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
000000000000000000
Ancient Source on the Goths -
Herodotus
The ancient Greeks considered the
Goths to be Scythians. The name Scythian is used in Herodotus (440 B.C.) to
describe barbarians who lived on their horses north of the Black Sea and were
probably not Goths. When the Goths came to live in the same area, they were
considered to be Scythians because of their barbarian way of living. It is hard
to know when the people we call Goths began to intrude on the Roman Empire.
According to Michael Kulikowski, in Rome's Gothic Wars, the first
"securely attested" Gothic raid took place in A.D. 238, when Goths
sacked Histria. In 249 they attacked Marcianople. A year later, under their
king Cniva, they sacked several Balkan cities. In 251, Cniva routed Emperor
Decius at Abrittus. The raids continued and moved from the Black Sea to the
Aegean where the historian Dexippus successfully defended a besieged Athens
against them. He later wrote about the Gothic Wars in his Scythica. Although
most of Dexippus is lost, the historian Zosimus had access to his historical
writing. By the end of the 260s the Roman Empire was winning against the Goths.
Medieval Source on the Goths -
Jordanes
The story of the Goths generally
begins in Scandinavia, as is told by the historian Jordanes in his The Origin
and Deeds of the Goths, chapter 4:
" IV (25) Now from this island of Scandza,
as from a hive of races or a womb of nations, the Goths are said to have come
forth long ago under their king, Berig by name. As soon as they disembarked from
their ships and set foot on the land, they straightway gave their name to the
place. And even to-day it is said to be called Gothiscandza. (26) Soon they
moved from here to the abodes of the Ulmerugi, who then dwelt on the shores of
Ocean, where they pitched camp, joined battle with them and drove them from
their homes. Then they subdued their neighbors, the Vandals, and thus added to
their victories. But when the number of the people increased greatly and
Filimer, son of Gadaric, reigned as king--about the fifth since Berig--he
decided that the army of the Goths with their families should move from that
region. (27) In search of suitable homes and pleasant places they came to the
land of Scythia, called Oium in that tongue. Here they were delighted with the
great richness of the country, and it is said that when half the army had been
brought over, the bridge whereby they had crossed the river fell in utter ruin,
nor could anyone thereafter pass to or fro. For the place is said to be
surrounded by quaking bogs and an encircling abyss, so that by this double
obstacle nature has made it inaccessible. And even to-day one may hear in that
neighborhood the lowing of cattle and may find traces of men, if we are to
believe the stories of travellers, although we must grant that they hear these
things from afar."
Germans and Goths
Michael Kulikowsi says the idea that
the Goths were associated with the Scandinavians and therefore Germans had
great appeal in the 19th century and was supported by the discovery of a linguistic
relationship between the languages of the Goths and Germans. The idea that a
language relationship implies an ethnic relationship was popular but doesn't
bear out in practice. Kulikowski says the only evidence of a Gothic people from
before the third century comes from Jordanes, whose word is suspect.
Kulikowski on the Problems of Using
Jordanes
Jordanes wrote in the second half of
the sixth century. He based his history on the no longer extant writing of a
Roman nobleman named Cassiodorus whose work he had been asked to abridge.
Jordanes did not have the history in front of him when he wrote, so how much
was his own invention can't be ascertained. Much of Jordanes' writing has been
rejected as too fanciful, but the Scandinavian origin has been accepted.
Kulikowski points to some of the
far-fetched passages in Jordanes' history to say that Jordanes is unreliable.
Where his reports are corroborated elsewhere, they can be used, but where there
is no supporting evidence, we need other reasons for accepting. In the case of
the so-called origins of the Goths, any supporting evidence comes from people
using Jordanes as a source.
Kulikowski also objects to using
archaeological evidence as support because artifacts moved around and were
traded. In addition, archaeologists have based their attribution of Gothic
artifacts to Jordanes.
So, if Kulikowski is right, we don't
know where the Goths came from or where they were before their third century
excursions into the Roman Empire.
Glacier on Mars?
The European Space Agency has released
news that they may have found an active glacier on Mars!
Picture of Mars from Mars Express
probe showing a possible glacier
This picture shows the possible
glacier taken by the Mars Express orbiter. It sure looks like one! It’s located
in Deuteronilus Mensae, which is in the moderate northern Martian latitude. The
feature has not been confirmed as a glacier, but it does show ridging like a
glacier, and there appears to be water ice on the ridges as you’d expect to see
on a glacier. Followup observations will be made to see if they can find
features of water in the spectrum of the area.
Old glaciers have been found on Mars,
but this one may be far younger, only thousands of years old. It’s also not
clear that, if this is a glacier, where the water ice is coming from. Some say
it wells up from underground, and others say it comes from snow.
This is very cool news. I hope it pans
out; once again it shows us that Mars is not just a bright red dot in the sky.
