi Gear)

Wednesday, September 21, 2011

Letter Of Marque: The Original Understanding Of The Capture Clause, By Aaron Simowitz

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water. -the enumerated powers of Congress, Art. 1, Sec. 8, Para. 11 of the US Constitution.

This is cool. When discussing the Letter of Marque and Reprisal portion of the war clause, the capture clause is always forgotten. But for privateering, the capture clause was very important. It gave congress the right to establish the rules and laws for the capture of enemy vessels or prizes, and for the capture of combatants. That last part about the capturing of combatants is what has been falsely interpreted over the years and forgotten, and Mr. Simowitz has done a great job of disputing this false interpretation.

The reason why this is important to discuss is that like in the past, prisoners are very much a part of conflicts on land or water today, and if private industry is to be involved in such ventures, there must be rules and laws in place that dictate what is to be done with prisoners. Especially on water, just because armed guards on boats are big thing right now. The big one here is the legal capture, detention and treatment of prisoners, and of course, the costs of capture, detention and transport of prisoners. Private industry must be compensated and incentivized, or else taking prisoners will not be a priority. (hence why Congress dedicated funding for captures/bounties during wars like the one in 1812)

I have talked about offense industry in prior posts, and the key to this concept is to create a mechanism in which private industry profits from the destruction of the enemy. Well profiting from the ‘capture’ of enemies is included in that mechanism because the act takes combatants off the battlefield. You can see shades of that in today’s modern bailbondsmen industry as well.

And if there are specific rules and laws on how captures are to be done, then those captures could be recognized by a prize court or current court of law as legal. If a bounty or fees associated with the capture/detention is to be awarded, a court of law must be satisfied that it was legally conducted. As of right now, there are no laws or rules for private industry to use for the capture/detention of pirates. Yet states could easily provide such a thing via their right to grant a license or Letter of Marque to private industry.

Now lets discuss today’s modern piracy problem. We are well on our way to creating a vibrant ‘defense industry’; one in which there is no mechanism in place to reduce the numbers of pirates other than to kill them during times of self defense. This is an odd arrangement that we have, where we allow armed guards to take the life of a pirate during combat, but we do not give them the legal authority necessary to capture that pirate? Or what about the rules for when a pirate surrenders or we have wounded that pirate or destroyed their vessel during a battle, thus leaving them stranded in the ocean?

Sure, a company could contact a naval force nearby and give them a GPS coordinate of the position of that pirate vessel, but what about those companies who could care less about such things?  Or maybe those companies are getting strict guidelines that they are not to stop or deal with any kind of pirate detention. And for those companies that do bring pirates on board that surrendered or were stranded, then who will pay those companies for the effort? That is what boggles the mind right now, and there are no laws or rules for capture or detention. Oh but we can shoot at the pirates all day long…..

So this is what I am trying to do here. We need a serious discussion about the ‘rules concerning captures on land or water’, and how that could apply to private industry and their current task out there on the high seas.  The US Constitution is a great starting point for that discussion, as well as the history of privateers and the rules for capture they followed in the past. The War of 1812 is just one historical example, and our forefathers had a greater understanding and appreciation for the issue than our modern legal councils. And if you think about, our forefathers were more humane, just because they had a legal means of private industry removing combatants off the battlefield, other than just killing them.

Either way, check it out, pass it around, chew on it for a bit, and understand that we can learn a lot from the past about how to use private industry during times of war. –Matt

The Original Understandings of the Capture Clause
Aaron D. Simowitz
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
March 12, 2008
Abstract:
The Congress shall have power to . . . To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water. US Const Art I, § 8, cl 11.
Although the Capture Clause may seem obscure today, the power it embodies was crucially important to the early republic. General Washington declared, even during the Revolutionary War, that a centralized and standardized system for the handling of prizes was vital to the war effort. The first court established by the fledging federal government was the federal appellate court of prize. This court heard over a hundred and eighteen cases before it was dissolved by Article III of the Constitution.

The federal government, first under the Articles of Confederation and then under the Constitution, was responsible for prescribing the rules under which enemy ships and prisoners could be taken. The value of captured ships was the chief means by which the early navy and privateer system was financed. However, the early law of capture also concerned captured persons, who could sometimes be redeemed or ransomed for head money. Later scholars have correctly concluded the capture of property was more important to the Framers of the Constitution. However, they have also assumed that the Capture Clause did not cover people. This is not the case.

