Saturday, August 29, 2015

x - 87 Louis Sheehan




Proponents of the hypothesis like to use the analogy of a lawn dotted with dandelions: Mowing the lawn makes it look like the weeds are gone, but the roots are intact and the dandelions come back.

So it is with cancer, they say. Chemotherapy and radiation often destroy most of a tumor, but if they do not kill the stem cells, which are the cancer’s roots, it can grow back.

Cancerous stem cells are not the same as embryonic stem cells, the cells present early in development that can turn into any cell of the body. Cancerous stem cells are different. They can turn into tumor cells, and they are characterized by distinctive molecular markers.

The stem-cell hypothesis answered a longstanding question: does each cell in a tumor have the same ability to keep a cancer going? By one test the answer was no. When researchers transplanted tumor cells into a mouse that had no immune system, they found that not all of the cells could form tumors.

To take the work to the next step, researchers needed a good way to isolate the cancer-forming cells. Until recently, “the whole thing languished,” said Dr. John E. Dick, director of the stem cell biology program at the University of Toronto, because scientists did not have the molecular tools to investigate.

But when those tools emerged in the early 1990s, Dr. Dick found stem cells in acute myelogenous leukemia, a blood cancer. He reported that such cells made up just 1 percent of the leukemia cells and that those were the only ones that could form tumors in mice.

Yet Dr. Dick’s research, Dr. Wicha said, “was pretty much ignored.” Cancer researchers, he said, were not persuaded — and even if they had accepted the research — doubted that the results would hold for solid tumors, like those of the breast, colon, prostate or brain.

That changed in 1994, when Dr. Wicha and a colleague, Dr. Michael Clarke, who is now at Stanford, reported finding cancerous stem cells in breast cancer patients.

“The paper hit me like a bombshell,” said Robert Weinberg, a professor of biology at M.I.T. and a leader in cancer research. “To my mind, that is conceptually the most important paper in cancer over the past decade.”

Dr. Weinberg and others began pursuing the stem-cell hypothesis, and researchers now say they have found cancerous stem cells in cancers of the colon, head and neck, lung, prostate, brain, and pancreas.

Symposiums were held. Leading journals published paper after paper.

But difficult questions persisted. One problem, critics say, is that the math does not add up. The hypothesis only makes sense if a tiny fraction of cells in a tumor are stem cells, said Dr. Bert Vogelstein, a colon cancer researcher at Johns Hopkins who said he had not made up his mind on the validity of the hypothesis.

But some studies suggest that stem cells make up 10 percent or even 40 percent or 50 percent of tumor cells, at least by the molecular-marker criterion. If a treatment shrinks a tumor by 99 percent, as is often the case, and 10 percent of the tumor was stem cells, then the stem cells too must have been susceptible, Dr. Vogelstein says.

Critics also question the research on mice. The same cells that can give rise to a tumor if transplanted into one part of a mouse may not form a tumor elsewhere.

“A lot of things affect transplants,” Dr. Kern, the Johns Hopkins researcher, said, explaining that transplanting tumors into mice did not necessarily reveal whether there were stem cells.

Other doubts have been raised by Dr. Kornelia Polyak, a researcher at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. Dr. Polyak asked whether breast cancer cells remain true to type, that is, whether stem cells remain stem cells and whether others remain non-stem cells? The answer, she has found, is “not necessarily.”

Cancer cells instead appear to be moving targets, changing from stem cells to non-stem cells and back again. The discovery was unexpected because it had been thought that cell development went one way — from stem cell to tumor cell — and there was no going back.

“You want to kill all the cells in a tumor,” Dr. Polyak said. “Everyone assumes that currently-used drugs are not targeting stem cell populations, but that has not been proven.”

“To say you just have to kill the cancer stem cell is oversimplified,” she added. “It’s giving false hope.”

The criticisms make sense, Dr. Weinberg said. But he said he remained swayed by the stem cell hypothesis.

“There are a lot of unanswered questions, mind you,” he said. “Most believe cancer stem cells exist, but that doesn’t mean they exist. We believe it on the basis of rather fragmentary evidence, which I happen to believe in the aggregate is rather convincing.”

Dr. Wicha said he was convinced that the hypothesis was correct, and said it explained better than any other hypothesis what doctors and patients already know.

“Not only are some of the approaches we are using not getting us anywhere, but even the way we approve drugs is a bad model,” he said. Anti-cancer drugs, he noted, are approved if they shrink tumors even if they do not prolong life. It is the medical equivalent, he said, of mowing a dandelion field.

He said the moment of truth would come soon, with studies like the one planned for women with breast cancer. http://louis-j-sheehan.us/Blog/blog.aspx


The drug to be tested was developed by Merck to treat Alzheimer’s disease. It did not work on Alzheimer’s but it kills breast cancer stem cells in laboratory studies, Dr. Wicha says.

The study will start with a safety test on 30 women who have advanced breast cancer. Hopes are that it will be expanded to find out if the drug can prolong lives. http://Louis-J-Sheehan.us


“Patient survival,” Dr. Wicha said, “is the ultimate endpoint.”





