YubNub Social YubNub Social
    #trafficsafety #assaultcar #carviolence #stopcars #notonemore #carextremism #endcarviolence #tennessee #bancarsnow #stopcrashing #pedestriansafety #tragedy #thinkofthechildren #memphis #best
    Advanced Search
  • Login
  • Register

  • Night mode
  • © 2025 YubNub Social
    About • Directory • Contact Us • Developers • Privacy Policy • Terms of Use • shareasale • FB Webview Detected • Android • Apple iOS • Get Our App

    Select Language

  • English
Install our *FREE* WEB APP! (PWA)
Night mode toggle
Community
New Posts (Home) ChatBox Popular Posts Reels Game Zone Top PodCasts
Explore
Explore
© 2025 YubNub Social
  • English
About • Directory • Contact Us • Developers • Privacy Policy • Terms of Use • shareasale • FB Webview Detected • Android • Apple iOS • Get Our App
Advertisement
Stop Seeing These Ads

Discover posts

Posts

Users

Pages

Blog

Market

Events

Games

Forum

Daily Caller Feed
Daily Caller Feed
1 y

Trump Pledges To ‘Bring Peace To The World’ After ‘Very Good’ Phone Call With Zelenskyy
Favicon 
dailycaller.com

Trump Pledges To ‘Bring Peace To The World’ After ‘Very Good’ Phone Call With Zelenskyy

'Both sides will be able to come together and negotiate a deal'
Like
Comment
Share
Daily Signal Feed
Daily Signal Feed
1 y

Biden Proposes Nationwide Rent Control
Favicon 
www.dailysignal.com

Biden Proposes Nationwide Rent Control

Editor’s note: The following is a lightly edited transcript of the accompanying video from professor Peter St. Onge. Joe Biden’s handlers, desperate to take the spotlight off their candidate’s cognitive dumpster fire—as well as countering Donald Trump’s Matrix-level heroics—announced one of their dumbest plans yet: nationwide rent control. Biden appears to be proposing a 5% cap on rents nationwide, although it’s not entirely clear from his rambling announcement declaring, “It’s time, for example, if I’m reelected, we’re going to make sure that rents are kept at 5% increase for corporate rents, for corporate apartments, and the like, and homes are limited to 5%.” I guess you had to be there. According to the Washington Post, the plan would strip tax benefits from landlords who increase rent more than 5%. Given current inflation, that means just 2% after inflation. Price controls are one of the most destructive phenomena in economics, well known for centuries to cause shortages and make products crappy, in the lingo. They reduce both quantity and quality. Price controls in housing are particularly destructive. In left-wing utopias like New York or San Francisco, they actually worsen housing shortages and increase prices while consigning the poor to housing barely fit for humans. One survey of the American Economic Association found that fully 93% of economists agree that rent control is harmful—epic consensus from economists who rarely agree on anything. Keep in mind that the vast majority of AEA members are actually left-wing. Why is rent control so bad? Because by taking the profit out of renting, it decimates new construction and it chases landlords out of the business—they might convert that duplex back into a single-family home. Many landlords walk away altogether. New York has fully 47,000 abandoned residential properties. Studies in Massachusetts and California found rent control reduced rental units by between 8% and 14%, respectively, in the first decade alone. In the U.K., which has had rent control since 1950, the share of housing provided by private rental units dropped from 53% to just 8%. Over time, these housing shortages can actually push prices up. For example, MNS Realty reports the average rent of a one-bedroom unit in rent-controlled Manhattan is $3,806. Meanwhile, what housing does exist deteriorates fast once you get rent control. After all, if the landlord’s barely breaking even and there’s a housing shortage, they won’t keep the place up. They actually want you to leave so they can reset the rent. We’ve seen this for decades in New York: eye-watering rents for apartments that are falling apart with bare light bulbs, no dishwasher or garbage disposal, and wiring from the 1920s. Whatever you do, don’t plug in the microwave while the TV is on. So, what’s next? Nationwide, rent control would never pass Congress. Meaning Biden’s handlers’ best shot is imposing it through government-owned Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, who own most mortgages in the U.S. and could, in theory, dictate terms on those properties. Thankfully, such a clear end-run around Congress would likely be struck down by the Supreme Court in the wake of its Loper vs. Raimondo decision limiting regulations. Zooming out, as Biden falls in the polls, expect more harebrained schemes from his brain trust of White House interns, scribbling out Hail Mary’s to bribe some new voter constituency, whether college students with loans or renters savaged by Washington’s money printers. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Biden Proposes Nationwide Rent Control appeared first on The Daily Signal.
Like
Comment
Share
NewsBusters Feed
NewsBusters Feed
1 y

