In September 1861‚ while stationed in Paducah‚ Ky.‚ Private John H. Page of the 1st Illinois Light Artillery received notice that he had been promoted to second lieutenant in the 3rd U.S. Infantry and was to report for duty in Washington‚ D.C. After packing his belongings‚ Page caught a boat for Cairo‚ Ill.‚ where he reported to the general in charge of the District of Southeast Missouri before obtaining transportation for the next leg of his journey. Page immediately recognized Ulysses S. Grant perched behind a wire screen at a local bank where the general had set up his headquarters. “He looked at my commission and seemed buried in deep thought‚” Page recalled. “He looked at me intently and repeated several times‚ Jno. Page‚” apparently lost in reverie. It took a tap on the shoulder by a gray-haired officer in attendance to snap Grant out of his trance. Assuredly‚ Grant had been reminiscing about the Mexican War‚ Page suspected‚ when he‚ then a 24-year-old second lieutenant‚ personally witnessed a Mexican cannonball mortally wound Page’s father‚ Captain John Page Sr.‚ during the fierce Battle of Palo Alto. “No doubt‚” Page concluded in observing Grant’s unusual reaction‚ “his thoughts‚ when looking at my commission were wandering back to his early days.” John Page Jr.‚ just 4 when his father was mortally wounded‚ rose in rank to brigadier general and would serve 42 years in the U.S Army. Grant and Private Page had both lost something special during the U.S. victory at Palo Alto on May 8‚ 1846: Page ultimately his father‚ and Grant his innocence. We‚ of course‚ will never know for sure what crossed Grant’s mind when the young private handed him his commission‚ but the now 39-year-old brigadier had perhaps revisited the senior Page’s disfiguring wound‚ him writhing in agony on the plains of Palo Alto…the comrade he had lost 15 years earlier. For many of the more than 500 Mexican War veterans who became Confederate or Union generals during the Civil War‚ battle deaths evoked strong emotional reactions. Those traumatic experiences had introduced them to the dreadful lessons of war: that it was terrible‚ that loss and grief were normal‚ and how to cope with them. Inevitably‚ death in battle played a significant role in shaping their identities. Dr. Nigel C. Hunt‚ who studies war trauma and memory‚ stresses that most individuals who go through such ordeals react with intense memories or emotions when recalling what they witnessed‚ although that doesn’t necessarily mean they will suffer from long-term or debilitating problems. Even with these memories indelibly etched into their minds‚ most continue to live normal lives. Grant and his comrades never forget what they saw or how they felt when confronted with death on the battlefield in Mexico. “I cannot feel exultation” Mexican War battles were bloody affairs‚ especially for U.S. Army officers. They made up 8 percent of the war’s battle deaths‚ which surpassed the mortality rate of other U.S. 19th-century conflicts. Renowned historian James M. McPherson says that in the Union and Confederate armies during the Civil War‚ the proportion of officers killed in action was about 15 percent higher than that of enlisted men. During the Mexican War‚ the proportion of officers killed in action or who died of their wounds was more than 40 percent higher than the rank and file. During Maj. Gen. Winfield Scott’s 1847 Mexico City Campaign‚ for instance‚ his army lost 61 officers killed to roughly 703 soldiers (8 percent). In comparison‚ during the Seven Days’ Battles in 1862‚ the Army of Northern Virginia lost 175 officers killed to 3‚494 soldiers (5 percent). If the losses sustained among Confederate officers during the spring and summer of 1862 were staggering‚ as Dr. Joseph T. Glatthaar suggests‚ the mortality rate among Scott’s officers in Mexico was catastrophic. Major Edmund Kirby‚ who lost many dear friends and cherished companions‚ including his nephew‚ during Scott’s campaign‚ wrote to his wife‚ Eliza: “Blood. Blood. Blood. Enough has been shed to excite the worst enthusiastic joy throughout our dear country. Enough to cause tears to flow sufficient to float a ship of war.” The Mexican War was an emotionally taxing experience for its soldiers‚ especially its officers‚ who witnessed a disturbing proportion of their comrades die in battle. When Scott’s army seized Mexico City‚ 1st Lt. John Sedgwick wrote his sister‚ Olive‚ that “were it not for the loss of so many near and dear friends‚—friends with whom we have enjoyed all the pleasures of a long peace‚ and with whom we have shoulder to shoulder encountered and vanquished the enemy…our situation would be pleasant.” Captain Isaac I. Stevens‚ also with Scott’s army‚ told his wife‚ Margaret‚ that while he was alive and healthy‚ he could hardly celebrate. “I cannot feel exultation‚” he admitted. “We have lost many brave officers and men‚ some my personal friends; streams of blood have in reality flowed over the battlefield.” Both generals were later killed while serving in the Union Army during the rebellion—Sedgwick at the Wilderness in May 1864‚ and Stevens at Chantilly (Ox Hill) in September 1862. GET HISTORY’S GREATEST TALES—RIGHT IN YOUR INBOX Subscribe to our HistoryNet Now! newsletter for the best of the past‚ delivered every Monday and Thursday. Close Thank you for subscribing! Email Submit After the August 1847 Battle of Contreras‚ Captain Robert E. Lee‚ eventually the Confederacy’s most famous general‚ best captured the emotional