This paper will show that the received wisdom that the Capture Clause covers only property is based on a faulty and possibly disingenuous statement dating from 1833. This paper will also show that the received wisdom is inconsistent with the era’s admiralty law and with Congressional practice. The Framers made prescribing rules concerning captures on land and water an enumerated power of Congress. This power covered enemy persons as well as property.
Link to paper here.
—————————————————————-
Shortly before the War of 1812 broke out, Congress passed the latest version of “An Act Concerning Letters of Marque, Prizes, and Prize Goods.” Section seven of the Act, enacted pursuant to Congress quasi-war powers, provided, “[t]hat all prisoners found on board any captured vessel, or on board any recaptured vessel, shall be reported to the collector of the port in the United States in which they shall first arrive, and shall be delivered into the custody of the marshal of the district . . . who shall take charge of their safe keeping.”  Section nine of the same act provided a bounty of twenty dollars for each enemy killed in the event that the enemy vessel was destroyed. -2 Stat 759, 763 (June 26, 1812)

“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President of the United States be, and he is hereby authorized to make such regulations and arrangements for the safe keeping, support and exchange of prisoners of war as he may deem expedient, until the same shall be otherwise provided for by law; and to carry this act into effect, one hundred thousand dollars be, and the same are hereby appropriated, to be paid out of any monies in the treasury not otherwise appropriated.”-An Act for the Safe Keeping and Accommodation of Prisoners of War, War of 1812

Monday, September 19, 2011

History: Lawton’s Use Of Civilian Scouts Part 2: Young’s Scouts

This is part two of my series on General Lawton’s use of civilian scouts during war time. Apache scouts and his civilian scout Tom Horn were the group that Lawton depended upon for relentless pursuit against Geronimo and his war party. It was that dogged pursuit that eventually forced Geronimo to give up, and that is certainly a significant accomplishment. They also accomplished this mission within the borders of another country.  Lawton could not have done this without his scouts.

So fast forward to the Philippine-American War, and General Lawton’s involvement there. Just imagine this. Some civilian from the US comes over by boat to the Philippines to fight.  This civilian was a scout from the Indian War years, and he wanted to offer his services to the war effort there. And after some convincing, General Lawton eventually hires this guy named William Young to lead a team of Army Soldiers as scouts. They were called Young’s Scouts.

I imagine that Lawton’s experience with scouts from his past wars, are what influenced him to take a risk with a civilian offering his services for such a thing in this war.

Not only that, but these scouts were actively engaged in combat and did very well. A civilian scout leading soldiers on offensive operations or ‘search and destroy’ missions…..Think about that for a second? And Young died from a wound he received in combat.  Did I mention that eleven members of this unit were recipients of the Medal of Honor! Most of them received their award during a battle that Young led and was wounded in, and yet Young did not receive the MoH.

This unit was also quite the bunch. They were definitely ‘citizen soldiers’ if you know what I mean. Here is the quote that cracked me up:

“all were nonconformists with more than one court-martial on their record.”

These guys were certainly trouble makers, and in more ways than one. From what I was reading in other sources, officers of other units were jealous and miffed at these guys, because they definitely had attitude. But Young was able to take these guys and form them into an effective unit, and prove their worth.  They were also chosen because of their shooting abilities. Here is a sample of what I am talking about.

As a small patrol consisting of Young, Birkhimer, Frank L. Anders (Fargo), James W. McIntyre (Fargo), Willis H. Downs (Jamestown), and two other scouts approached San Miguel, they discovered a trench with 300 insurgents guarding the bridge leading to the city.
When the scouts were spotted, they decided to rush the trench. Joined by six other scouts including Patrick Hussey and Frank Summerfield from Dickinson and Gotfred Jensen from Devils Lake, they “charged over a distance of 150 yards and completely routed the enemy.”
After Young was wounded,  Anders rallied the scouts and led them into San Miguel where they fought the enemy for four hours until relief arrived.  This city of 20,000 was taken by a small force of a dozen men.