It’s a place, a location, a world we can — and do — visit.
http://www.amazon.com/Struggle-for-Vicksburg/dp/B000EM6XDM/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1198168389&sr=1-1
vvvvvvvvvvvv
>
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
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
>
>
>
>From: "Louis Sheehan"
<lousheehan@mac.com>
>To: <holmesjw@bellsouth.net>
>Date: December 20, 2007 07:23:26
AM PST
>Subject: Fwd: Vicksburg 2
>
>
>>From: "Louis
Sheehan" <lousheehan@mac.com>
>>To:
<crossfire@northandsouthmagazine.com>
>>Cc:
<northandsouth@netptc.net>
>>Date: December 20, 2007
07:20:30 AM PST
>>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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>From: "Louis Sheehan"
<lousheehan@mac.com>
>To:
<crossfire@northandsouthmagazine.com>
>Date: December 19, 2007 08:10:24
PM PST
>Subject: Vicksburg
>
>Sir --
>
>Below is a quick summary I wrote
on amazon.com. Perhaps your
magazine (yes, I'm a subscriber) could address these questuons?
>
> --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
>
>
http://louis-j-sheehan.us/Blog/blog.aspx
>
8888888888
As the need for global communication
increases, online translation services are in greater demand. Users are
attracted to the breakneck speed at which online translation is done and the
price. Those that aren't free are still fairly inexpensive.
New languages have been added to the
traditional lists and Arabic, in particular, has been in demand recently. I
spent the past few weeks tinkering with four free online services, translating
various texts from English to Arabic and vice versa to test their speed and
accuracy. I tested Google's Language Tools and services from Applied Language
Solutions, WorldLingo Translations and Systran.
Customers who have been waiting for
such services to be perfected will find improvements are slow in coming.
Overall, I found the Arabic-English translations rife with syntactic and
semantic errors -- from the merely too-literal to the laughably bad.
For the purposes of my test, I
selected different texts: conversation, news stories, and legal and scientific
documents. First, I picked an Associated Press story that started with the
sentence: "A wintry storm caked the center of the nation with a thick layer
of ice Monday..."
I got a variety of imprecise
translations into Arabic (which I'm interpreting below).
Applied Language and WorldLingo
offered identical translations, which were slightly better than the other two:
"A storm covered the center's storm from the nation with a thick layer
snow Monday."
Systran: "A stormy storm covered
the center for the mother with a thick layer snow Monday."
Language Tools: "The storm
grilled bloc in the middle of the nation with a thick layer of snow
Monday."
The translations would have been
nearly impossible to understand were I not fluent in both languages. It's worse
in Arabic than it seems above. Arabic has masculine and feminine nouns, verbs
and adjectives that have to agree in a sentence; otherwise, the sentence makes
a native speaker wince.
Next, I processed some longer news
stories. Only Language Tools didn't set text limits. WorldLingo and Applied
Language each had a 150-word limit. Systran didn't specify a limit, but it
rendered only a short part of the text.
Language Tools came out ahead this
time. It was the only one to translate the word "Taliban" from Arabic
to English contextually correct, as a movement. The other services translated
it literally from the Arabic as "two students."
The services were better at
translating everyday phrases, but even these sometimes came out missing a word,
or were scrambled.
In this category, I again found
translations by Google's Language Tools closest to the original texts. Still,
there is much room for improvement. Google, for example, translated from Arabic
to English the simple question, "Do you speak English?" as "Do
they speak English?"
Other services got the pronoun right
but botched other parts of the sentence. With the exception of Google, all
three services, oddly, attempted to write the Arabic word for
"English" in the Roman alphabet (aalaanklyzyh) in the middle of an
Arabic sentence.
All the services did a terrible job
with metaphors and other figurative uses of the language, whether Arabic or
English.
The weakest performance by all the
services was the translation of legal and scientific texts. Only Language Tools
correctly translated the word "noncompliance" in a legal text, for
example. Instead of using the proper word in Arabic, the other services
transliterated it phonetically into a meaningless word.
All four services have an interface
that is easy to use, with a pull-down menu listing several languages. Each has
two text boxes, one for the original language and the other for the desired
translation. They also translate entire Web sites, but the translation again
tended to be awkwardly verbatim.
Google also has a feature that lets
you translate search results free. (It also offers users an option to send in a
better translation.) The others require you to become a paid subscriber.
English and Arabic results appeared side-by-side.
Louis J Sheehan
And the compression-only technique
applies only to adult patients. Children are far more likely to have stopped
breathing than to have suffered a sudden cardiac arrest. This means they far
more often need mouth-to-mouth resuscitation than adults do.
I also liked WorldLingo and Applied
Language's email-translation feature. After clicking the email button, a window
with two text boxes pops up. You enter your name and email address, and the
recipient's name and address. When you send the message with WorldLingo, both
recipient and sender see the message in both languages. Neither Google nor
Systran has this feature.
Systran has a convenient swap button
that lets users easily flip the source and target languages. This saves time
when going back-and-forth between two languages. The other services have you
use pull-down menus. Systran's interface also allows prompt translation of a
text as soon as it's pasted in a text box, without the need to click a
"translate" button.