999999999





Andrew Jackson (March 15, 1767 – June 8, 1845) was the 7th President of the United States (1829–1837). He was also military governor of Florida (1821), commander of the American forces at the Battle of New Orleans (1815), and the eponym of the era of Jacksonian democracy. He was a polarizing figure who dominated American politics in the 1820s and 1830s. His political ambition combined with the masses of people shaped the modern Democratic Party.[1] Nicknamed "Old Hickory" because he was renowned for his toughness, Jackson was the first President primarily associated with the frontier, as he based his career in Tennessee. http://Louis-J-Sheehan.us


Andrew Jackson was born to Presbyterian Scots-Irish immigrants Andrew and Elizabeth Jackson in the Waxhaw region of North Carolina, on March 15, 1767.[2] He was the youngest of three brothers and was born just weeks after his father's death. Both North Carolina and South Carolina have claimed Jackson as a "native son," because the community straddled the state line, and there was conflicting lore in the neighborhood about his exact birth site. Controversies about Jackson's birthplace went far beyond the dispute between North and South Carolina. Because his origins were humble and obscure compared to those of his predecessors, wild rumors abounded about Jackson's past. Joseph Nathan Kane, in his almanac-style book Facts About the Presidents, lists no fewer than eight localities, including two foreign countries, that were mentioned in the popular press as Jackson's "real" birthplace including Ireland where both of Jackson's parents were born. Jackson himself always stated definitively that he was born in a cabin just inside South Carolina. He received a sporadic education in the local "old-field" school.
http://twitter.com/Louis_J_Sheehan

http://louis-j-sheehan.us/Blog/blog.aspx

http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/member.php?u=18969


During the American Revolutionary War, Jackson, at age thirteen, joined a local regiment as a courier.[3] Andrew and his brother Robert Jackson were captured by the British], and held as prisoners of war; they nearly starved to death in captivity. When Andrew refused to clean the boots of a British officer, the irate Redcoat slashed at him with a sword, giving him scars on his left hand and head, as well as an intense hatred for the British. Both boys contracted smallpox while imprisoned, and Robert died days after his mother secured their release. Jackson's entire immediate family died from war-related hardships that Jackson blamed upon the British, leaving him orphaned by age 15. Jackson was the last U.S. President to have been a veteran of the American Revolution, and the second President to have been a prisoner of war (Washington had been captured by the French in the French and Indian War).

In 1781, Jackson worked for a time in a saddle-maker's shop.[4] Later he taught school, and studied law in Salisbury, North Carolina. In 1787, he was admitted to the bar, and moved to Jonesboro, in what was then the Western District of North Carolina, and later became Tennessee.

Though his legal education was scanty, Jackson knew enough to practice law on the frontier. Since he was not from a distinguished family, he had to make his career by his own merits; and soon he began to prosper in the rough-and-tumble world of frontier law. Most of the actions grew out of disputed land-claims, or from assaults and battery. In 1788, he was appointed Solicitor of the Western District, and held the same position in the territorial government of Tennessee after 1791.

He also took a role in politics. In 1796, he was a delegate to the Tennessee constitutional convention. Upon statehood in 1796, Jackson was elected Tennessee's U.S. Representative. In 1797 he was elected U.S. Senator as a Democratic-Republican. But he resigned within a year. In 1798, he was appointed a judge of the Tennessee Supreme Court, serving till 1804. [5]

Besides his legal and political career, Jackson also prospered as a planter and merchant. In 1804, he acquired "The Hermitage", a 640-acre farm near Nashville. Jackson later added 360 acres to the farm. The primary crop was cotton, grown by slave workers. Jackson started with nine slaves, and had as many as 44 later.

Jackson was appointed commander of the Tennessee militia in 1801, with the rank of colonel.
Louis J Sheehan



Louis J Sheehan, Esquire


http://www.linkedin.com/pub/6/502/285
http://www.amazon.com/Struggle-for-Vicksburg/dp/B000EM6XDM/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1198124012&sr=1-1


During the War of 1812, Tecumseh incited the "Red Stick" Creek Indians of northern Alabama and Georgia to attack white settlements. 400 settlers were killed in the Fort Mims Massacre. In the resulting Creek War, Jackson commanded the American forces, which included Tennessee militia, U.S. regulars, and Cherokee and Southern Creek Indians.

Jackson defeated the Red Stick Creeks at the Battle of Horseshoe Bend in 1814. 800 "Red Sticks" were killed, but Jackson spared chief William Weatherford. Sam Houston and David Crockett served under Jackson at this time. After the victory, Jackson imposed the Treaty of Fort Jackson upon both the Northern Creek enemies and the Southern Creek allies, wresting 20 million acres (81,000 km²) from all Creeks for white settlement. Jackson was appointed Major General after this success.

Jackson's service in the War of 1812 against Great Britain was conspicuous for bravery and success. When British forces menaced New Orleans, Jackson took command of the defenses, including militia from several western states and territories. He was a strict officer, but was popular with his troops. It was said he was "tough as old hickory" wood on the battlefield, which gave him his nickname. In the Battle of New Orleans on January 8, 1815, Jackson's 4,000 militiamen won a total victory over 10,000 British. The British had over 2,000 casualties to Jackson's 13 killed and 58 wounded or missing.

The war, and especially this victory, made Jackson a national hero. He received the thanks of Congress and a gold medal by resolution of February 27, 1815

Jackson served in the military again during the First Seminole War. He was ordered by President James Monroe in December 1817 to lead a campaign in Georgia against the Seminole and Creek Indians. Jackson was also charged with preventing Spanish Florida from becoming a refuge for runaway slaves. Critics later alleged that Jackson exceeded orders in his Florida actions. His directions were to "terminate the conflict."[6] Jackson believed the best way to do this would be to seize Florida. Before going, Jackson wrote to Monroe, "Let it be signified to me through any channel... that the possession of the Floridas would be desirable to the United States, and in sixty days it will be accomplished."[7] Monroe gave Jackson orders that were purposely ambiguous, sufficient for international denials.
A bust of Andrew Jackson at the Plaza Ferdinand VII in Pensacola, Florida, where Jackson was sworn in as military governor.
A bust of Andrew Jackson at the Plaza Ferdinand VII in Pensacola, Florida, where Jackson was sworn in as military governor.

