Friday, October 30, 2015

American History 101: The Turning Point of the Civil War - Gettysburg and Vicksburg

In the annals of American history, there are a number of events that stand out as decisive and game changing.  One of those "game changers" is the Civil War.  America as we know it today was defined between 1861-1865 in many ways that most Americans will never know, and possibly never understand.  The Civil War has shaped who we are as a people in regards to civil rights, taxation, how active the federal government is in our everyday lives and so many other facets of our lives.  The war itself is a complex organism to study from causation to events to reasoning to the tragic number of lives lost.  Historians for the last 150 years have been trying pin point the moment... the event... or even the battle that signified the difference between the Union beating down the traitorous rebellion and the Confederate States of America successfully taking its independence from its oppressive overlords without much success.  One of the more popular events that historians and the general public consider as the turning point of the war is the Battle of Gettysburg, which took place between July 1st and July 3rd in 1863.  And while I agree this was an important event, and a step in the right direction in the war, there is more to that first week in July of 1863 then just Gettysburg that finally turned the tide in the bloodiest conflict ever to demonize American soil.  During that first week of July, the Siege of Vicksburg finally came to a close at almost the same time the Lee's troops were turned back at Gettysburg.

The Battle of Gettysburg represented the final effort of General Robert E. Lee to invade the north.  He knew that if
Battle of Gettysburg
he could win major battles on northern soil, that the Confederacy would gain legitimacy and respect while damaging the Union resolve to fight.  What he did not know was that the war effort was not, generally speaking, going well in the north and that the Union victory at Gettysburg would embody everything Lincoln and his generals needed to keep pushing at the Confederacy.


After his success at Chancellorsville, lee led his army through the Shenandoah Valley to continue his invasion of the north.  His army was confident and ready to fight.  Feeling that he was on a roll, he was trying to shift focus off the war ravaged southern states onto northern turf to pressure the politicians in the north into a negotiation to cease the war.  His plan was to push to Harrisburg -- or even as far as Philadelphia if he had to to make that happen.  President Lincoln responded by sending General Hooker up against Lee, and then three days before hostilities began he replaced him with General Meade and his army.  Lincoln had been losing confidence in Hooker by mid-1863, and Meade's army was larger.  This gave Lincoln the excuse he needed to oust Hooker from this pivotal engagement.


The Dead at Gettysburg
After three days of battle that saw Lee's army enjoy early success, but Meade's army still holding its ground, the ill advised assault by 12,500 Confederate troops upon Cemetery Ridge (known as Pickett's Charge) was the straw that broke the camel...errr...rebels back.  The Union line held while pushing the Confederates back, and the Confederates suffered severe loses.  The loss at Gettysburg represented more than a simple failure.  It represented the first major defeat of Lee on northern soil.  While the losses were fairly even, 23,055 for the north and 23,231 for the south, the losses on the Confederate side were devastating to the Northern Army of Virginia at a time when the south could not replace its dead soldiers effectively.  And in response to the defeat on July 3rd, Robert E. Lee's army would not mount another major offensive during the Civil War -- even thought the war continued for almost two more years.  Essentially, Lee turned tail and ran.  This certainly sounds like a decisive victory, if not a decisive moment.

However, over on the Mighty Mississippi, General Ulysses S. Grant and the Union Army had made an effort to take the fort at Vicksburg that defended the river in April of 1863.  The Confederate forces led by General Pemberton put up a strong fight and stood their ground.  As Grant's men continued to peck away, they laid in siege cutting off the area from any communication of resupply, fighting a war of attrition.  And on Independence Day -- July 4, 1863 -- a week after Union troops blew apart the Confederate line with an underground explosive under the 3rd Louisiana Redan which devastated any chance the Confederates had at winning the battle, General Pemberton officially surrendered his 30,000 starving and sickly troops.
Vicksburg, 1863