distress it caused many when he declared: “It is the living for whom we should mourn‚ and not the dead.” Studies that address Civil War generals and their role in the Mexican War typically concentrate on the military lessons they took away from their service and how they applied them on Civil War battlefields. That is important‚ but what is often overlooked is the emotional impact the war‚ especially battle deaths‚ had on them during the short but costly struggle. The sickening sights on battlefields or in hospitals‚ and the sudden and violent loss of comrades‚ friends‚ or relatives‚ evoked a flood of intense emotions such as grief‚ horror‚ shock‚ melancholy‚ guilt‚ loneliness‚ helplessness‚ and numbness. The deeper the bond with the deceased individual‚ the more emotionally impactful the loss. To better understand the individuals who fought in Mexico before the Civil War‚ we must begin to look beyond the war as merely a “training ground” or a jovial gathering of friends-turned-enemies and recognize the emotional impact battlefield deaths had on them. Distress and Detachment Second Lieutenant Henry M. Judah‚ a Union brigadier general who commanded a division during the 1864 Atlanta Campaign‚ found it unsettling to recollect to his mother‚ Mary‚ what he had experienced at the Battle of Monterrey in September 1846. “Their cries and groans‚ the terrible hissing of the cannon and musket balls‚ which filled the air‚ added to the roar of artillery in every direction‚ made an impression that I could never describe‚” he wrote to her three days after Brig. Gen. Zachary Taylor’s army captured the city. During the battle‚ several musket balls had grazed his cheeks‚ and had his sword knocked from his hand by a cannonball. An 1843 West Point classmate and fellow lieutenant fell dead mere feet away from him. Dazed and dirtied‚ Judah hunkered down behind a mound of earth as a shower of artillery and musket fire passed just feet above his head. “[E]very face looked blank—all were exhausted—and the wounded and the dead were mixed with the living‚” he recalled. When Mexican soldiers began to advance on their position‚ a feeling of indifference overtook the young lieutenant. The emotional callousness alarmed him more than anything else he felt that day. “My feelings at this moment were more horrible than those of death‚” he admitted to his mother. “I began to feel reckless‚ and cared not how soon it came.” Within only a short period‚ Judah experienced a surge of fear‚ excitement‚ anxiety‚ horror‚ dread‚ and detachment. The emotional highs and lows of combat‚ as Judah experienced‚ can be overwhelming for a soldier‚ but the battle’s aftermath can be equally—and arguably more so—distressing emotionally. Two future Union generals‚ Henry M. Judah (left) and Charles S. Hamilton (right)‚ coped in different ways with the deaths they experienced during the Mexican War. Hamilton repressed his emotions; Judah wrestled with the horror. The first two battles fought during the Mexican War‚ on May 8-9‚ 1846‚ left both fields littered with death and destruction. Mutilated men and horses‚ abandoned wagons‚ discarded weapons‚ and everything of which an army is composed carpeted the landscapes at Palo Alto and‚ the following day‚ Resaca de la Palma. Steel‚ lead‚ and iron inflicted horrific wounds—mangling limbs‚ crushing heads‚ and severing bodies and trunks. Most Civil War generals who fought at these two battles were exposed to the butchery of war for the first time in their lives. “Such a field of carnage never was before witnessed by any of us‚” 1st Lt. William H.T. Brooks‚ who commanded a 6th Corps division during the Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville campaigns of 1862-63‚ wrote home after the battle. Second Lieutenant John J. Peck‚ who for a time during the Civil War commanded all Union troops in Virginia south of the James River‚ told his father that while the two armies battled at Resaca de la Palma‚ the American soldiers paid little attention to the dead Mexican soldiers. “[B]ut after the excitement of battle has passed away‚” he admitted‚ “our sympathies were aroused‚ and I felt keenly all the horrors of war.” Judah‚ who provided his mother with a vivid account of his Monterrey ordeal‚ admitted that the mutilated bodies on the Resaca battlefield were a terrible vision. He couldn’t find the words to describe the horror. A day later‚ he remained haunted by the experience‚ writing her: “The cries of the wounded still ring in my ears.” Processing Trauma Battlefield death left a lasting impression on the survivors. “I was somewhat affected by the sight‚” said 1st Lt. Charles S. Hamilton‚ later a Union major general‚ after coming upon the mangled bodies of Mexican soldiers killed at Monterrey‚ “but ere the night of that day had closed I learned to look upon the dead with as little emotion as I would regard a stone.” Consciously or subconsciously‚ Hamilton was using repression as a defensive mechanism. According to Dr. Dillon J. Carroll‚ who studied and wrote about mental illness during the Civil War‚ soldiers used emotional desensitization or “hardening” to cope with death—as did Mexican War soldiers. In his memoirs‚ Hamilton confessed the sight of those dead Mexican soldiers at Monterrey “affected me more than any other scene during the entire war.” The majestic landscape framing the Battle of Monterrey in September 1846 couldn’t mask the horror‚ despite General Zachary Taylor’s resounding victory‚ that several young U.S. officers would