'Just Google It': Rep. Waltz Shreds CNN's Fact-Check Of His RNC Speech
Favicon 
www.newsbusters.org

'Just Google It': Rep. Waltz Shreds CNN's Fact-Check Of His RNC Speech

On Wednesday, Dale ran down a list of fact-checks from the night’s speakers. One of which was, “A Florida congressman, Mike Waltz, mocked Biden for allegedly being focused on building electric tanks. That is pure fiction. Biden has made no push for electric tanks, though the army does want some other vehicles to be electrified.” Fast forward to Thursday, and Waltz was eager to rebut Dale’s claim, but Sanchez slowed him down in order to set the scene, “So, there was a CNN fact check of your speech. You mentioned that one point, I want to get this right, you said that Biden was focused on building electric tanks. Apparently that comes from this army climate strategy that said that they wanted to make tactical vehicles electric.”     Waltz jumped in, “Wrong. Let me fact-check your fact-checker.” Bringing the receipts, Waltz proceeded, “I have here Bloomberg reporting, the U.S. Army putting its electric tanks on hold, because they have to further invest in and develop the battery technology. I have testimony with the Secretary of the Army, this issue, I have the budget where they're investing in research and development on electric fighting vehicles, in addition to the non-tactical vehicles mentioned in that climate strategy.” Waltz was just getting started, “So, I would just suggest that Daniel Dale sit down with the chairman of the Readiness Committee, who reviews and approves these budgets, and has the testimony and has the actual facts, before he questioned someone's credibility on national television.” Sanchez feebly tried to mediate, “I'm sure that he would be more than happy to sit down—” Waltz insisted Dale should have thought about that before going on the air, “Well, he should do that before he publicly puts it. I mean, it's forever on the internet. He set it on air. And when we talk about misleading, he's misleading the public. And so, if he's misleading on, 'I have all the facts', if he's misleading on that, what else is he misleading—?” Again, Sanchez tried to defend Dale, “I think you're getting an opportunity to respond to them now. And as you know, congressman, getting to the truth is a process. It's not as cut and dry as it may seem sometimes.” Sanchez isn’t wrong, but that is precisely why having someone like Dale claim to be the personification of truth is so problematic. Facts are important, so is checking them, but if the fact-checkers can’t do that, then they shouldn’t be criticizing others, as Waltz explained, “But, literally minutes after my speech, he's telling the world I'm misleading. There's no way he could review the Army's budget, the research and development, the testimony that I personally received under oath, or how about just Google it and get the facts.” Dale is not alone in trying to debunk the idea that Biden is pushing electric tanks. Indeed, it is something the fact-checkers love to claim is not true, but defending Democrats on their misplaced defense priorities is a time-honored tradition for the fact-checkers. Here is a transcript for the July 17 and 18 shows: CNN Republican National Convention 7/17/2024 11:37 PM ET DANIEL DALE: A Florida congressman, Mike Waltz, mocked Biden for allegedly being focused on building electric tanks. That is pure fiction. Biden has made no push for electric tanks, though the army does want some other vehicles to be electrified. *** CNN News Central 7/18/2024 1:09 PM ET MIKE WALTZ: And just while we're talking that – BORIS SANCHEZ: Sure. WALTZ: I do want to talk Daniel Dale, the CNN lead fact-checker— SANCHEZ: I was going to get to that, yeah. WALTZ: — who, I mean, directly, got on air last night and spoke to my speech where I talked about Biden's military, and his misguided priorities. SANCHEZ: Let's get to that. WALTZ: Yeah. SANCHEZ: So, there was a CNN fact check of your speech. You mentioned that one point, I want to get this right, you said that Biden was focused on building electric tanks. WALTZ: Yup. SANCHEZ: Apparently that comes from this army climate strategy that said that they wanted to make tactical vehicles electric. WALTZ: Wrong. Let me fact check your fact checker. SANCHEZ: Sure. Go ahead. WALTZ: I have here Bloomberg reporting, the US Army putting its electric tanks on hold, because they have to further invest in and develop the battery technology. I have testimony with the Secretary of the Army, this issue, I have the budget where they're investing in research and development on electric fighting vehicles, in addition to the non-tactical vehicles mentioned in that climate strategy. So, I would just suggest that Daniel Dale sit down with the chairman of the Readiness Committee, who reviews and approves these budgets, and has the testimony and has the actual facts, before he questioned someone's credibility on national television. SANCHEZ: I'm sure that he would be more than happy to sit down – WALTZ: Well, he should do that before he publicly puts it. I mean, it's forever on the internet. He set it on air. And when we talk about misleading, he's misleading the public. And so, if he's misleading on, ‘I have all the facts,’ if he's misleading on that, what else is he misleading—? SANCHEZ: I think you're getting an opportunity to respond to them now. WALTZ: Thank you and I appreciate that. SANCHEZ: And as you know, congressman, getting to the truth is a process. It's not as cut and dry as it may seem sometimes. WALTZ: But, literally minutes after my speech, he's telling the world I'm misleading. There's no way he could review the Army's budget, the research and development, the testimony that I personally received under oath, or how about just Google it and get the facts. SANCHEZ: As I said, it's a process, I'm sure he did some research. I would love to have you both on to discuss it at the same time. WALTZ: Let’s go with this afternoon.
Like
Comment
Share
The Blaze Media Feed
The Blaze Media Feed
1 y