The Seminoles attacked Jackson's Tennessee volunteers. The Seminoles' attack, however, left their villages vulnerable, and Jackson burned them and the crops. He found letters that indicated that the Spanish and British were secretly assisting the Indians. Jackson believed that the United States would not be secure as long as Spain and Great Britain encouraged Indians to fight and argued that his actions were undertaken in self-defense. Jackson captured Pensacola, Florida, with little more than some warning shots, and deposed the Spanish governor. He captured and then tried and executed two British subjects, Robert Ambrister and Alexander Arbuthnot, who had been supplying and advising the Indians. Jackson's action also struck fear into the Seminole tribes as word of his ruthlessness in battle spread.

http://twitter.com/Louis_J_Sheehan

http://louis-j-sheehan.us/Blog/blog.aspx

http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/member.php?u=18969






Louis J Sheehan




The executions, and Jackson's invasion of territory belonging to Spain, a country the U.S. was not at war with, created an international incident. Many in the Monroe administration called for Jackson to be censured. However, Jackson's actions were defended by Secretary of State John Quincy Adams, an early believer in Manifest Destiny. When the Spanish minister demanded a "suitable punishment" for Jackson, Adams wrote back "Spain must immediately [decide] either to place a force in Florida adequate at once to the protection of her territory ... or cede to the United States a province, of which she retains nothing but the nominal possession, but which is, in fact ... a post of annoyance to them."[8] Adams used Jackson's conquest, and Spain's own weakness, to get Spain to cede Florida to the United States in the Adams-Onís Treaty. Jackson was subsequently named miltary governor, serving from March 10, 1821 to December 31, 1821.

The Tennessee legislature nominated Jackson for President in 1822. It also elected him U.S. Senator again.

By 1824, the Democratic-Republican Party had become the only functioning party. Its Presidential candidates had been chosen by an informal Congressional nominating caucus, but this had become unpopular. In 1824, most of the Democratic-Republicans in Congress boycotted the caucus. Those that attended backed William H. Crawford for President and Albert Gallatin for Vice President. A convention in Pennsylvania nominated Jackson for President a month later, on March 4. Gallatin criticized Jackson as "an honest man and the idol of the worshippers of military glory, but from incapacity, military habits, and habitual disregard of laws and constitutional provisions, altogether unfit for the office."[9] Thomas Jefferson, who would later write to William Crawford in dismay at the outcome of the election,[10] wrote to Jackson in December of 1823:

    "I recall with pleasure the remembrance of our joint labors while in the Senate together in times of great trial and of hard battling, battles indeed of words, not of blood, as those you have since fought so much for your own glory & that of your country; with the assurance that my attamts continue undiminished, accept that of my great respect & consideration."[11]

Biographer Robert V. Remini said that Jefferson "had no great love for Jackson." Daniel Webster wrote that Jefferson told him in December of 1824 that Jackson was a dangerous man unfit for the presidency. [12] Historian Sean Wilentz described Webster's account of the meeting as "not wholly reliable."[13]

The result of the election was confused. Besides Jackson and Crawford, John Quincy Adams and House Speaker Henry Clay were also candidates. Jackson received the most popular votes (but not a majority, and four states had no popular ballot). The Electoral votes were split four ways, with Jackson again having a plurality. Since no candidate received a majority, the election was made by the House of Representatives, which chose Adams. Jackson denounced this result as a "corrupt bargain" because Clay gave his support to Adams, who later appointed Clay as Secretary of State. Jackson called for the abolition of the Electoral College in his first annual message to Congress as President.[14] Jackson's defeat burnished his political credentials, however, since many voters believed the "man of the people" had been robbed by the "corrupt aristocrats of the East."


Jackson resigned from the Senate in October 1825, but continued his quest for the Presidency. The Tennessee legislature again nominated Jackson for President. Jackson attracted Vice President John C. Calhoun, Martin Van Buren, and Thomas Ritchie into his camp (the latter two previous supporterse of Crawford). Van Buren, with help from his friends in Philadelphia and Richmond, revived the old Republican Party, gave it a new name, "restored party rivalries," and forged a national organization of durability.[15] The Jackson coalition handily defeated Adams in 1828.

During the election, Jackson's opponents referred to him as a "Jackass." Jackson liked the name and used the jackass as a symbol for a while, but it died out. However, it later became the symbol for the Democratic Party when cartoonist Thomas Nast popularized it.

Jackson experienced the first known case of a President being handed a baby to kiss. However, Jackson declined, and handed the baby to Secretary of War John H. Eaton to do the honors.

In 1835, Jackson managed to reduce the federal debt to only $33,733.05, the lowest it has been since the first fiscal year of 1791.[17] However, this accomplishment was short lived, and a severe depression from 1837 to 1844 caused a ten-fold increase in national debt within its first year.

When Jackson became President, he implemented the theory of rotation in office, declaring it "a leading principle in the republican creed."[14] He believed that rotation in office would prevent the development of a corrupt bureaucracy. In addition, Jackson's supporters wanted to give the posts to fellow party members, as a reward to strengthen party loyalty. In practice, this meant replacing federal employees with friends or party loyalists.[19] However, the effect was not as drastic as expected or portrayed. By the end of his term, Jackson had dismissed less than twenty percent of the Federal employees at the start of it.[20] While Jackson did not start the "spoils system," he did indirectly encourage its growth for many years to come.
As President, Jackson worked to take away the federal charter of the Second Bank of the United States (it would continue to exist as a state bank). The Second Bank had been authorized, during James Madison's tenure in 1816, for a 20-year period. Jackson opposed the national bank concept on ideological grounds. In Jackson's veto message (written by George Bancroft), the bank needed to be abolished because:
Democratic cartoon shows Jackson fighting the monster Bank. "The Bank," Jackson told Martin Van Buren, "is trying to kill me, but I will kill it!"
Democratic cartoon shows Jackson fighting the monster Bank. "The Bank," Jackson told Martin Van Buren, "is trying to kill me, but I will kill it!"

    * It concentrated an excessive amount of the nation's financial strength in a single institution.
    * It exposed the government to control by foreign interests.


* It served mainly to make the rich richer.
    * It exercised too much control over members of Congress.
    * It favored northeastern states over southern and western states.