The victory at Vicksburg significantly impacted the Confederate's ability to maintain any war effort.  This Union victory gave the north control over the Mississippi River and made the victory at Champion Hill possible.  The victory at Champion Hill stopped all southern traffic on the river for the balance of the war.  The ceasing of this main avenue of supply put a strangle hold on the Confederate war effort.  This, in combination with the thrashing General Lee had received the previous day at Gettysburg, was the writing on the wall.  And while the Civil War would continue for two more years, it would not rage on.  It would whimper into submission as these events created the stage for which Generals Grant and Sherman would march through the south and leave in their wake no doubt that the south and its dreams of an independent nation were indeed defeated, and dead.


~~~~
Bruce holds a degree in Computer Science from Temple University, a Graduate Certificate in Biblical History from Liberty University and is working towards a Masters Degree in American History at American Public University.  He has worked in educational and technology for over 18 years, specializes in building infrastructures for schools that work to support the mission of technology in education in the classroom.  He also has served as a classroom teacher in Computer Science, History and English classes.  

Bruce is the author of five books: Sands of TimeTowering Pines Volume One:Room 509The Star of ChristmasPhiladelphia Story: A Lance Carter Detective Novel and The Insider's Story: A Lance Carter Detective Novel -- with a new book, Learn the Basics: Digital Forensics, due soon. 

Follow Bruce's Novel releases by subscribing to his FREE newsletter!

Be sure to check out Bruce's Allentown Education Examiner Page, his Twitter and his Facebook!
 


Learn More!

Tuesday, October 13, 2015

How to Fix the MLB Play Off Problem... if there is one?

Ah... October... the air is cool, pumpkins are a-plenty and the Major League Baseball postseason is in full swing!  Truly, nothing says October like playoff baseball!  But in recent years, Major League Baseball has made a number of changes to alter the structure of the postseason and the impact of the regular season on the postseason.  These changes include the restructuring of the divisions in response to the expansion of teams into cities such as Tampa Bay, Denver and Miami.  They also include the addition of a wild card team in 1995 to balance the number of playoff teams, and then the addition of a second wild card team in 2012 to attempt to make winning the division more meaningful.  And let's not forget the change made for the World Series home team.  Previous to 2009 the World Series home field alternated between the American League team and the National League team, but the league changed the deciding factor to make it so the league that wins the All Star Game in July gains home field advantage.  




In conjunction with other systemic changes, these changes have increased attendance overall, they have increased international exposure for the game and have created a playoff system that allows for more cities to be involved in the chase for the playoffs longer.  The original justification for the wild card game, besides balancing the teams from 3 to 4, was that it would prevent a situation where there the two best teams in a league were in the same division and only one made the playoffs, and it would create more drama in September for teams that were out of reach within their division -- they could still battle with other competitive teams for a shot at a playoff spot.  When this change occurred in 1995, it was heralded as a great move that would increase the competitiveness and parity in the sport.  And at first, that certainly seemed the case.  Between 1995 and 2000 the teams from the American League were the Yankees, Orioles, Red Sox and Mariners.  They were four teams who had seen very little postseason exposure in the previous decade.  And in those six years, they were 3-3 in the Division Series and none won the ALCS.  It was playing out very fair and balanced. The National League results were very different.  In those six years, the Rockies and Marlins made their first appearances in the postseason, plus the Mets and Cubs put in some time.  Unlike the American League, though, the Marlins won the World Series in 1997 from the Wild Card spot and the Mets appeared in the World Series in 2000, losing to the Yankees (who won the American League East).  If we jump ahead to include up to 2005 and we see a surge of Wild Card activity ending up in the World Series.  Between 2001-2005 the National League sent the Marlins, Astros and Giants to the World Series, while the American League sent the Angels once and the Red Sox twice in that span.  This 5 year span resulted in 3 teams, the Angels, Red Sox and Marlins winning the World Series, while the 2002 World Series between the Angels and Giants showcased two Wild Card teams.  All in all, between 1995 and 2011, 11 teams have gone from the Wild Card spot to the World Series and 6 have won.  So, in 16 seasons, almost 33% of the teams that make the World Series do so from the Wild Card and 38% of the World Champions from from that slot.  These are impressive numbers indeed given that only 25% of the teams making the playoffs are from the Wild Card position.

So - why win the division?  The #1 seed in the playoffs during this period would play the Wild Card team.  So, in theory, it slots as #1 vs #4 and #2 vs #3 -- which is consistent with the way most playoff brackets would work.  And the #1 seed would have the home field advantage.  But as time went on, it was very clear that these advantages did not show a real advantage statistically.  While the addition of two teams to the playoffs (previous to 1995 there was only the Championship Series with the winners of the East and West) did increase the exposure and excitement in September, the playoffs began to function more like a tournament which impacted the way teams had to build their rosters going in to the playoffs.  Teams that were built to win over a short period, with say one or two great pitchers, were winning -- while teams with good pitching staffs across the board seemed to suffer the fate of the dinosaurs.  