Disclosing the truth about UFOs: Dr. Steven Greer
Favicon 
www.theblaze.com

Disclosing the truth about UFOs: Dr. Steven Greer

Dr. Steven Greer is a man on a mission. From his early days as an emergency physician to his current role as a prominent advocate for UFO disclosure, Greer's journey has been defined by a pursuit of truth in the face of secrecy, resistance, and threats to his very existence. Disclosure Greer's foray into the world of UFOs began decades ago with the inception of the Disclosure Project. "Our program began in the 1990s, identifying individuals with top-secret clearances who possessed critical information about UFOs," Greer told me. 'I remind people that if you were to take the worst aspects of the heyday of the Mafia, the organization running these covert projects would make those guys look like choirboys.' This initiative, initially known as Project Starlight, operated discreetly, reflecting the sensitivity of its mission. As he noted, the program officially started “when we began to identify people with top-secret clearances who had information about the UFO/UAP issue." Greer elaborated: The reason we created it, by the way — and this is a little more difficult for the public to appreciate — is that in 1993 and forward, having had meetings with various folks such as the director of the CIA and senior officers in the Pentagon and elsewhere, it became quite clear to me that highly secretive and compartmentalized programs were being run without the consent or knowledge not only of the president but also key members of Congress [as well as] senior generals and admirals in the Pentagon." Unsurprisingly, those in power, the invisible forces that operate in the shadows, are not impressed with Greer's bold initiative In his own words: "We've encountered significant resistance from within government and corporate circles.” "The latest developments include inquiries from Senate Intelligence and Armed Services Committees," Greer said, highlighting persistent efforts to engage policymakers despite historical reluctance to openly address UFO-related issues. The culmination of his efforts occurred at the National Press Club in 2001, where over 20 whistleblowers joined Greer to disclose their experiences to a global audience. Over the years, Greer and his team have compiled a database of over 700 whistleblowers, though only a fraction have chosen to go public. The reason why is simple: Many of these people are terrified of the consequences. Suspicious circumstances And who can blame them? Greer's journey has been fraught with danger. "Several colleagues have died under suspicious circumstances," he disclosed, revealing the risks associated with attempting to lift the veil of secrecy shrouding UFO information. Greer has also faced numerous attempts on his own life. As he put it, "I remind people that if you were to take the worst aspects of the heyday of the Mafia, the organization running these covert projects would make those guys look like choirboys." He wasn't exaggerating. At the heart of Greer's advocacy is his criticism of the much-talked-about "deep state," a hidden network of interests that operates beyond regular oversight "There's a subrosa operation abusing state power, both in the U.S. and globally," he stated, pointing out the widespread impact of undisclosed, even unholy, agendas. The concept of the "deep state" often conjures images of unhinged lunatics in dark corners, whispering about shady figures controlling the levers of power. Yet history has repeatedly shown that one needn't wear a tin-foil hat to acknowledge the existence of hidden forces shaping political landscapes. Consider John F. Kennedy, whose assassination in 1963 remains one of the most debated events in American history. While official narratives point to Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone gunman, many questions linger about the potential involvement of other parties. Decades of investigations, documentaries, and whistleblowers have uncovered