Free online translation tools help
travelers or those curious about languages, but I found them unreliable for
important documents. Use with caution.
fffffffffffffffffffffff
Fran --
They don’t seem to list direct dials
on the Berger and Montague website, but I found their general phone number.
Berger & Montague, P.C. | 1622
Locust Street | Philadelphia, PA 19103 | 800-424-6690 | Fax: 215-875-4604
Abbott A. Leban
Berger & Montague PC
Philadelphia, Pa.
http://www.bergermontague.com
Abbott A. Leban joined Berger &
Montague P.C., in December 2004 as senior counsel. Leban had been with Grant &
Eisenhofer in Wilmington, Del., since 1997. Prior to joining Grant &
Eisenhofer, Leban was senior counsel at Blank, Rome, Comisky & McCauley in
Philadelphia, where he was a member of the firm's Corporate Department and
served a diverse clientele in corporate, fiduciary, employee benefits, tax, and
litigation matters.
Leban is a graduate of Columbia
College (1955) and Yale Law School (1958). He is a member of the Delaware and
New York State Bar Associations, and the American Bar Association. He was an
original member of the National Association of Public Pension Attorneys (NAPPA)
and served for a time as chair of its Federal Legislation Committee.
Leban began his legal career in
Washington, where he clerked in the D.C. Circuit, served as an appellate attorney
with the former Civil Aeronautics Board, then as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for
D.C. From 1962 to 1965, he was counsel to Senator Kenneth B. Keating of New
York.
Starting in 1965, Leban held
successive in-house legal and executive positions in the finance, insurance,
and real estate sector. At Equitable Life Assurance Society, he served in the
investment and government relations divisions of its Law Department and later
as Counsel for Federal Relations. He subsequently joined the Colonial Penn
Insurance Group, beginning as President/COO of Intramerica Life Insurance
Company, its New York-based life/health insurance subsidiary. He moved to the
parent company in Philadelphia in 1972 as senior vice president in charge of
the legal, public relations, personnel, and home office administration
departments, as well as serving as corporate secretary. From the effective date
of ERISA, he was also chairman of the boards of trustees for Colonial Penn's
retirement and profit-sharing plans. Leban left Colonial Penn in the 1980s to
become part of the founding management of American Homestead Mortgage Corp., a
mortgage banking firm that was the commercial pioneer in marketing and
underwriting reverse mortgages for senior citizens.
From 1987 to 1991, Leban served as chief
counsel of the three Pennsylvania Retirement Systems for public employees, with
then combined assets of over $20 billion. He was responsible for significant
initiatives on the part of the state and public school pension funds in
corporate governance and shareholder rights matters and received national
recognition for his representation of the school fund as an ex officio member
of the official Equity Committee in the Chapter 11 proceedings of Texaco, Inc.
Leban has many articles to his credit,
including "Not A Dime's Worth of Difference: When 'Withhold Authority'
Means 'No,'" M&A Lawyer (Apr. 2001). Among his other recent
publications, he co-authored, with Jay Eisenhofer, the series of articles in
the Corporate Governance Advisor on "One Easy Step to Reform:
Institutional Investors Must Wake Up" (July/Aug. 1995);"Securities
Litigation and the Institutional Investor: An Assessment" (Mar./Apr.
1998); and "The Lead Plaintiff Provision: Does It Work?" (May/June
1999); and, most recently, on "Ceding Ground to Insiders: The Renunciation
of Corporate Opportunities Under Delaware Law (Mar.-Apr. 2001).
Leban is a member of BNA's Pension
& Benefits Advisory Board.
WASHINGTON -- Two weeks before the
Iowa caucus, the race for president, while tightening among Democrats, is wide
open on the Republican side, highlighting the unusual fluidity of the first
campaign for the White House in over a half- century that doesn't include an
incumbent president or vice president.
A new Wall Street Journal/NBC News
poll shows that Rudy Giuliani has lost his national lead in the Republican
field after a flurry of negative publicity about his personal and business
activities, setting the stage for what could be the party's most competitive
nomination fight in decades.
After holding a double-digit advantage
over his nearest rivals just six weeks ago, the former New York City mayor now
is tied nationally with former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney at 20% among
Republicans, just slightly ahead of former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee at 17%
and Arizona Sen. John McCain at 14%. Other polls show Mr. Giuliani's lead
shrinking in Florida, one of the states he has based his strategy around.
With the poll's margin of error of
plus-or-minus 3.1 percentage points, that puts Mr. Huckabee, who had only
single-digit support in the previous poll in early November, within striking
distance of the leaders. Mr. Romney's national support has also nearly doubled
since then.
At the same time, Mr. Romney has
fallen behind Mr. Huckabee in the leadoff nominating contest in Iowa. The
results signal a dramatic shift in the nature of the Republican contest: In a
party with a history of rewarding established front-runners, there's no longer
a front-runner of any kind.
"There is no hierarchy,"
said Democratic pollster Peter Hart, who conducts the Journal/NBC survey with
Republican counterpart Bill McInturff. "There is no establishment
candidate. The Republican voters are searching."
9999999999
No comments:
Post a Comment