Jackson followed Jefferson as a supporter of the ideal of an "agricultural republic" and felt the Bank improved the fortunes of an "elite circle" of commercial and industrial entrepreneurs at the expense of farmers and laborers. After a titanic struggle, Jackson succeeded in destroying the Bank by vetoing its 1832 re-charter by Congress and by withdrawing U.S. funds in 1833.

The bank's money-lending functions were taken over by the legions of local and state banks that sprang up. This fed an expansion of credit and speculation. At first, as Jackson withdrew money from the Bank to invest it in other banks, land sales, canal construction, cotton production, and manufacturing boomed.[21] However, due to the practice of banks issuing paper banknotes that were not backed by gold or silver reserves, there was soon rapid inflation and mounting state debts.[22] Then, in 1836, Jackson issued the Specie Circular, which required buyers of government lands to pay in "specie" (gold or silver coins). The result was a great demand for specie, which many banks did not have to enough of to exchange for their notes. These banks collapsed. [23] This was a direct cause of the Panic of 1837, which threw the national economy into a deep depression. It took years for the economy to recover from the damage.
1833 Democratic cartoon shows Jackson destroying the devil's Bank
1833 Democratic cartoon shows Jackson destroying the devil's Bank

The U.S. Senate censured Jackson on March 28, 1834, for his action in removing U.S. funds from the Bank of the United States. The censure was later expunged when the Jacksonians had a majority in the Senate.
Another notable crisis during Jackson's period of office was the "Nullification Crisis", or "secession crisis," of 1828 – 1832, which merged issues of sectional strife with disagreements over tariffs. Critics alleged that high tariffs (the "Tariff of Abominations") on imports of common manufactured goods made in Europe made those goods more expensive than ones from the northern U.S., raising the prices paid by planters in the South. Southern politicians argued that tariffs benefited northern industrialists at the expense of southern farmers.

The issue came to a head when Vice President Calhoun, in the South Carolina Exposition and Protest of 1828, supported the claim of his home state, South Carolina, that it had the right to "nullify"—declare void—the tariff legislation of 1828, and more generally the right of a state to nullify any Federal laws which went against its interests. Although Jackson sympathized with the South in the tariff debate, he was also a strong supporter of a strong union, with effective powers for the central government. Jackson attempted to face down Calhoun over the issue, which developed into a bitter rivalry between the two men.

Particularly notable was an incident at the April 13, 1830 Jefferson Day dinner, involving after-dinner toasts. Jackson rose first, glared at Calhoun, and in a booming voice shouted "Our federal Union: IT MUST BE PRESERVED!" - a clear challenge to Calhoun. Calhoun glared at Jackson and, his voice trembling, but booming as well, responded "The Union: NEXT TO OUR LIBERTY, MOST DEAR!"[24]

The next year, Calhoun and Jackson broke apart politically from one another. Martin Van Buren replaced Calhoun as Jackson's running mate in 1832. In December 1832, Calhoun resigned as Vice President to become a U.S. Senator for South Carolina.

Around this time, the Petticoat Affair caused further resignations from Jackson's cabinet, leading to its reorganization as the Kitchen Cabinet. Vice-Presiden Van Buren played a leading role in the new cabinet. [25]

In response to South Carolina's nullification claim, Jackson vowed to send troops to South Carolina to enforce the laws. In December 1832, he issued a resounding proclamation against the "nullifiers," stating that he considered "the power to annul a law of the United States, assumed by one State, incompatible with the existence of the Union, contradicted expressly by the letter of the Constitution, unauthorized by its spirit, inconsistent with every principle on which it was founded, and destructive of the great object for which it was formed." South Carolina, the President declared, stood on "the brink of insurrection and treason," and he appealed to the people of the state to reassert their allegiance to that Union for which their ancestors had fought. Jackson also denied the right of secession: "The Constitution... forms a government not a league... To say that any State may at pleasure secede from the Union is to say that the United States is not a nation."[26]

Jackson asked Congress to pass a "Force Bill" explicitly authorizing the use of military force to enforce the tariff. But it was held up until protectionists led by Clay agreed to a reduced Compromise Tariff. The Force Bill and Compromise Tariff passed on March 1, 1833. and Jackson signed both. The South Carolina Convention then met and rescinded its nullification ordinance. The Force Bill became moot because it was no longer needed.

Perhaps the most controversial aspect of Jackson's presidency was his policy regarding American Indians.[27] Jackson was a leading advocate of a policy known as "Indian Removal". Swedish scholar Mattias Gardell says Jackson called Indian removal the "Final Solution" to the Indian issue during his election campaign.[28] After his election he signed the Indian Removal Act into law in 1830. The Act authorized the President to negotiate treaties to purchase tribal lands in the east in exchange for lands further west, outside of existing U.S. state borders.

While frequently frowned upon in the North, the Removal Act was popular in the South, where population growth and the discovery of gold on Cherokee land had increased pressure on tribal lands. The state of Georgia became involved in a contentious jurisdictional dispute with the Cherokees, culminating in the 1832 U.S. Supreme Court decision (Worcester v. Georgia) which ruled that Georgia could not impose its laws upon Cherokee tribal lands. Jackson is often quoted (regarding the decision) as having said, "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!" Whether or not he actually said it is disputed.[29]

In any case, Jackson used the Georgia crisis to pressure Cherokee leaders to sign a removal treaty. A small faction of Cherokees led by John Ridge negotiated the Treaty of New Echota with Jackson's representatives. Ridge was not a recognized leader of the Cherokee Nation, and this document was rejected by most Cherokees as illegitimate.[30] Over 15,000 Cherokees signed a petition in protest; it was ignored by the Supreme Court.[31] The treaty was enforced by Jackson's successor, Van Buren. who ordered 7,000 armed troops to remove the Cherokees.[32] This resulted in the deaths of over 4,000 Cherokees on the "Trail of Tears."