internalize for the remainder of their lives‚ among them Ulysses S. Grant. When Hamilton arrived at Bishop’s Palace the morning after the battle‚ he witnessed additional horror‚ later providing a graphic account. He watched a Mexican soldier struck by a shell that had burst and obliterated him as it passed through his body. “If you imagine a human being ground by two avalanches crushing him between them‚” Hamilton would write‚ “you would have a similar sight.” The other soldier had been hit in the forehead by a musket ball. His brain oozed from a hole in the back of his head and dried foam clung to his lips as he had taken his last gasping breaths. “Enough of these descriptions‚” Hamilton would note. “[Y]ou will little like them‚ while I have become callous to the most ghastly sights.” Dr. Carol Acton‚ who has studied wartime grief‚ says that‚ for soldiers‚ writing about a traumatic experience offers them the means to express and cope with emotional distress and grief. Conceding that his loved ones might wince at his graphic descriptions‚ Hamilton shared what he saw and felt anyway‚ likely as a way to process the trauma. Lew Wallace was a second lieutenant in Mexico who would hold important Civil War commands at both Shiloh (1862) and Monocacy (1864). Returning to a particular battlefield often triggered emotions many years later. Lew Wallace‚ a second lieutenant in Mexico who would hold important Civil War commands at both Shiloh (1862) and Monocacy (1864)‚ said that‚ despite all his subsequent experiences in war‚ one section of the Buena Vista battlefield was the most horrible after-battle scene he had witnessed. “The dead lay in the pent space body on body‚ a blending and interlacement of parts of men as defiant of the imagination as of the pen‚” the future author of the famed novel Ben-Hur would write. Wallace made three pilgrimages to the Buena Vista battlefield over a seven-year-period. On one of his visits‚ he noticed a Mexican farmer with a hoe casually digging a path in the dirt and leading a stream of water to irrigate a wheatfield. It was the same field he had described above. Wallace wondered if the healthy-looking wheat had been nurtured by the blood of the American soldiers struck down there in February 1847. Eternal Camaraderie It is one thing for a soldier to observe the death of another with whom he had no intimate relationship than to watch a mentor‚ messmate‚ or close friend die in combat. The emotional bond formed among soldiers is distinct‚ as they suffer and face dangers together‚ risk their lives for one another‚ and rely on each other for emotional support and survival. For many of the U.S. Army’s junior officers who served in the Mexican War‚ they had spent years together before the conflict‚ as West Point classmates or for long periods at isolated frontier outposts. When a comrade was killed in battle‚ this eternal camaraderie understandably brought forth intense emotions comparable to the loss of a family member. Ulysses Grant became familiar with shattered friendships and loss in Mexico. Even though Palo Alto was Grant’s first battle‚ it was not the fear of death that most affected him‚ but the sight of a colleague (especially a friend) suffering a horrific wound. For Grant‚ that had been “the ghastly hideousness of his visage” as Captain John Page‚ his face shot away by an enemy cannonball‚ “reared in convulsive agony from the grass.” As he wrote his friend John W. Lowe about Captain Page’s disfiguring wound: “The under jaw is gone to the wind pipe and the tongue hangs down upon the throat.” In his memoirs‚ written nearly 40 years later‚ Grant relived the detail of that enemy cannonball that had decapitated one soldier and then mutilated Page‚ splattering nearby American soldiers with brain matter and bone fragments. Page was the first of many of Grant’s comrades killed during the war‚ but he was the closest with 2nd Lt. Robert Hazlitt‚ a fellow Ohioan and graduate of West Point’s Class of 1843‚ one of 18 U.S. officers killed or mortally wounded at Monterrey. Hazlitt regularly accompanied Grant on his visits to the White Haven Plantation near St. Louis when he began courting Julia Dent. Grant tended to internalize his emotions‚ but‚ having lost so many friends at Monterrey‚ finally broke down. “How very lonesome it is here with us now‚” he wrote to Julia a month after the battle. “I have just been walking through camp and how many faces that were dear to the most of us are missing now.” Three other lieutenants in the regiment had been struck down storming the city besides Hazlitt‚ and remained constantly on Grant’s mind: Charles Hoskins‚ Richard H. Graham‚ and James S. Woods. Was Grant experiencing bereavement overload‚ survivor’s guilt‚ or both? To drive away “the Blues‚” Grant retrieved some old letters and a journal he kept while stationed at Jefferson Barracks‚ Mo.‚ and reminisced about happier times. Grant expressed his close friendship with Hazlitt in a November letter to Hazlitt’s brother‚ James‚ assuring him that only his dear friend’s family could feel his death more deeply. Monterrey‚ Grant wrote‚ “will be remembered by all here present as one of the most melancholy of their lives.” As Grant’s fame grew during the Civil War‚ he used his influence to assist the relatives of one of the officers he mourned in 1846. In late 1863‚ Charles Hoskins’ widow‚ Jennie‚ wrote to Grant from New Rochelle‚ N.Y.