layers of conflicting narratives, suggesting a deeper story that the official report intentionally ignored. Then there's Watergate, the 1972 scandal that unraveled the Nixon administration. What began as a botched burglary at the Democratic National Committee headquarters revealed a web of covert operations and illegal surveillance conducted by intelligence agencies. The revelation of tapes exposing Nixon's complicity underscored how far-reaching and clandestine governmental operations could be. And what about the Iran-Contra affair of the 1980s, where covert arms deals and illegal funding mechanisms were eventually exposed through investigative journalism and congressional hearings? These revelations shocked the public. Today, some might argue that the Iran-Contra affair appears quaint. These events illustrate not merely isolated incidents but a pattern of secrecy and manipulation that persists across decades. The deep state isn't a monolithic entity but rather a network of entrenched interests within the military, intelligence, and bureaucratic apparatuses. Their actions transcend electoral cycles, shaping policies and outcomes beyond public scrutiny. Presidents come and go. The deep state remains. Deep state danger During a recent interview with Patrick Bet-David, Greer emphasized this very point. He suggested that contrary to conventional thought, the president isn't the most influential figure in America; in fact, he doesn't rank among the top 100 most influential people in the country. While it's a bold assertion, one doesn't need to be a “Hillary eats babies” nut to subscribe. One of the defining characteristics of the deep state is its ability to conceal actions and motives for years, if not indefinitely. Classified documents, redacted reports, and weaponization of specific branches of government have all served as barriers to transparency. Even when information does emerge, it's often long after the events in question, leaving gaps in public understanding and trust. Considering the inherent dangers associated with his profession, it seemed appropriate to ask Greer if he believes in God. The North Carolina native maintains a spiritual perspective that informs his worldview. “I would say I'm a spiritual person with a spiritual perspective and understanding regarding a supreme being, an afterlife, the soul, and so forth.” “But,” he was quick to add, “I wouldn't call myself religious in the sense of wanting to be associated with any particular sect or organization.” Greer, a workaholic in his 60s with the drive of a man half his age, remains steadfastly focused on advancing the goals of the Disclosure Project. His primary strategy involves engaging directly with policymakers — a painful task full of bureaucratic obstacles and political maneuvering. In truth, a day in the life of Greer appears to be a cross between a Kafka novel and "The Bourne Identity." Rather remarkably, Greer handles it all with impressive composure. "We're actively engaging with the White House and Congress to push for hearings and protections for whistleblowers," he affirmed, signaling ongoing efforts to promote transparency and accountability in UFO disclosures. "We're also in discussions with people at the House Oversight Committee about having open hearings — not with secondhand witnesses." Greer's journey from the world of medicine to UFO disclosure advocate has been a roller coaster of uplifting highs and devastating lows. As history has shown with his predecessors, the dangers he faces are all too real. Will Greer live to see the full realization of his efforts, or will he, like so many before him, meet an untimely end under mysterious circumstances? The answer may lie in how society confronts the truths he seeks to expose.
Like
Comment
Share
RedState Feed
RedState Feed
1 y

NEW: Shooter Was Able to Do One More Unbelievable Thing Before Trump Assassination Attempt
Favicon 
redstate.com

NEW: Shooter Was Able to Do One More Unbelievable Thing Before Trump Assassination Attempt