By the 1830s, under constant pressure from settlers, each of the five southern tribes had ceded most of its lands, but sizable self-government groups lived in Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida. All of these (except the Seminoles) had moved far in the coexistence with whites, and they resisted suggestions that they should voluntarily remove themselves.[citation needed]
Richard Lawrence's attempt on Andrew Jackson's life, as depicted in an 1835 etching.
Richard Lawrence's attempt on Andrew Jackson's life, as depicted in an 1835 etching.

In all, more than 45,000 American Indians were relocated to the West during Jackson's administration. During this time, the administration purchased about 100 million acres (400,000 km²) of Indian land for about $68 million and 32 million acres (130,000 km²) of western land. Jackson was criticized at the time for his role in these events, and the criticism has grown over the years. Remini characterizes the Indian Removal era as "one of the unhappiest chapters in American history."[33]

The first attempt to do bodily harm to a President was against Jackson. On May 6, 1833, President Jackson was sailing on USS Cygnet to Fredericksburg, Virginia, where he was to lay the cornerstone on a monument near the grave of Mary Ball Washington, George Washington's mother. While on a stopover near Alexandria, Virginia, Robert B. Randolph, who had recently been dismissed from the Navy for embezzlement upon Jackson's orders, struck the President. Before Randolph could do more harm, he fled the scene with several members of Jackson's party chasing him, including the well known writer Washington Irving. Jackson decided not to press charges.[4]

On January 30, 1835 an unsuccessful attack occurred in the United States Capitol Building; it was the first assassination attempt made against an American President. Jackson was crossing the Capitol Rotunda after the funeral of South Carolina]] Representative Warren R. Davis when Richard Lawrence approached Jackson. Lawrence aimed two pistols at Jackson, which both misfired. Jackson then attacked Lawrence with his cane, prompting his aides to restrain him. As a result, Jackson's statue in the Capitol Rotunda is placed in front of the doorway in which the attempt occurred. Davy Crockett was present to help restrain Lawrence. Richard Lawrence gave the doctors several reasons for the shooting. He had recently lost his job painting houses and somehow blamed Jackson. He claimed that with the President dead, "money would be more plenty"—a reference to Jackson’s struggle with the Bank of the United States—and that he "could not rise until the President fell." Finally, he informed his interrogators that he was actually a deposed English King—Richard III.


Shortly after Jackson first arrived in Nashville in 1788, he took up residence as a boarder with Rachel Stockley Donelson, the widow of John Donelson. Here Jackson became acquainted with their daughter, Rachel Donelson Robards. At the time, Rachel Robards was in an unhappy marriage with Captain Lewis Robards, a man subject to irrational fits of jealous rage. Due to Lewis Robards' temperament, the two were separated in 1790. Shortly after their separation, Robards sent word that he had obtained a divorce. Trusting that the divorce was complete, Jackson and Rachel were married in 1791. Two years later they learned that the divorce had never actually been finalized, making Rachel's marriage to Jackson illegitimate. After the divorce was officially completed, Rachel and Jackson re-married in 1794.[34]

The controversy surrounding their marriage remained a sore point for Jackson, who deeply resented attacks on his wife's honor. Jackson fought 13 duels, many nominally over his wife's honor. Charles Dickinson, the only man Jackson ever killed in a duel, had been goaded into angering Jackson by Jackson's political opponents. In the duel, fought over a horse-racing debt and an insult to his wife on May 30, 1806, Dickinson shot Jackson in the ribs before Jackson returned the fatal shot. The bullet that struck Jackson was so close to his heart that it could never be safely removed. Jackson had been wounded so frequently in duels that it was said he "rattled like a bag of marbles."[35] At times he would cough up blood, and he experienced considerable pain from his wounds for the rest of his life.

Rachel died of unknown causes on December 22, 1828, two weeks after her husband's victory in the election and two months prior to Jackson taking office as President. Jackson blamed John Quincy Adams for Rachel's death because the marital scandal was brought up in the election of 1828. He felt that this had hastened her death and never forgave Adams.

Jackson had two adopted sons, Andrew Jackson Jr., the son of Rachel's brother Severn Donelson, and Lyncoya, a Creek Indian orphan adopted by Jackson after the Creek War. Lyncoya died in 1828 at age sixteen of tuberculosis.[36][37]

The Jacksons also acted as guardians for eight other children. John Samuel Donelson, Daniel Smith Donelson and Andrew Jackson Donelson were the sons of Rachel's brother Samuel Donelson, who died in 1804. Andrew Jackson Hutchings was Rachel's orphaned grand nephew. Caroline Butler, Eliza Butler, Edward Butler, and Anthony Butler were the orphaned children of Edward Butler, a family friend. They came to live with the Jacksons after the death of their father.

The widower Jackson invited Rachel's niece Emily Donelson to serve as hostess at the White House. Emily was married to Andrew Jackson Donelson, who acted as Jackson's private secretary and in 1856 would run for Vice President on the American Party ticket. The relationship between the President and Emily became strained during the Petticoat Affair, and the two became estranged for over a year. They eventually reconciled and she resumed her duties as White House hostess. Sarah Yorke Jackson, the wife of Andrew Jackson Jr., became co-hostess of the White House in 1834. It was the only time in history when two women simultaneously acted as unofficial First Lady. Sarah took over all hostess duties after Emily died from tuberculosis in 1836.

Jackson remained influential in both national and state politics after retiring to The Hermitage in 1837. Though a slave-holder, Jackson was a firm advocate of the federal union of the states, and declined to give any support to talk of secession.

Jackson was a lean figure standing at 6 feet, 1 inch (1.85 m) tall, and weighing between 130 and 140 pounds (64 kg) on average. Jackson also had an unruly shock of red hair, which had completely grayed by the time he became president at age 61. He had penetrating deep blue eyes. Jackson was one of the more sickly presidents, suffering from chronic headaches, abdominal pains, and a hacking cough, caused by a musket ball in his lung which was never removed, that often brought up blood and sometimes even made his whole body shake. After retiring to Nashville, he enjoyed eight years of retirement and died at The Hermitage on June 8, 1845 at the age of 78, of chronic tuberculosis, "dropsy" and heart failure.