As fans and teams became increasingly agitated at the losses piling up with teams that played solid all season long, Major League Baseball knew they had to respond.  In 2011, Major League Baseball announced the addition of a second Wild Card spot.  This increased the number of postseason spots from 4 to 5.  This created a one-game play-in game, and the winner would then play the #1 seed divisional winner.  The rationale behind this, besides increasing the race for the postseason even more, was that it would force the wild card teams to play a game before they ever played a division winner.  The theory is that it would create just a little extra strain on the Wild Card team.  There have been three playoff series that have been played since the rule change, of the six teams that have played the Wild Card play-in game, two have reached the World Series (Royals and Giants) with one (Giants) winning the World Series.  That represents 33% of the teams still making it to the World Series, but only 16% of the World Series winners.  While it is clear that the sample size is small, one would say that it is trending in the right direction.  Except that the 2014 World Series had two Wild Card teams in it.  Ugh.  For now -- we can call it an anomaly.

But even with the change, people are upset about the composition of the playoffs.  Baseball purists (such as myself) have railed against the idea of a wild card since 1995.  We claim that the addition of the Wild Card breeds the ability for a team to play for the Wild Card and not the division and then create a roster of players that is not the best team in baseball from April to October, but instead is made to be "just good enough" over 162 games but incredible in a short series.

We can see based on the end results of each season since 1995 that getting in to the postseason via the wild card is not a deterrent to reaching (and winning) the World Series.  Winning the division seems to have no impact on a team's ability to make it to and win the World Series.  In my opinion, this alone is a reason to throw out the Wild Card and re-architect the postseason.  But what about allowing mediocrity over the 162 game season to make the postseason?  Since the inception of the Wild Card, the average number of wins to make it to the Wild Card game (or the playoffs from 1995-2011) across both leagues is 91.82 (including 2015 and the Pirates and Cubs high win total).  By comparison, the divisional winners across both leagues averaged 94.12 wins per season.  A differential of 2.3 wins on average was the difference between winning the division and making the postseason.  In my opinion, this is not a significant enough number to refer to the wild card team as mediocre in comparison to the divisional winners.  This small differential can easily explain why so many (33%) Wild Card teams win the World Series, and it fleshes out Major League Baseball's insistence that the Wild Card allows good teams who do not win their division to make the postseason.

But that still leaves the problem of how to give divisional winners an advantage.  Our statistics above show that there is no advantage to winning the division, and Joe Girardi's throwing the American League East in 2007 in order to set up his pitching was the right move (even though they lost to Cleveland anyway).  Baseball should never be a game in which a team is not trying to win the division.  

Some folks are proposing that the National League Central this season shows that there should be no advantage to winning the division.  That the seeding system should be based on how many wins you have, and the schedule should be balanced throughout the league and not the division. That the only reason the Mets are advancing as far as they are is because they beat up on the weak National League East (which they did).  In this structure the Mets would still make the playoffs as the #5 seed and would have played the Dodgers in a one game playoff, and the Pirates and Cubs would have been guaranteed at least a 5 game series.

I am of the opinion that the one game playoff is terrible and the baseball has always been a game in which being the best in your division or league has been important.  I think it should remain that way.  And that the In order to create a league in which winning your division matters, I have a proposal.  

Instead of three divisions (East, Central and West) we move to a four division league (North, South, East and West) that is similar to the way the NFL lays it out -- and reduce the playoffs back to four teams, all division winners.  Each division would have four teams in it and allow MLB to expand to two more cities.  There are plenty of good candidates for expansion that would be at least as good as Miami and Tampa Bay have been (which is to say not great in attendance -- but they've both made the World Series and Miami has 2 World Series wins).   This would make it imperative to win the division again, but still allow more cities to be involved in the postseason chase in September.  My divisions would look something like this:

American League East:
New York
Boston

Toronto
Baltimore

American League North
Minnesota
Cleveland
Detroit
Chicago

American League South
Kansas City
Houston
Tampa Bay
Texas

American League West
Oakland
Los Angeles
Seattle
New Team (Las Vegas would be great)


National League East
New York
Philadelphia
Washington

New Team or Pittsburgh (Bring back Montreal!)
National League North
Chicago
Pittsburgh or New Team (Could still be Montreal)

Milwaukee
Cincinnati

National League South
Saint Louis

Arizona
Atlanta
Miami


National League West
San Francisco
Los Angeles
San Diego

Colorado

I think this resolves the major issues with the playoffs, divisional winners being at a disadvantage in the playoffs, increases the need to play out the season for everyone in the league -- not just the wild card teams, plus preserves the increased excitement of more cities being in the hunt for October.  Plus, this has the added benefit of expanding to two new cities, which baseball has been looking at for a while.  And honestly, we are in a place where baseball either needs to expand or contract - but I think most people agree that the number of teams we have now is not working with regards to the post-season.

And hey... can we get rid of this All Star Game deciding home field already?  No one cares.