NEW: Shooter Was Able to Do One More Unbelievable Thing Before Trump Assassination Attempt
Like
Comment
Share
RedState Feed
RedState Feed
1 y

More and More Democrats Are Calling for Biden to Drop Out
Favicon 
redstate.com

More and More Democrats Are Calling for Biden to Drop Out

More and More Democrats Are Calling for Biden to Drop Out
Like
Comment
Share
RedState Feed
RedState Feed
1 y

As Biden 'Fumes' at Pelosi and Obama, Here's What May Delay Any Decision About Getting Out
Favicon 
redstate.com

As Biden 'Fumes' at Pelosi and Obama, Here's What May Delay Any Decision About Getting Out

As Biden 'Fumes' at Pelosi and Obama, Here's What May Delay Any Decision About Getting Out
Like
Comment
Share
RedState Feed
RedState Feed
1 y

Barack Obama: The Man Behind the Democrats' Biden Dilemma
Favicon 
redstate.com

Barack Obama: The Man Behind the Democrats' Biden Dilemma

Barack Obama: The Man Behind the Democrats' Biden Dilemma
Like
Comment
Share
Trending Tech
Trending Tech
1 y

How to customize the iPhone’s Home Screen in iOS 18
Favicon 
bgr.com

How to customize the iPhone’s Home Screen in iOS 18

iOS 18 features one of the most important changes in iPhone history: a revamped Home Screen. With this update, Apple offers unprecedented freedom to customize one of the device's most personal spaces to your heart's content. In this article, we'll teach you everything you need to know about iOS 18's updated Home Screen and how to customize it to better suit your needs. Previously, we taught you how to customize your iPhone Lock Screen, in case you're curious. iOS 18 Home Screen brings more freedom to users with these features Image source: José Adorno for BGR Rearrange apps and widgets: Place your apps and widgets where you want them. Arrange them along the bottom for easier reach or off to the side to frame your favorite wallpaper. Turn apps into widgets: By long-pressing an app in iOS 18, you can turn it into a widget. New look for app icons: App icons and widgets can have a new Dark look. It's also possible to tint the app icons with any color under the rainbow or have iOS 18 suggest a color that complements your wallpaper. Larger apps: You can make app icons larger by removing names from the Home Screen. Hands-on with the all-new iOS 18 Home Screen and how to customize it Image source: José Adorno for BGR Truth be told, I'm not a fan of a super customized Home Screen. However, if you like placing apps freely or you just want to give them a fresh new look, iOS 18 makes it easier than ever. For most of the customization, follow the steps below: Long press the Home Screen Tap the Edit button in the upper left corner Choose Customize From there, you can choose to switch app colors automatically or add a custom option: Dark, Light, or Tinted You can also choose Small or Large icons To turn an app into a widget, long press the app and then choose from the options available. Here, you can decide what you want the widget to look like. Long pressing an app lets you instantly transform it into a widget. Image source: José Adorno for BGR Finally, if you want multiple Home Screens, my suggestion is to set multiple Focus Modes. Below, we'll teach you how to use this game-changing iOS feature. Don't Miss: Focus Mode is a game-changer for iPhone – here’s how to set up and use it The post How to customize the iPhone’s Home Screen in iOS 18 appeared first on BGR. Today's Top Deals Wednesday’s top Prime Day deals: Ninja blenders, laptops, Apple Watches, Crest Whitestrips, Oura Ring, more 75+ leftover Prime Day deals you can still shop today All the best leftover Prime Day deals you can shop on Friday and this weekend Today’s deals: $169 AirPods Pro 2, $21 Philips Sonicare toothbrush, $35 Sony Bluetooth speaker, more
Like
Comment
Share
History Traveler
History Traveler
1 y

Henry Halleck: Polarizing Figure of the US Civil War
Favicon 
www.historyisnowmagazine.com