‚ imploring him to help her 17-year-old son‚ John Deane Charles Hoskins‚ secure an appointment to the U.S. Military Academy. Grant had lent the boy’s father his horse shortly before he was killed at Monterrey. In January 1864‚ Grant had Illinois Rep. Elihu B. Washburne deliver a note to President Abraham Lincoln asking him to appoint the boy to West Point. On a military telegraph approving Hoskins’ appointment‚ Lincoln scribbled the words “Gen. Grant’s boy” next to the cadet’s name. A month after Grant was appointed to the rank of lieutenant general‚ Jennie Hoskins wrote him reporting that her son had received the appointment. (He would graduate in 1868‚ serve for 40 years‚ and retire as a brigadier general.) Family Bonds Captain Robert E. Lee’s eyes stayed glued on his older brother‚ U.S. Navy Lieutenant Sydney Smith Lee‚ when the American guns opened on the Mexican defenses at Vera Cruz in March 1847. Robert’s brotherly instinct kicked in‚ and he was determined to shield Sydney from danger‚ even though there was little he could do to protect him from the enemy’s shells. The thought of Sydney being wounded or killed‚ however‚ petrified him. As he would write his wife‚ Mary‚ afterward: “[W]hat would I have done had he been cut down before me!” Fortunately for Lee‚ he did not have to find out. But there were a handful of other Civil War generals who experienced Lee’s worst fear and more when a blood relative was killed. Difficult to comprehend perhaps‚ the subsequent U.S. assault at Molino del Rey would eclipse anything Grant and other U.S. soldiers had experienced at Monterrey. On September 8‚ 1847‚ General Scott ordered an attack on a cluster of stone buildings and earthworks to capture a foundry in which he believed the Mexicans were melting church bells to cast cannons. In only two hours‚ however‚ Brig. Gen. William Worth lost nearly 25 percent of his force‚ and 17 U.S. officers were either killed during the battle or would die of their wounds. Robert E. Lee‚ then a 40-year-old captain‚ figured significantly in Scott’s 20-day siege against Vera Cruz in March 1847‚ responsible for placing naval guns brought ashore for the siege. Lee’s older brother‚ Sydney‚ helped man those guns—a source of relentless stress for the future Confederate luminary. When Ethan Allen Hitchcock‚ acting inspector general to Scott‚ visited the field after the debacle‚ he came upon Captain William Chapman of the 5th U.S. Infantry. In a moment jarringly similar to the one Confederate Maj. Gen. George E. Pickett famously had on July 3‚ 1863‚ after Pickett’s Charge at Gettysburg‚ Chapman pointed to the regiment’s survivors—now reduced roughly to the size of a company—and exclaimed with tears rolling down his face: “There’s the Fifth.” Among the mortally wounded was Captain Ephraim Kirby Smith of Chapman’s regiment. A musket ball had struck him in the face under the left eye and passed through his head‚ exiting near the left ear. Smith’s uncle‚ Major Edmund Kirby‚ had Ephraim (“Kirby” to family members) taken to his quarters in Tacubaya. Second Lieutenant Edmund Kirby Smith‚ the fallen warrior’s brother‚ would become famous as a Confederate lieutenant general and commander of the Trans-Mississippi Department during the Civil War. Known by family members as “Ted‚” he would visit his mortally wounded sibling several times‚ but when he arrived on September 11 to the hospital where “Kirby” had been moved‚ Ted learned his brother had died. Having lost his father‚ Joseph Lee Smith‚ in May and now his older brother just four months apart was deeply distressing‚ and Ted also feared for his brother’s three young children—Joseph‚ Emma‚ and George—left to grow up without their father. The young lieutenant was also pained by his sister-in-law’s financial welfare‚ as no pension system existed in the Army at the time for soldiers’ widows. How would she and her children cope? Among the eerie thoughts plunging through his anguished mind was that it would have been better had he been killed and not his brother. “Burned into the Soul” When Captain John W. Lowe arrived in Mexico City in the spring of 1848‚ he noted that his friend Ulysses Grant had undergone a transformation‚ writing to his wife: “[H]e is a short thick man with a beard reaching half way down his waist and I fear he drinks too much but don’t you say a word on that subject.” While some writers believe that Lowe’s statement was an early indication of Grant’s alcoholism‚ they overlook what he might really have been trying to convey: that Grant was battling his traumatic war experiences. The lieutenant had been in Mexico for two years‚ away from Julia for three‚ and had participated in nearly all the war’s major battles without an opportunity to take leave. He had witnessed much death and many close friends die. After the death of Sidney Smith‚ a friend and second lieutenant in the 4th U.S. Infantry‚ in 1847‚ he told Julia that out of all the officers that left Jefferson Barracks with the 4th‚ only three‚ including himself‚ remained. In fact‚ 21 percent of the officers who started the war in Grant’s regiment were killed or died of their wounds‚ and 11 percent of the 4th’s battle deaths consisted of officers. The high fatality rate among officers in Grant’s regiment led to the nickname “the Bloody 4th.” In 1884‚ the year before Grant died of throat cancer‚ The Salt Lake Tribune reported that Grant retained vivid recollections of his pre-Civil War years: “[T]he Mexican War seems more distinct to him than the Rebellion‚” the newspaper declared‚ and also maintained that the war’s battles were “burned