~~~~
Bruce holds a degree in Computer Science from Temple University, a Graduate Certificate in Biblical History from Liberty University and is working towards a Masters Degree in American History at American Public University.  He has worked in educational and technology for over 18 years, specializes in building infrastructures for schools that work to support the mission of technology in education in the classroom.  He also has served as a classroom teacher in Computer Science, History and English classes.  

Bruce is the author of five books: Sands of TimeTowering Pines Volume One:Room 509The Star of ChristmasPhiladelphia Story: A Lance Carter Detective Novel and The Insider's Story: A Lance Carter Detective Novel -- with a new book, Learn the Basics: Digital Forensics, due soon. 

Follow Bruce's Novel releases by subscribing to his FREE newsletter!

Be sure to check out Bruce's Allentown Education Examiner Page, his Twitter and his Facebook!
 




Learn More!

Wednesday, October 7, 2015

American History 101: The Battle of Mobile Bay 08/05/1864

The Civil War is rich with stories of heroes, great victories, stunning defeats and tragedy beyond the realm of what we can imagine today.  In American military lure, few stories are as fantastical, motivational and "American" as the Battle of Mobile Bay.  The Battle of Mobile Bay took place between August 2 and August 23, 1864 -- however the famous naval incursion that we will be talking about took place on August 5, 1864.  The naval battle is noted for the brash and over-confident actions of Rear Admiral David G. Farragut who, after his ironclad had been destroyed by "torpedoes" (what we refer to as mines today) ordered his ships to charge into the bay and attack the Confederate ships, no matter the cost.  It was at this point that history tells us he yelled, "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!"  It is thought by most historians that he did not say these words, and may not have issued a direct order at all.  But more on that later.
Mobile Bay

Mobile Bay is situated at the convergence of the Mobile and Tensaw rivers and feeds out to the Gulf of Mexico.  At the mouth of the bar there is a long peninsula of sand known as Mobile Point which separates the Bon Secour River from the bay and the gulf.  Previous to the Civil War, the federal government had erected a fort at this point to protect the city of Mobile from attack.  Across from that is a series of islands and a secondary entrance to the bay called Grant's Pass.  Early on in the war the Confederate government decided not to defend this entire stretch of land, and instead use what little resources it had to protect what it considered more important ports and harbors.  However, after New Orleans fell to the Union in April of 1864, Mobile became an important port to defend.  It was the only major port on the easter side of the gulf that the Confederacy still had control over.  It was utilized as a pinpoint location for running the Union blockade to Caribbean ports such as Havana.  While the Confederacy successfully ran through the blockade on several occasions from Mobile, none of the incidents was large enough to cause the Union great concern in and of themselves.