Henry Halleck: Polarizing Figure of the US Civil War

Major General Henry Halleck was a central figure in the US Civil War, being the General in Chief of the Armies of the United States from 1862-1864. However, he is often overlooked and even outright denigrated by modern minds. His portrayal in historical descriptions and fictional accounts borders on the derisory. Typical character traits that are emphasized include being a bureaucrat, a wine gourmet, and emotionally separated from the battlefield. These polarizing depictions do not give credit to a general who was a highly skilled political and administrative man who was indispensable to victory. Part of his negative historical reputation is that he wasn’t a great field commander during the war, but the concept that generals have to be battle warriors rather than policy or administrative types may fill the popular mold, but it’s not correct. Few people have the hands-on experience of foreign policy that generals do. So, men like Dwight Eisenhower, George C Marshall, Douglas MacArthur, William Westmoreland, David Petraeus, and Mark Miley deserve recognition for primarily setting policy. But Halleck lacked the diplomatic skills among his peers that these more successful men had, which may be why we remember him with such disdain.Lloyd W Klein explains. Major General Henry Halleck during the US Civil War. Early Life and CareerHalleck was born on a farm in Upstate New York and hated that life. He was raised by an uncle who set him up for a military career. He went to West Point where he excelled, graduating 3rd in his class. He was a favorite student of Dennis Hart Mahan. He became a member of the elite Army Corps of Engineers, who studied and improved the defenses of New York Harbor and traveled to Europe to see what the French were doing. He along the way wrote books on military science. He gave a series of lectures in Boston which were collected and published in 1846 as Elements of Military Art & Science.On his way to California for the Mexican War, he didn’t waste his time playing shuffleboard; he instead did something that made him quite famous. He translated Jomini’s Vie Politique et Militaire de Napoleon into English. This book made him famous in America and in Europe. The point of this book was how Napoleon used his military power to achieve political ends.He was engaged at the Battle of Mazatlán but was primarily an administrative officer. Having achieved a reputation as a military scholar, he acquired the nickname “Old Brains”.After the war, he resigned from the army opened a law firm, and became secretary of state of California. He married Elizabeth Hamilton, Alexander Hamilton’s granddaughter. He resigned from the army in 1854. His firm Halleck, Peachy, and Billings was highly prominent. He also was for a time president of the Atlantic and Pacific RR. He also remained a Major General in the California militia. Through land speculation, became a wealthy man. He owned a 30,000-acre ranch in Marin County.  The Civil War BeginsWhen the Civil War broke out, Halleck promptly volunteered, and Abraham Lincoln promptly made him a full major general. Despite being out of the army at that point for 7 years, he was ranked only by Winfield Scott, George McClellan, and John C. Frémont.In November, Halleck was sent to St. Louis in command of the Department of the Missouri.  He replaced Frémont, who had been nothing short of a disaster. The department was rife with corruption and fraud. Halleck quickly put his administrative talents to work, and within a few months restored a measure of order to a region defined up to that point by chaos.A series of important Union victories in his department followed. Even though he did not lead the troops personally, his organizational work had helped and Halleck, rightly or wrongly, received much of the credit. These included Pea Ridge, Island No. 10, Fort Donelson, and Shiloh.  Although he was not the commander in the field in any of these battles, he was responsible for ordering the movements that led to the battles, supervising the generals who were there, and supplying their forces.After Shiloh, he led the Corinth campaign. His approach was to move slowly and entrench every mile or so. His methodical style was not what was needed. Beauregard was able to hold the city for over a month, then retreat without a battle. In retrospect, he could have captured the town in a week. Keeping in mind that he was a student of Mahan, and translated Jomini, both defense-minded strategists, he was fighting a Napoleonic war, not the Civil War. Old Brains was strategically obsolete. Halleck & GrantHis relationship with his best subordinate general was difficult. When the senior manager has in his department a budding genius, how that relationship plays out tells you oodles about the kind of person he is. Ulysses Grant was a brigadier general in Halleck’s department who had never been in command of anything before, perhaps including his own sobriety. But Grant proposed an amphibious combined forces operation on the Tennessee and Cumberland rivers to take out Forts Henry and Donelson. Nothing like that had ever been