into the soul of Grant as with a brand of fire.” In his memoirs‚ Grant claimed that he greatly benefited from the “many practical lessons it taught‚” but he omitted his more private experiences. As he was hesitant to openly express his inner feelings‚ particularly when he expected them to be published and shared with the public‚ it is not surprising Grant decided to omit the grief and loneliness he had experienced with the death of comrades in Mexico. Those emotions‚ however‚ are evident in his private letters. Grant wasn’t alone in expressing this inner turmoil. Many Mexican War veterans who became Civil War generals likewise expressed their deepest feelings in private journals‚ letters home‚ and postwar memoirs. Certainly‚ both Union and Confederate generals gained valuable military experience in Mexico that they would apply in the Civil War. It is important‚ however‚ to recognize that the Mexican War also served as an emotional training ground for these leaders. The deaths they witnessed taught them harsh lessons about the realities of war‚ triggered powerful emotional responses‚ and left a lasting impact on their character and values long before the Civil War. Frank Jastrzembski‚ a regular America’s Civil War contributor‚ writes from Hartford‚ Wis. This article originally appeared in the Spring 2024 issue of America’s Civil War magazine.

A clever dog showed off how smart she was‚ even in a dangerous situation‚ when she ran a mile to ask for help at her doggy daycare after being in a car accident on February 24‚ Saturday.

Things I Like: Bari Weiss and the Free Press

Kamala Harris Calls for an Immediate Ceasefire - "No Excuses"

Researchers in South Korea have created a remarkable first-ever encodable multifunctional material‚ which can be shifted into different shapes and mechanical properties in real-time. The inspiration for this new metamaterial came from an unlikely place: octopuses.According to the researchers‚ this material surpasses the limits of existing materials and opens new possibilities for various fields that require quick adaptability‚ especially within robotics.Overcoming the hard limits of soft machinesWhen compared to biological examples‚ soft machines tend to fall behind in terms of their ability to adapt to constantly changing surroundings. This is because there are significant limitations with their real-time tunability‚ as well as restrictions on the range of their reprogrammable properties and functionalities. That is‚ until now.The new digitally programmable material has multiple remarkable mechanical capabilities‚ including shape-shifting and memory‚ stress-strain responses‚ and Poisson’s ratio (which shows how the cross-section of a deformable body changes under lengthwise stretching) under compression load.In addition‚ the new material demonstrates application-oriented functionalities‚ such as tunable and reusable energy absorption and pressure delivery.The breakthrough may usher in a new age of development for fully adaptive soft robots and smart interactive machines.“We introduced a metamaterial composite system that allows for gradational and reversible adjustments in various mechanical information by translating encoded digital pattern information into discrete stiffness states of the mechanical pixels‚” the team write in their paper.To develop it‚ the team led by Professor Jiyun Kim in the Department of Materials Science and Engineering at UNIST‚ South Korea‚ introduced a new approach using graphical stiffness patterns‚ which allows for rich shape reconfigurability of a material. This let them independently switch between what they refer to as the “digital binary stiffness states” (basically soft or rigid states) of the material’s constituent units within a “simple auxetic” (a structure or material that has a negative Poisson’s ratio) that featured elliptical voids.The material‚ the authors explain in their paper‚ achieves “in situ and gradational tunability in various mechanical qualities.”“We have developed a metamaterial that can implement desired characteristics within minutes‚ without the need for additional hardware‚” Jun Kyu Choe‚ the first author of the study and a student on the combined MS/PhD program of Materials Science and Engineering at UNIST‚ said in a statement.“This opens up new possibilities for advanced adaptive materials and the future development of adaptive robots.”Choe and colleagues demonstrated the material’s potential by way of an “adaptive shock energy absorbing material”‚ which adjusts its properties in response to sudden impacts. The material was able to limit the risk of damage or injury by minimizing the force transmitted to the protected object. Then the team turned the material into a “force transmission material”‚ which delivered force at desired locations and times.Changing the pattern of activated pixels in the material impacts how it responds in a ball-drop experiment.Image credit: UNIST (cropped)By inputting specific digital commands‚ the material can operate adjacent LED switches‚ which allow precise control over force transmission pathways.The metamaterial is also compatible with a range of existing devices and gadgets‚ as well as artificial intelligence technologies‚ including deep learning.“This metamaterial‚ capable of converting digital information into physical information in real-time‚ will pave the way for innovative new materials that can learn and adapt to their surroundings‚” added Professor Kim.The study is published in Advanced Materials.