Now that is cool, and this particular battle is what gained the unit so much attention. This unit also participated in numerous hit and run operations and definitely did a number on the enemy. It just goes to show what small units can accomplish, if they have the right leadership and skill sets.

Unfortunately there is not a lot of information about Young. I suspect that he was pretty seasoned during the Indian Wars, and was part of that massive contractor civilian scout force that the military called upon during that conflict. He reminds me of guys like Frederick Russell Burnham, who went on to apply his Indian Wars war fighting and tracking skills to the battlefields of places like Africa.

I did find one book about Young’s Scouts, but it didn’t have a lot about Young himself. But it is a cool little resource none the less.

If anyone has anything else to add to this history of William Young and the Young Scouts, I would love to hear it. At least his memory and deeds will be noted here on the blog. It will also be another example of how America used to define what was ‘inherently governmental’. Because in this little piece of history and war, civilians were a strategic asset used to defeat the enemy. –Matt

 

The battle at the bridge outside of San Miguel.

Young’s Scouts
(from Wikipedia)
Young’s Scouts was a select group of United States Army soldiers during the Philippine-American War organized under a Vermont civilian named William H. Young. Because of his previous experience as a soldier and soldier of fortune and his demonstrated coolness under fire, Young came to the notice of General Henry W. Lawton, who hired Young as his Chief Scout during Lawton’s Northern Campaign. Young’s Scouts acted as an advance guard and engaged in search and destroy missions. The exploits and valor of Young’s Scouts soon brought them to the attention of the American public.
Members of Young’s Scouts came from several units in Lawton’s command, including the 1st North Dakota Volunteers, the 2nd Oregon Volunteers, and the 4th U.S. Cavalry (dismounted). Although the original unit was composed of 25 men, Scouts came and went as casualties and sickness took their toll. In two different engagements a number of Scouts were recommended for the Medal of Honor, which at the time was the only Army award for valor. On May 14, 1899, William Young was wounded in the knee in an engagement at San Miguel de Mayumo with what was described as a minor wound. He was conveyed to the 1st Reserve Hospital in Manila with a request by Lawton that he receive the best of care. Ironically, although the initial assessment of Young’s wound was that he would probably end up with nothing more serious than a stiff knee, he died a few days later, presumably of tetanus.
Young’s Scouts continued to operate under several different officers for the remainder of Lawton’s Northern Campaign.
Link to wikipedia here.
—————————————————————
North Dakotans played role in ‘Young’s Scouts’
By CURT ERIKSMOEN
December 5, 2010
Of the 17 Medal of Honor recipients who enlisted or were recruited into the military in North Dakota, nine of them were recommended for the medal because of their action in a span of only four days.
All nine were part of a select group called “Young’s Scouts,” a small unit that terrorized the Filipino insurgents, during the Philippine Insurrection, following the Spanish-American War.
In late April 1899, Gen. Henry W. Lawton asked William H. Young to put together a detachment of “25 specially qualified enlisted men” to travel one-half day ahead of the main column to locate insurgent forces and destroy the insurgents’ food and supplies.
Young’s Scouts had been designated as sharpshooters, but they were not your typical soldiers — “all were nonconformists with more than one court-martial on their record.”

(more…)

Monday, September 12, 2011

History: The 1854 Tong War, California

Filed under: California,China,History — Tags: , , , , , — Matt @ 3:24 PM

This is some fascinating US history that does not get much mention. I had heard about the Tong War in Weaverville when I was fighting forest fires there way back when. But I did not know about the details of this little known war.

Basically this was a classic Chinese battle between two mining companies/gangs in Northern California during the Gold Rush. And boy what a battle? Ironically, only four combatants died in the battle that had 2,500 participants! (the monument says 2000 participated and 26 were killed?)

The one bit of information that really perked me up after reading this article below was the the use of ‘white’ advisers. Here is the quote:

The Sam Yap Company, Hanley wrote, had purchased 150 muskets and bayonets and muskets in San Francisco.  They had employed fifteen whites as drill instructors.  The instructors were paid ten dollars daily along with all the food and whiskey they could handle.(What cost $10 in 1854 would cost $239.63 in 2010.)
Before the battle the fifteen white mercenaries painted themselves yellow, put on Chinese costumes, and hung a yard of horsehair tail down their backs in a mocking depiction of a Chinese queue.