In his will, Jackson left his entire estate to his adopted son, Andrew Jackson Jr., except for specifically enumerated items that were left to various other friends and family members. Andrew Jackson was a member of the First Presbyterian Church in Nashville.

* Memorials to Jackson include a set of three identical equestrian statues located in different parts of the country. One is in Jackson Square in New Orleans. Another is in Nashville on the grounds of the Tennessee State Capitol. The other is in Washington, D.C. near the White House. Equestrian statues of Jackson have also been erected elsewhere, including one in Downtown Jacksonville, Florida.
    * Numerous counties and cities are named after him, including Jacksonville, Florida; Jackson, Michigan; Jackson, Mississippi; Jackson, Missouri; Jackson County, Oregon; Jacksonville, Oregon; Jacksonville, North Carolina; Jackson, Tennessee; Jackson County, Florida; Jackson County, Missouri; and Jackson County, Ohio.
    * The section of U.S. Route 74 between Charlotte, North Carolina and Wilmington, North Carolina is named the Andrew Jackson Highway.
    * Jackson's portrait appears on the twenty dollar bill. He has appeared on $5, $10, $50, and $10,000 bills in the past, as well as a Confederate $1,000 bill.
    * Jackson's image is on the Blackjack postage stamp.
    * The U.S. Army installation Fort Jackson in Columbia, South Carolina, is named in his honor.
    * Fort Jackson, built before the Civil War on the Mississippi River for the defense of New Orleans, was named in his honor.
    * USS Andrew Jackson (SSBN-619), a Lafayette-class nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine, which served from 1963 to 1989.
    * Jackson Park, the third-largest park in Chicago is named for him.
    * Jackson Park, a public golf course in Seattle, Washington is named for him.


999999999999

































888888888
Toothed whales (Odontocetes) echolocate by creating a series of clicks emitted at various frequencies. Sound pulses are emitted through their melon-shaped forehead, reflected off objects, and retrieved through the lower jaw. Skulls of Squalodon show evidence for the first appearance of echolocation. Squalodons lived from the early to middle Oligocene to the middle Miocene, around 33-14 million years ago. A peculiar blend of archaic and modern features characterize Squalodon. The cranium was well compressed, the rostrum telescoped outward, giving an appearance of modern toothed whales. However, it is thought unlikely that squalodontids have anything to do with the ancestry of most living dolphins.




http://louis-j-sheehan.us/Blog/blog.aspx
http://www.amazon.com/Struggle-for-Vicksburg/dp/B000EM6XDM/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1198168389&sr=1-1


99999

I was the one who put Meigs in second place! At least my thinking seems to be consistent!
best
Keith

My vague recollection is that a recent article asked various current-
day scholars to list their opinions as to the most influential ACW
Generals, and one (maybe two?) scholar(s) suggested -- I think the
name was -- Quartermaster General Montgomery C. Meigs which nomination
stood out from the pack.  Your replies seem to buttress how critical
well-managed supply lines were to the efforts.

-- Lou


Louis,
Will see what I can do about the article -- I like the idea. I  remember your name from the 3W days too. As for Vicksburg, there was  a short stretch of railroad on the west bank, and this facilitated  getting goods to the river, and of course Vicksburg itself was  connected with Jackson and points east by rail. So Vicksburg was a  better place at which to ship goods to and from. You are right,  occupying the west bank would have cut this. Goods were crossed at  other points, but presumably in much smaller quantities and with  much delay, and the ever-present threat of Union gunboats. With  Vicksburg as a base, the navy would (I presume) become more  effective (I am assuming, for example, that ships could take on coal there).

Also, the capture of Vicksburg rendered it Unecessary to keep a  force on the west bank opposite the city that had to be supplied by  land.
best wishes
Keith

Sir --

Thank you for your very prompt and informative reply.  Might I ask  for one clarification (I can read whatever response you have in the  magazine if you are so inclined)?

With Vicksburg standing, was the Rebel cross-river (shore to shore) transport of goods -- say salt -- and men almost entirely limited to  a small corridor in the shadow of Vicksburg itself, and, assuming  so, was such cross-river traffic therefore safe from Union  interference?  If there was one small corridor, then it would seem  that cross-river traffic would have been ended simply by occupying  the bank of the river across from the city (although  such limited  effort would not have resulted in the other benefits you mentioned  earlier)?


I'll mention I recall you from the old Wargamer and S&T days.  I  started wargaming in the mid-70.  Life has been such that only in  the past year have I again been reading about the American Civil  War.  Knowing some of your past, I'll ask another question/suggest  another possible article:


In my own lay-person's terms, with a few notable(AHEM!) exceptions,  Jeb Stuart & Co. had the reputation of providing General Lee very  good and timely information and for providing good cavalry screens.   Could we read an article about how such scouting and screening was  organized?  That is, graphs showing -- standard? --  patterns of  dispersal, amount of cavalry used to satisfy the missions, how one  side would react if it thought it might have been discovered/the  other side might react if it stumbled across apparent screening/ scouting activity?  I would ask more questions but I'm not a horse- person and should leave that up to others.  The basic point is:  describe in some detail an active cavalry screening (say a movement  up/through the Shenandoah "major" or through Maryland or from the  Union point of view ) and an active large-scale scouting mission (perhaps that by Buford at the opening of Gettysburg or before  Brandy Station or even that relating to a smaller engagement such as  the Battle of Corinth (it seems information about the enemy was so  much more lacking in the West than in the East despite the presence  of cavalry)).