In a recent study‚ researchers undertook an ambitious analysis of the predictors of marital dissolution‚ e.g. divorce‚ and how they have evolved since the 1950s in the US. The study has explored whether certain factors that have been associated with higher divorce rates have remained consistent or whether new ones have emerged due to growing economic and social inequalities.There is already a rich body of work exploring how predictors of divorce change over time in the US‚ but this work has tended to focus on a single key predictor at a time. These have included factors such as education level‚ whether a couple cohabitated before they were married‚ or whether they were themselves the children of divorce. Prior to this latest study‚ the last comprehensive review of the subject was conducted in 2002 and found that predictors were generally stable up to 1995. The only significant interaction with time‚ so the study claimed‚ was a convergence in Black women’s and white women’s divorce rates.But since the mid-1990s‚ the US‚ as with other countries‚ has experienced a significant increase in economic disparities and changes in social norms‚ which need to be examined in detail.“Since the 1950s‚ the US family system has undergone a historically unprecedented transformation”‚ authors Michael J. Rosenfeld and Katherina Roesler write in their study.“The age at first marriage has risen‚ educational attainment has grown‚ interracial and interethnic unions are more common‚ the ethnic diversity of the United States has increased‚ and premarital cohabitation has become dramatically more common. In other words‚ the mate selection system has diversified and changed in several important regards.”Together‚ Rosenfeld and Roesler examined data from 10 cycles of the National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG). This data covered the years between 1973 and 2017 and focused on first marriages of women aged 15-44 (which was expanded to 15-49 in the 2015-2017 wave). Due to the NSFG’s focus on male-female couples‚ the data was only relevant to marriages between men and women.“We examine women in first marriages exclusively because second and third marriages occur later in life‚ often beyond the NSFG’s age window”‚ the team explained.The dataset encompassed 47‚390 women and featured 14‚236 divorces‚ sufficient information for analysis. Using Cox proportional hazards regression‚ a technique used to assess the association between variables and survival rates‚ the team were able to account for static and evolving factors across time. These included level of education‚ race‚ premarital cohabitation‚ and family origin intactness.Interestingly‚ between the 1950s and the 1990s‚ the divorce rates between Black women and non-Black women converged. This trend was regarded as a positive outcome of the Civil Rights movement which had led to societal progress that helped to stabilize effects on marriages.However‚ after 2000‚ the trend reversed again. This finding fits with the “Diverging Destinies” hypothesis‚ which predicts that the greater inequality experienced in recent decades has exerted divisive influences on marital stability‚ especially among disadvantaged Black women.“There is a fundamental question about whether increasing inequality in the United States has lead to more inequality in the predictors of divorce‚ and I find that yes it has on the dimensions of race‚ education‚ and age at marriage‚” Rosenfeld told PsyPost.  “The difference in divorce rate between Black and white women narrowed after the Civil Rights revolution but has widened again in the 2000s. The greater divorce risk of marrying as a teenager has increased over time.”Rosenfeld and Roesler also found that there is a growing gap in divorce rates for women with and without a university education. This too affirms the Divergent Destinies hypothesis as higher education tends to be associated with better economic and social prospects. Education‚ it seems‚ remains one of the protective factors that may lessen the chances of a divorce.Equally‚ those who marry young (especially women who married at 18-19 years of age) also experienced sharply declining marital stability across the cohorts in the study. In contrast‚ women who married at age 25 or higher tended to experience relative marital stability from the 1970s onwards.The authors conclude that “The verdict on the Diverging Destinies hypothesis depends in part on seemingly arbitrary modeling choices. Race and age at marriage are the two predictors of marital dissolution whose change across cohorts is most consistent with the Diverging Destinies hypothesis.”“We also observe (in six out of nine models) a rising divergence in marital dissolution rates between women without the BA degree and women with the BA degree."The study does have some limitations that need to be factored in. As the authors note‚ “The retrospective nature of the NSFG surveys precludes useful attitude data from subjects before marriage.”The NSFG datasets also lack any measure of the subject’s income over time and there is a lack of information about marriages and divorces that occur later in life. There is also insufficient data on the division of labor in households‚ while key questions related to the age at which an individual obtained their BA degree or the reasons for their family of origin non-intactness were also not measured consistently across the NSFG waves.Nevertheless‚ this study offers powerful insights into the changing rates of divorce across time and shows how significantly the widening equality gap impacts society.The study is published in the Journal of Marriage and Family.