I would be very interested to know who these fifteen advisers were?  At that time period, security contractors were vital to supporting all of the mail and banking activities that came along with the gold rush. The west was a rough place to operate in back then, and hired guns were essential for protecting shipments of gold heading back east or between the various towns of the west. Wells Fargo, American Express, Pinkertons, Butterfield Overland Mail, all started up around this time period. I am sure the Sam Yap Company was able to draw from this pool of security contractors that serviced this industry, to train their forces for this battle.

China was also in the process of modernizing it’s own military and drawing from the military expertise of Europe. So it does not surprise me that these companies would outsource the training of their combatants to insure a win. Which this little tidbit is also pretty cool. Here was the cost of the battle for each side:

After a hundred shots had been fired, the woefully underarmed Yan Wo beat a hasty retreat.  Thousands had watched and dueled, but the casualties were light.  Sources indicate a death toll of four.
The cost figures were much higher.  The Sam Yap Company had expended $40,000 in pursuit of victory, while the Yan Wo Company had spent $20,000 in defeat.

Either way, if you are ever in Northern California and looking for something interesting to do, go visit Weaverville and check out the Joss House. This place has a few of the original weapons that these combatants used. It would have been cool if more of the tactical details of this battle were available, but there really isn’t much out there about it.

I would speculate that if you were to draw from Chinese war fighting tactics of the early 1800’s, that we probably could have drawn some conclusions on how they might have went about fighting this war. But of course these guys were all miners/prospectors and if they had to resort to hiring advisers, and only 4 people died in the battle out of the 2500 that participated, then I have to imagine that it wasn’t that well planned or organized. So no Sun Tzu at this party. lol

Also, I am getting different dates for this war, and have decided to go with what the monument and the Joss House said about the date. So disregard the time period below. –Matt

 

 

CHINESE TONG WAR – Near Chinese Camp, October 1856
The historic Gold Country was a violent land — claim jumping, murder, theft, cheating at cards, and much more was quite common.
In October 1856, a different type of violence occurred near Chinese Camp.  It was a Chinese Tong War.
A Tong is defined as a Chinese secret society or fraternal organization.  While many Tongs were mostly social, some organizations engaged in gang warfare or ethnic revenge.
The Tongs were often rivals for control in the Chinese communities and public challenges toward one another were not unusual.  Along the Mother Lode in late Gold Rush California two Tongs were rivals for hegemony.  They were the Tuolomne County Sam Yap Company and the Calaveras County Yan Wo Company, headquartered near Chinese Camp.

(more…)

Friday, August 12, 2011

History: The Lynx–America’s Privateer!

This is very cool. This vessel is a recreation of the original privateer schooner called the Lynx. The reason why I like this, is that this boat is a real representation of private industry during war time. This vessel is also a symbol of what an Offense Industry can create during times of war, and this boat is beautiful. This thing was designed for commerce raiding, and it is just neat to see it sail and exist.
 
The other deal I wanted to bring up is definitely go to the website and check out their schedule if you want to see where they are going next. They are sailing all over the world and their intent is to educate people about the history of privateering in America’s early wars. So they do tours on the vessel and this would be a fun way to spend a day. So definitely take the time to check this bit of contractor history if they happen to be in your area. –Matt

 

Lynx– America’s Privateer
HISTORY OF THE LYNX
Lynx is an interpretation of an actual privateer named Lynx built by Thomas Kemp in 1812 in Fell’s Point, Maryland. She was among the first ships to defend American freedom by evading the British naval fleet then blockading American ports and serving in the important privateering efforts.
At the outbreak of the War of 1812, the American Navy consisted of only 17 ships – eight frigates, two brigs, and seven assorted smaller vessels including a few schooners which saw service in the Barbary Wars. When a nation went to war, owners of private vessels were granted special permissions, called “letters of marque,” to prey upon the enemy’s shipping; thus, “privateers.” While rarely engaging enemy warships, their impact was felt by English merchants who insisted on warship escorts for their vessels. To perform this duty, warships were drawn away from engaging the scant American Navy and blockading our coast, and thus did the privateers, motivated by profit, assist in our national defense. Among the Baltimore privateers was the sharp-built tops’l schooner, LYNX.

(more…)

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Powered by WordPress