One of the interesting tid-bits surrounding the Farragut story and Mobile Bay itself is that Farragut was given orders in 1862 to capture New Orleans, Mobile and squash the Confederacy's ability to work in the Gulf of Mexico all together when he was assigned command of the Western Gulf Blockade Squadron.  However, Rear Admiral Farragut and the full force of his naval power would not descend into the Gulf of Mexico until after Vicksburg fell in July of 1863.  And because of this, the CSA had time to improve its defenses and strategy in the time between New Orleans and Mobile Bay.  The garrisons at Forts Morgan and Gaines were fortified and Grant's Pass was obstructed by pilings and other physical impediments.  

The army landing force was ready to attack on August 3rd, but Farragut wanted to wait for his fourth monitor, the USS Tecumseh, to arrive.  There was some miscommunication of this intent, because the army was staged and ready to go on the 3rd in spite of the lack of naval support.  Because of this, the Confederates were able to plan for and then attack the Union Army sitting and twiddling its collective thumbs.  The Confederacy also was able to see the size of the army and call for reinforcements.  After the battle had concluded, Admiral Farragut said that he felt the miscommunication and delay actually worked in favor of the Union because the reinforcements ended up having no real impact on the fight -- but they were included in the surrendered forces.  And while this was happening, the Tecumseh made its entrance into the bay and the naval forces were ready to fight.  This put Farragut's fleet at 14 wooden-hulled vessels that would be lashed together in pairs.  This way if any one vessel had their engines disabled, both ships guns would still brought to bare in the fight.  The four monitors would form a column, clearing the way into battles for the rest of the ships who would come in featuring a double column formation passing on the port side of the monitors once in the bay -- thus shielding the monitors from view. And when the Confederate ships showed up to defend, the monitors would spring into action attacking the armored Tennessee.

The Union fleet moved into the bay on August 5th with the tide running in to aid their progress.  The monitors, Tecumseh, Manhattan, Winnebago and Chickasaw led the way with the wooden ships following -- led by the Brooklyn who was lashed to the Octorara.  The Brooklyn was chosen because she had four forward facing guns, and the rest of the fleet only had two and she had a "cow catcher" to removing mines attached to her hull.  The Confederates were ready for the attack and responded to the Tecumseh's firing on the Confederate defense.  The Union ships did not fire on the Confederate fleet, as the monitors did, instead they concentrated their fire on the fort.  The Tecumseh's job was the hone in on the Tennessee and she did so quickly.  But in her haste to engage the Tennessee, Commander Craven forgot his orders and took the route most direct across the bay putting the Tecumseh in danger of mines.  Within minutes a mine went off under the hull of the Tecumseh.  The monitor sank, killing all but 21 on-board in a matter of minutes.  The Brooklyn responded by stopping all together and signaling Farragut for orders.  Farragut did not stop the Hartford, instead he came around port on the Brooklyn and the Hartford took the lead charging ahead.  Farragut reasoned that most of the torpedoes (mines) that were in the bay had been submerged too long, and were not operable.  The Tennessee was not nimble enough to ram the Union ships as they sped by.  Farragut's gamble paid off and the entire column of 14 ships passed through the minefield unharmed.  He was able to unleash the full power of his fleet on Fort Gaines and Fort Morgans, making quick work of the ships in the harbor.


CSS Tennessee after its capture
Farragut had expected that the ironclad Tennessee would hide in the relative safety of Fort Morgan's guns.  Instead, Commander Morgan decided to take on the entire Union fleet alone.  It is possible he thought he could repeat the successes of ramming ships that had worked well in previous battles, but it is unclear.  Unfortunately for Buchanan, the Union ships were moving this time and he was unable to catch them.  This set the Tennessee up as the target, not the Union ships.  Ships such as the Monongahela were able to ram the Tennessee and inflict minor damage.  The bigger issue for the Tennessee, outside of being big and slow, was its guns.  There were a number of misfires because of the quality of the gun powder leaving the Tennessee -- the Confederate's ace in the hole -- ineffective.  By the time the Chickasaw and Manhattan joined the battle with the Tennessee, she was already crippled in the water allowing the Manhattan to ram her into submission.