A meteorite allegedly exists in the Sahara that would make all the other meteorites look like pebbles. An object the size of a skyscraper‚ it was reported in 1916 by Western observers but then disappeared without a trace. Now‚ scientists in the UK have set out to solve the mystery with the help of radar data and elevation models.The story sounds like something straight from the adventures of a young Indiana Jones. In 1916‚ French consular official Gaston Ripert‚ stationed in Mauritania (then under French control)‚ reported to colleagues that he had witnessed an enormous meteorite in the desert outside the town of Chinguetti. After allegedly overhearing a conversation between camel drivers about an "iron hill"‚ Ripert embarked on a nighttime mission to the object with a local chieftain who either forbade him to bring a compass or blindfolded him‚ according to translations. The chief was later poisoned.The secrecy was certainly warranted – if we believe the story – because Ripert’s accounts describe a meteorite that is so big he described it as an "iron mountain". It was at least 100 meters (330 feet) long and 40 meters (130 feet) high. For comparison‚ the biggest known verified meteorite‚ called Hoba‚ is 2.7 meters (8.9 feet) across.Ripert provided intriguing descriptions of this iron hill and even managed to chisel a fragment off‚ weighing about 4.5 kilograms (10 pounds)‚ which scientists at the time declared a significant discovery. However‚ subsequent searches for the meteorite beginning in 1924 failed to find it. Ripert described it as nearly covered by sand‚ so it's possible it is now buried beneath the sand of the Sahara. Scientists have been intrigued for decades whether this iron hill actually exists. Now‚ in a new yet-to-be peer-reviewed preprint paper‚ Robert Warren‚ Stephen Warren‚ and Ekaterini Protopapa have proposed the means of determining once and for all if it existed and even where it may be found.  This is where the Chinguetti meteorite might be hiding.Image Credit: Warren et al. 2024The new work combined data from radars‚ digital elevation models‚ and interviews with camel riders to narrow down possible locations for this object. If it did exist‚ it would have to be covered by a dune at least 40 meters (131 feet) high‚ they posit. They have requested magnetic data from the air by Mauritania’s Ministry of Petroleum Energy and Mines but its data was not made available to them. Still‚ the team thinks that a three-week survey should allow them to cover the area they believe hides the meteorite. They actually did investigate a small portion of the region by foot over three days without success."It is possible that the meteorite became covered by sand within a few years [of the initial discovery]‚" Warren et al.‚ write. "And because the initial searches were in the wrong direction‚ it is conceivable that the meteorite was missed and remains hidden in the high dunes‚ still waiting to be discovered." But what if Ripert was mistaken? A study in 2010 concluded his meteorite portion‚ which now resides in the US's National Museum of Natural History‚ was broken from a parent body no bigger than 1.6 meters (5.25 feet)‚ which goes against his claim. And yet‚ he described the presence of metallic needles that were too ductile for him to get a sample by trying to chisel them off. Nickel-rich structures that are similarly ductile were confirmed in iron meteorites in 2003 but were unknown to science in 1916.The researchers are certain that magnetic data will solve the mystery – and yet if a large meteorite does not exist under the sand‚ Ripert still collected a sample of a meteorite from somewhere and appeared to describe meteorite ductile needles that wouldn't be confirmed for another 87 years. “[A]aeromagnetics data in the region south of Chinguetti... can finally resolve the question of the existence of the Chinguetti meteorite in a definitive manner‚" they concluded. "If the result is negative the explanation of Ripert’s story would remain unsolved‚ however‚ and the problems of the ductile needles‚ and the coincidental discovery of the mesosiderite would remain."The study is available on the pre-print server ArXiv.

The founding member of the Southern rock band was 57. Continue reading…

Studying and emulating the lives of great men is a useful practice with a long history. It's especially refreshing these days‚ when everywhere we turn there's a celebrity‚ influencer‚ or guru vying for our attention. An exemplar is an occasional reminder of more timeless virtues. Ulysses S. Grant was a prolific writer of love letters. He had to be: Not long after winning the hand of Julia Dent‚ the sister of his roommate at West Point‚ Grant was called away to fight in the Mexican-American war. The four-year separation was painful for Grant but also inspiring. As he wrote in one letter‚ "In going away now I feel as if I had someone else than myself to live and strive to do well for.”Grant's devotion to Julia and their four children would continue to motivate him for the rest of his life. During the Civil War‚ when Grant's victories prompted President Lincoln to give him command of all Union armies‚ Julia was a trusted confidante‚ often joining her husband at the front. And so active a role did Julia take in Grant's 1868 presidential run that he turned to her at his inauguration and said‚ “And now‚ my dear‚ I hope you're satisfied.” After two terms‚ the Grants retired from public life. Following a short period of happiness‚ a bad investment ruined them financially‚ and Grant was diagnosed with inoperable throat cancer. But his love for his family inspired one last achievement. Hoping to provide Julia and the children with some kind of nest egg‚ Grant completed his “Personal Memoirs of U.S. Grant” shortly before his death in 1885. The book‚ still widely read today‚ became a massive success‚ netting Julia today's equivalent of some 12 million dollars. For more on this extraordinary American marriage‚ see “My Dearest Julia: The Wartime Letters of Ulysses S. Grant to His Wife.”