Again, many thanks,


--Lou



Louis,

I will try to find space for your letter in the Crossfire column,  and print as close to definitive answers as we can. For now, and  just for your personal attention, here are my personal responses  off the top of my head:

1. There wasn't exactly a "Fort Vicksburg," but the guns of the  city could pretty much rule out any Union river movement upstream,  as the current was fierce and vessels could only have made slow  headway against it, leaving them sitting ducks for a considerable  length of time. Daylight movement by anything except an armored  vessel would have been suicidal. Downstream movement would also  have been hazardous (witness the transports that ran the gauntlet  on 22 April, 1863 -- I hope I got that date right, no time to look  it up right now. Effectively therefore, movement up and down the  Mississippi was blocked -- as a regular supply route -- as long as  the Confederates held Vicksburg.

2. It wasn't critical, in the sense that it was not vital for Union goods/supplies/men to move up or down the river. It was, however, politically critical, for the farmers of the Mid-West wanted to be  able to ship their product down the river. Economically the  importance of this had declined before the war, with the linkage of  the Mid-West to the East by railroad (and canal). Nevertheless, the  river route still loomed large in the consciousness of those in  Illinois, Missouri, Wisconsin, Iowa, etc.

3. The Confedrates did attempt to interdict the river by placing artillery along the shore, and moving it when threatened. However,  the Union riverine vessels and the use of marines and others to  land and ravage localities used for such operations -- and the  limited effect of such artillery --  rendered this a nuisance, but  not more.

4. Yes. There was considerable cross-river traffic (west to east)  prior to the siege -- especially important was salt, used to cure  meat for the eastern armies. It wasn't the fall of Vicksburg that  halted this flow of goods, so much as the presence of the Union  navy on the river. Of course, once Vicksburg (and then Port Hudson)  fell, the navy presence became that much more effective.

5. I don't know numbers/quantities. However, the loss of salt alone  made the supply of meat to the Army of North Virginia more  problematic, and this added significantly to Lee's logistical  difficulties.

Confederate trans-Mississippi commander Kirby Smith failed to come  to the aid of those on the eastern shore, but in any case I think  his contribution could not have been very significant. Also, the  Union had enough troops west of the Mississippi to confront the  Confederates there, so probably any long-term movement of  Confederate troops across the river would have unhinged their  position west of the river.
Confederate attacks on Union positions on the western shore of the Mississippi were singularly unsuccessful, viz. Helena, Milliken's  Bend.

Louis, as I said, that's just off the top of my head for you. I  will consult Terry Winschel, park historian at Vicksburg, to see  what he can add (for publication) and how far he agrees with what I  have said.

best wishes,

Keith






I wrote a quick customer review on amazon.com as below.  Perhaps  your magazine (yes, I subscribe) could answer these questions?  -- Lou Sheehan


Struggle for Vicksburg  (DVD Video)


A workmanlike presentation of some of the very basic facts of the  Siege. To my disappointment, no re-enactors were used.

I?ve yet to across a source that answers these questions that  follow, so I don?t want to imply my asking them suggests unique  faults with this movie.

To what extent could the Fort of Vicksburg inhibit Union supply  river traffic upstream and downstream (i.e., completely?  30%  70?)?

Realizing rivers were relatively efficient ways to transport  supplies (vis-à-vis wagons and mules albeit I am not as certain as  to the relative merits between the use of rivers and railroads),  how critical was it to have ?unrestricted? access to the ENTIRE  river?  (Recall, New Orleans was in Union hands.)

What would the effects have been ? and the responses to ? random/ sporadic/varying placements of Rebel cannon along the long  shoreline of the otherwise ?unrestricted? river?

By only holding a non-besieged Vicksburg, did that allow the Rebels  to effectively transfer supplies and troops across the Misssissippi  from West to East?

Beginning in  the summer of 1863, how much material and how many  troops were effectively contained in the Western Confederacy and  prohibited from moving East? Assuming any, how much of a difference  might they have made and how?  Louis J Sheehan

















55555555555


Begin forwarded message:
From: Keith Poulter <northandsouth@netptc.net>
Date: December 20, 2007 2:39:45 PM EST
To: Louis Sheehan <lousheehan@mac.com>
Subject: Re: Last note

I was the one who put Meigs in second place! At least my thinking seems to be consistent!
best
Keith
----- Original Message ----- From: "Louis Sheehan" <lousheehan@mac.com>
To: "Keith Poulter" <northandsouth@netptc.net>
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 10:24 AM
Subject: Last note


My vague recollection is that a recent article asked various current-
day scholars to list their opinions as to the most influential ACW
Generals, and one (maybe two?) scholar(s) suggested -- I think the
name was -- Quartermaster General Montgomery C. Meigs which nomination
stood out from the pack.  Your replies seem to buttress how critical
well-managed supply lines were to the efforts.

-- Lou
On Dec 20, 2007, at 12:45 PM, Keith Poulter wrote:

Louis,
Will see what I can do about the article -- I like the idea. I  remember your name from the 3W days too. As for Vicksburg, there was  a short stretch of railroad on the west bank, and this facilitated  getting goods to the river, and of course Vicksburg itself was  connected with Jackson and points east by rail. So Vicksburg was a  better place at which to ship goods to and from. You are right,  occupying the west bank would have cut this. Goods were crossed at  other points, but presumably in much smaller quantities and with  much delay, and the ever-present threat of Union gunboats. With  Vicksburg as a base, the navy would (I presume) become more  effective (I am assuming, for example, that ships could take on coal there).

Also, the capture of Vicksburg rendered it Unecessary to keep a  force on the west bank opposite the city that had to be supplied by  land.
best wishes
Keith
----- Original Message ----- From: "Louis Sheehan"  <lousheehan@mac.com>
To: <crossfire@northandsouthmagazine.com>
Cc: <northandsouth@netptc.net>
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 7:20 AM
Subject: Vicksburg 2



Sir --

Thank you for your very prompt and informative reply.  Might I ask  for one clarification (I can read whatever response you have in the  magazine if you are so inclined)?