After the naval fleet was defeated, the troops from Fort Powell and Fort Gaines put up little fight, and they were captured.  Fort Morgan was a bit of a different story.  It took a sustained bombardment from the bay coupled with several surges to finally capture Fort Morgan on August 23rd.

While the loss of troops on one side or the other was not significant enough to impact the war, the capture of the bay and the forts along the bay were.  The continued presence near Mobile constrained the Confederate Army's ability to mount any last ditch effort late in the war.  In spite of there being only a relatively small number of troops left in Mobile, the Confederate leadership could not simply pretend they weren't there.  Because of this, they did not shift resources away from the area to reinforce other ailing Confederate efforts.  This alone made the Battle of Mobile Bay key in the Union efforts to squash the Confederacy.  Unfortunately, the immediate impact was not evident and the battle was seen as only a partial victory because Farragut had failed to take the city of Mobile itself.  The Union did not take Mobile until the final days of the war.  But with Major General Sherman's Atlanta Campaign being a sweeping success, the impact of Mobile Bay began to really show its colors.

Now that we've discussed the basics of the events of the battle, we can discuss the myth and lure of then Rear Admiral David Glasgow Farragut.  One of the biggest contributions made by Farragut was the unification of Army and Navy signals.  Part of the reason for the miscommunication between the land and naval forces, and the naval forces themselves was that they used different methods of signaling.  Farragut recognized this, and pushed for the unification of signaling across the armed forces.


Admiral D.G. Farragut
It is thought that Admiral Farragut was actually tied to the rigging of the Hartford during the battle.  This is true.  In fact, he was tied to it twice during the battle.  During the initial fire of the battle, the smoke in the bay made it impossible to see.  So Farragut climbed the rigging until he was high enough to see.  This was not an act of courage or defiance at all, as myth might tell you, in fact it was a practical and protective moment.  Captain Drayton of the Hartford ordered a seaman to secure Farragut to the rigging for his own safety, knowing that if Farragut fell he could be incapacitated.  Farragut is thought to have told the sailor, "Never mind, I'm all right," but the sailor obeyed orders and tied him to the rigging anyway.  Later in the battle, when the Tennessee was attempting to attack the fleet, Farragut again climbed into the rigging of the Hartford to get a better look.  Again, Captain Drayton ordered Lieutenant Watson to secure the Admiral for his own safety.

And now to the most famous story of all... "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!"  The popular story says that when the Brooklyn slowed down to allow the Tecumseh to cross her path, Farragut wanted to know why she was not moving forward.  The reply was that there were torpedoes in her path, it is thought that his reply was "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!"  Putting the story into historical perspective, it is unlikely that any communication across ships in the midst of a battle was possible at all.  And odds are if any such order was given, it would have been to Captain Drayton on the Hartford -- and not the Brooklyn.  There are no stories printed from the time of the battle itself, only ones printed several years later.  And the most common collection of these says that Farragut ordered Drayton, "Damn the torpedoes, four bells go ahead!"  And then followed with a command to the Metacomet (lashed to the Hartford) "Go ahead, Jouett, full speed."  Four bells would have been the setting on the helm that would have been the equivalent to what we call "full speed", since the controls would ring like bells as certain points were passed.  Plus, as we mentioned before, there were no torpedoes as we think of them.  Instead, mines were very commonly referred to as torpedoes at that time.  And today, the common saying comes down as -- "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead."


~~~~
Bruce holds a degree in Computer Science from Temple University, a Graduate Certificate in Biblical History from Liberty University and is working towards a Masters Degree in American History at American Public University.  He has worked in educational and technology for over 18 years, specializes in building infrastructures for schools that work to support the mission of technology in education in the classroom.  He also has served as a classroom teacher in Computer Science, History and English classes.  

Bruce is the author of five books: Sands of TimeTowering Pines Volume One:Room 509The Star of ChristmasPhiladelphia Story: A Lance Carter Detective Novel and The Insider's Story: A Lance Carter Detective Novel -- with a new book, Learn the Basics: Digital Forensics, due soon. 

Follow Bruce's Novel releases by subscribing to his FREE newsletter!

Be sure to check out Bruce's Allentown Education Examiner Page, his Twitter and his Facebook!
 



Learn More!