An idea that until a few weeks ago was condemned by the corporate press and Republican commentators as a far-right conceit‚ typical of such “extremists” as Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.)‚ has now gone viral. Both the New York Post and Fox News are energetically floating the possibility — even the likelihood — that the Democrats‚ out of desperation‚ will run Michelle Obama as their presidential candidate in lieu of incumbent Joe Biden. Supposedly‚ Obama “can bring back the black voters who are hemorrhaging to Donald Trump.” Moreover‚ “the very unpopular Kamala Harris would be leapfrogged without any repercussions from the minority community.” Michelle Obama comes across as Barack without his social graces. She is a younger‚ black version of Hillary Clinton. We are also being harried by the assurances of Joel Gilbert‚ who has written a book on this subject‚ that the former first lady is a “political animal” who was already planning a great career for herself as the ambitious daughter of a Democratic precinct captain from Chicago. Michelle does have certain advantages as a candidate that are less obvious in Biden’s case. She is not demented‚ she does not shuffle when she walks‚ and she did not release 10 million illegal aliens into the country to increase the number of Democratic voters. She was also not involved in an extensive money laundering operation with a corrupt brother and drug-addicted son. Obama is also well liked in certain circles‚ which may account for why she was voted the world’s most respected woman for several years in a row. I even know people who start drooling when her name is mentioned as a possible presidential candidate. Most admired? But then there are the factors that make me skeptical about her performance as a presidential candidate. Michelle’s reputation as a celebrity rests partly on the fact that about 10% of the respondents in a Gallup poll rated her as their “most admired woman.” In 2020‚ Vice President Kamala Harris came in behind Michelle at 6% and Melania Trump at 4%. That survey and similar polls‚ as flattering as they may seem‚ hardly suggest that Michelle would ace a presidential race. Although Michelle has appeared on lots of TV shows‚ those appearances have been micromanaged by gushingly sympathetic hosts who never seem to ask challenging political questions of their venerated guest. Enjoying the support of Oprah Winfrey and Joy Reid can’t hurt a presidential candidate but won’t exactly propel that person into the White House. It also might not be the case that because Michelle’s husband remains wildly popular‚ thanks to decades of media hype‚ such an advantage will transfer to his wife. Despite his ranting against MAGA Republicans and white racists and his weaponization of the federal government against his political opposition‚ Barack Obama can manage to be charming in interviews and public appearances. Unless I’m mistaken‚ this charm is woefully absent in Michelle. She comes across as Barack without his social graces. She is a younger‚ black version of Hillary Clinton. Michelle Obama will need to work hard in a race to avoid making the silly‚ self-absorbed comments she routinely allows to slip when she depicts herself as a victim of white racism and sexism. In 2021‚ for example‚ she went on interminably about racist Washington strollers who dared to ignore her while she was walking her dog. That inattention‚ we were told‚ was true even for those strollers who stopped long enough to pet her canine. Allow me to note that those who stop to pet my long-haired Dachshund while I’m walking with him rarely bother to speak to me; nor do I see any reason why they should. A limited media lift Of course‚ the media will predictably cover up Michelle’s verbal indiscretions‚ but at least some of these outbursts will likely get through to the public. Although the corporate press has worked overtime to depict her as surpassingly charming‚ those efforts may be insufficient if she starts pitying herself as a victim too often. Certainly‚ the Democratic base would like to see Michelle nominated‚ but I have to wonder who else would. I’m not suggesting that Michelle would get trounced in a presidential race. The Democratic Party will start that contest with an enormous advantage. It will enjoy the largesse of corporate capitalists and Hollywood moguls and the obliging assistance of government workers and media reconstructors of reality. That’s not even to mention the election manipulators the party has at its disposal. But I’m not sure that nominating Michelle Obama will provide the Democrats with any additional benefit. Their most important assets are their organizational and financial edge and the availability of an utterly servile media to spin news in their favor and to keep their scandals hidden. Robert Cahaly of the Republican Trafalgar Group was stunned by the staggering turnout that the Democrats produced for midterm elections‚ thereby defying his own meticulous number-crunching. Somehow‚ they could materialize votes that observers never knew were there. The competence of their presidential candidate may matter less than these other things for achieving a Democratic victory. Therefore‚ running Sleepy or Demented Joe may not cost the Democrats the race. And substituting Michelle for the frail‚ morally compromised incumbent may not give the Democrats any special boost.