With Vicksburg standing, was the Rebel cross-river (shore to shore) transport of goods -- say salt -- and men almost entirely limited to  a small corridor in the shadow of Vicksburg itself, and, assuming  so, was such cross-river traffic therefore safe from Union  interference?  If there was one small corridor, then it would seem  that cross-river traffic would have been ended simply by occupying  the bank of the river across from the city (although  such limited  effort would not have resulted in the other benefits you mentioned  earlier)?


I'll mention I recall you from the old Wargamer and S&T days.  I  started wargaming in the mid-70.  Life has been such that only in  the past year have I again been reading about the American Civil  War.  Knowing some of your past, I'll ask another question/suggest  another possible article:


In my own lay-person's terms, with a few notable(AHEM!) exceptions,  Jeb Stuart & Co. had the reputation of providing General Lee very  good and timely information and for providing good cavalry screens.   Could we read an article about how such scouting and screening was  organized?  That is, graphs showing -- standard? --  patterns of  dispersal, amount of cavalry used to satisfy the missions, how one  side would react if it thought it might have been discovered/the  other side might react if it stumbled across apparent screening/ scouting activity?  I would ask more questions but I'm not a horse- person and should leave that up to others.  The basic point is:  describe in some detail an active cavalry screening (say a movement  up/through the Shenandoah "major" or through Maryland or from the  Union point of view ) and an active large-scale scouting mission (perhaps that by Buford at the opening of Gettysburg or before  Brandy Station or even that relating to a smaller engagement such as  the Battle of Corinth (it seems information about the enemy was so  much more lacking in the West than in the East despite the presence  of cavalry)).

Again, many thanks,


--Lou



On Wednesday, December 19, 2007, at 11:39PM, "Keith Poulter" <northandsouth@netptc.net
> wrote:
Louis,

I will try to find space for your letter in the Crossfire column,  and print as close to definitive answers as we can. For now, and  just for your personal attention, here are my personal responses  off the top of my head:

1. There wasn't exactly a "Fort Vicksburg," but the guns of the  city could pretty much rule out any Union river movement upstream,  as the current was fierce and vessels could only have made slow  headway against it, leaving them sitting ducks for a considerable  length of time. Daylight movement by anything except an armored  vessel would have been suicidal. Downstream movement would also  have been hazardous (witness the transports that ran the gauntlet  on 22 April, 1863 -- I hope I got that date right, no time to look  it up right now. Effectively therefore, movement up and down the  Mississippi was blocked -- as a regular supply route -- as long as  the Confederates held Vicksburg.

2. It wasn't critical, in the sense that it was not vital for Union goods/supplies/men to move up or down the river. It was, however, politically critical, for the farmers of the Mid-West wanted to be  able to ship their product down the river. Economically the  importance of this had declined before the war, with the linkage of  the Mid-West to the East by railroad (and canal). Nevertheless, the  river route still loomed large in the consciousness of those in  Illinois, Missouri, Wisconsin, Iowa, etc.

3. The Confedrates did attempt to interdict the river by placing artillery along the shore, and moving it when threatened. However,  the Union riverine vessels and the use of marines and others to  land and ravage localities used for such operations -- and the  limited effect of such artillery --  rendered this a nuisance, but  not more.

4. Yes. There was considerable cross-river traffic (west to east)  prior to the siege -- especially important was salt, used to cure  meat for the eastern armies. It wasn't the fall of Vicksburg that  halted this flow of goods, so much as the presence of the Union  navy on the river. Of course, once Vicksburg (and then Port Hudson)  fell, the navy presence became that much more effective.

5. I don't know numbers/quantities. However, the loss of salt alone  made the supply of meat to the Army of North Virginia more  problematic, and this added significantly to Lee's logistical  difficulties.

Confederate trans-Mississippi commander Kirby Smith failed to come  to the aid of those on the eastern shore, but in any case I think  his contribution could not have been very significant. Also, the  Union had enough troops west of the Mississippi to confront the  Confederates there, so probably any long-term movement of  Confederate troops across the river would have unhinged their  position west of the river.
Confederate attacks on Union positions on the western shore of the Mississippi were singularly unsuccessful, viz. Helena, Milliken's  Bend.

Louis, as I said, that's just off the top of my head for you. I  will consult Terry Winschel, park historian at Vicksburg, to see  what he can add (for publication) and how far he agrees with what I  have said.

















best wishes,

Keith
----- Original Message -----  From: Louis Sheehan
To: crossfire@northandsouthmagazine.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 8:11 PM
Subject: Letter to the Editor


I wrote a quick customer review on amazon.com as below.  Perhaps  your magazine (yes, I subscribe) could answer these questions?  -- Lou Sheehan


Struggle for Vicksburg  (DVD Video)


A workmanlike presentation of some of the very basic facts of the  Siege. To my disappointment, no re-enactors were used.

I?ve yet to across a source that answers these questions that  follow, so I don?t want to imply my asking them suggests unique  faults with this movie.

To what extent could the Fort of Vicksburg inhibit Union supply  river traffic upstream and downstream (i.e., completely?  30%  70?)?

Realizing rivers were relatively efficient ways to transport  supplies (vis-à-vis wagons and mules albeit I am not as certain as  to the relative merits between the use of rivers and railroads),  how critical was it to have ?unrestricted? access to the ENTIRE  river?  (Recall, New Orleans was in Union hands.)

What would the effects have been ? and the responses to ? random/ sporadic/varying placements of Rebel cannon along the long  shoreline of the otherwise ?unrestricted? river?

By only holding a non-besieged Vicksburg, did that allow the Rebels  to effectively transfer supplies and troops across the Misssissippi  from West to East?


Beginning in  the summer of 1863, how much material and how many  troops were effectively contained in the Western Confederacy and  prohibited from moving East? Assuming any, how much of a difference  might they have made and how?  Louis J Sheehan

No comments:

Post a Comment