tried and certainly was not in the books Halleck had written. I’m not sure what any of us would have thought about Sam Grant in January 1862 if we were his superior, especially when he proposed an aggressive attack to a defense-minded Old Brain.But the resulting victory and capture of 14,000 confederates as the eastern theater was doing nothing made Halleck an important man. He promoted Grant but then relieved him, only to reinstate him. Grant wondered about this, leading to a highly cynical response from Halleck that whistles throughout history. What did Sherman and Grant think about Halleck at this point? Was it accurate?What changed Halleck’s mind about Grant’s plan for Fort Donelson was President Lincoln’s need for a victory. Lincoln was insistent that an offensive be started, and Halleck had no better ideas. Lincoln order was issued January 27th, ordering all Federal forces to advance on February 22nd.But despite the victories at Donelson &  Henry, Halleck initially demoted him. Grant left his district to meet Buell in Nashville and did not immediately stop looting at the two captured forts. Halleck also cited rumors of renewed alcoholism. There are rumors of a rogue telegraph operator tossing Grant's messages to Halleck, but Halleck had issues throughout the war.  The recent Samuel Curtis bio suggests that Halleck had his aides create a digest for all communications, so Halleck was constantly under the impression that his subordinates were not communicating to him regularly when the digest failed to represent their activity. Ostensibly, for whatever reason, Halleck claimed Grant had gone incommunicado, but there appears to have been some jealousy involved because instead of claiming that Grant was not communicating appropriately, Halleck accused him of being drunk.Once again, Lincoln and Stanton intervened. Lincoln asked Halleck to forward specific charges against Grant for official review, and Halleck was promoted to command of all armies in the west.  His jealousy being sated and his hand called, Halleck restored Grant to command. Their correspondence is ironic because Grant complained about his arrest by claiming "… there must be enemies between you and myself" and Halleck responded "…there are no enemies between myself and you," which was the truth because the enemy was Halleck himself.Why Halleck wanted to take credit for Grant’s victory isn’t hard to understand; because it was the first major Federal victory of the war, and Halleck could parlay the victory into command of all forces in the West. Lincoln needed a general who wasn’t afraid to fight. In that sense, Halleck was a clone of McClellan, and they couldn’t have that in both theaters. Grant asked him if someone was giving Halleck bad reports about him, Halleck responded in the negative without telling him that it was he, himself, responsible. Halleck was not the commander of the Western Theater; Buell was his competition. Halleck needed the credit for his advancement.At this stage of the war, both Grant and Sherman thought highly of Halleck and owed him their positions. Halleck was the master at that point in the war, certainly in terms of paperwork and administration. Grant had many of the qualities of a great leader that Halleck would never have: gut instinct, fearlessness, and indomitable energy. But any book on being a CEO today will tell you just as important is a sense of humility.  If you find yourself the smartest person in the room, you're in the wrong room.  Grant was not a great military thinker, but he was the greatest idea aggregator.  He sought to surround himself with thinkers and then would forge plans as an aggregate of the part. Grant regarded Halleck as "one of the greatest men of the age" and Sherman described him as the "directing genius". And why not? Halleck was in command of the best department in the Army at that point. Curtis had won at Pea Ridge, Pope at Island  Number 10, and Grant at Donelson. And in fact, he deserves some of the credit. Halleck understood grand strategy a little better than McClellan and had the ability to recognize and promote talent, but also the ambition and ego to resent being overshadowed by their successes.  Lincoln put him in the right place - where he could have rank and wield some power, and be close to power, but where he couldn't interfere any more than Lincoln himself allowed him to.  He was more than a clerk but much less than the commanding general he wanted to be. Advancement to General-in-ChiefIn March 1862 Halleck was given command also of Ohio and Kansas, placing Buell under his command. With Grant under personal attack after Shiloh, Halleck arrived to personally command this army and move on to Corinth. While Grant felt that he was being shunted aside, Halleck to some extent was doing them both a favor.With the fall of Corinth and the collapse of the Peninsula Campaign, Halleck was transferred east to become General-in-Chief. He placed Grant in command of most of the Western forces. Lincoln was hopeful that Halleck could stimulate aggressiveness; but while Halleck excelled at training, supply, and deployment, he was awful as a strategist and unable to work with the generals under him, who simply ignored him.Most accounts of Halleck moving Grant to his second in command suggest a nefarious motivation. The problem is that while how things turned out for Grant is well known, after Shiloh, he was under a massive media attack. The fact that Grant had been the victim of a surprise attack made him, at that moment, tough to support. But as much as Halleck didn’t support Grant, he was even less inclined to trust the volunteer generals under him.But his failings at this level of command would soon become obvious. His biggest failure was the coup de grace for Lincoln’s views of him. When McClellan didn’t come to support Pope at Second Manassas, Lincoln lost hope in Halleck, calling him “little more than a first-rate clerk”. To be fair, there were no better generals for either Lincoln or Halleck to select from, and it’s a bit unfair to pin the blame on Halleck. Lincoln had promoted him to get the results he had in the west, but with eastern generals.  Still, Halleck was a bit thin-skinned and thereafter refused to take direct responsibility for anything that happened.His subordinates had little respect for him. McClellan said of Halleck, “Of all the men who I have encountered in high position, Halleck was the most helplessly stupid. It was more difficult to get an idea through his head than can be conceived by anyone who never made the attempt. I do not think he ever had a correct military idea from beginning to end.” Gideon Welles, the Secretary of the Navy wrote, “Halleck originates nothing, anticipates nothing to assist others; takes no responsibility, plans nothing, suggests nothing, is good for nothing." Grant Supersedes HalleckGrant was promoted to Lt Gen and general-in-chief on March 12, 1864. Halleck became chief of staff, and Grant graciously stated that he had been relieved at his own request. Grant of course took a completely different view of the job than Halleck had, accompanying Meade’s army in the field and setting strategy at the battlefield.Which left Halleck back in Washington, doing what he did best: ensuring proper supplies, equipment, and manpower. He supported Grant’s initiatives politically and the two worked very well in complementary roles. But with Jubal Early threatening the city, Halleck had responsibility for its defense. Halleck’s inability to organize a defense of the capital was his final disgrace. Chaos reigned. He did ultimately gather together a force that held Early off. Were it not for Monocacy, he might have entered the city. After the WarWith Lincoln’s assassination, Stanton took the first opportunity he could and moved Halleck out of Washington to a new job, where Halleck made a very serious political enemy. Stanton had had enough of Halleck, and without Lincoln around to hold him back, he made Halleck commander of the Division of the James, which meant Richmond. When Sherman offered Johnston the infamous gracious original surrender terms, Stanton suggested that Sherman was a traitor (actually, he was implementing what he thought Lincoln would have wanted based on their meeting at City Point) and Halleck, ever the politician, went along with it. This upset Sherman; and things deteriorated when at the Grand Review Halleck ordered one of Sherman’s Corps to pass him, which Sherman countermanded. This was a shocking turn of events since Halleck had given Sherman every opportunity to rehabilitate himself when he was deemed “crazy” at the start of the war.Consequently, just 4 months later, Grant moved him to political exile Grant moved him back to San Francisco as commander of the Division of the Pacific. Given his home and residence there, Grant must be complimented on trying to help out his old chief as best as he could. A few years later, he was moved to command in Louisville, where he died a few years later. ConclusionHalleck was a bureaucrat, in every sense of the word, both good and bad. His need for success, like many of the others in the Union Army at the start of the war, precluded taking chances or doing anything not politically correct. He also had the wrong temperament for field command and was promoted beyond his capability. Still, he was an intelligent man whose inability to work with others led to terrible personal relationships, rather than he being incompetent. Administration takes on a negative connotation in the context of glorified heroes of battle, but he should be recognized for his positive contributions as well as his flaws. Find that piece of interest? If so, join us for free by clicking here.
Like
Comment
Share
Showing 64983 out of 99919
  • 64979
  • 64980
  • 64981
  • 64982
  • 64983
  • 64984
  • 64985
  • 64986
  • 64987
  • 64988
  • 64989
  • 64990
  • 64991
  • 64992
  • 64993
  • 64994
  • 64995
  • 64996
  • 64997
  • 64998
Advertisement
Stop Seeing These Ads

Edit Offer

Add tier








Select an image
Delete your tier
Are you sure you want to delete this tier?

Reviews

In order to sell your content and posts, start by creating a few packages. Monetization

Pay By Wallet

Payment Alert

You are about to purchase the items, do you want to proceed?

Request a Refund