Monday, May 28, 2012

Thoughts On Memorial Day 2012

Thanks to Ed Kendrick 
for passing this on to me today:

Could it be that we have lost the true cost of war as we mourn its dead ~ could it be that flowers and flags can never justify the inhumanity of war ~ could it be that all wars are lost because there are no true winners and lastly why are we continuing to justify our current illegal occupations by falsely calling them wars. In wartime, everything is done to subvert the force of love but in the end ~ only love prevails: Allen L Roland

'Remember the dead with solemn respect,
and remember the liars and lies who killed them.'


*       *       *

     In addition to the above clip, Ed also shared with me some other important information -- "No More Wars For Israel."  I very much agree with him on this matter, and want to say so here.  I expect and intend to say more about this in the near future.  The subject is of great (grave) significance.

     Thanks again, Ed, for all your wisdom, honesty, and bravery.

Saturday, May 26, 2012

Against Annihilation Of The Spirit

A review of a blog post

     Arthur Silber has re-posted an article that he originally posted five years ago, because he thinks that the subject is still relevant.  I agree; and that is why I am here linking to his article -- "Against Annihilation Of The Spirit:  Let Us All Become Cowards" -- at his "power of narrative" blog.

     Mr. Silber is one of the most thoroughly consistent anti-war writers that I know of.  He touches upon historical, human, psychological and philosophical aspects of war (and war-justifiers) that many better-known writers leave unexamined.

     The post that I have linked to is one of his milder offerings.  In others, which are easily accessible at his website, his images are so sickening that they are revolting;  his invective is horribly profane and morally indefensible;  his conclusions are beyond the pale -- and for all that, I urge you to read him with an open mind, ready to try to understand his point of view, because I think he is talking about something so important, and so poorly understood by many of us, that we must allow ourselves to be shocked at all levels by what must be said and how it must be said.

     I hereby withhold, for the moment, passing any further specific judgment on what he says.  I urge you to read him and form your own opinions.

*       *       *

     Arthur Silber refers to the movie, The Americanization Of Emily, in his post.  A relevant video link can be found here.

     I may offer my opinions in the comments section below, as may you.  Feel free to agree or disagree, strongly or mildly.  (Though, if we express ourselves, let us keep a tone of civility which Mr. Silber, for certain reasons, might refuse to follow.)

Wednesday, May 23, 2012

Mary Surratt and Crazy Horse

    Mary Surratt, a Maryland widow, was accused, tried, and hanged for conspiracy to kill President Abraham Lincoln in 1865. 

     Let us suppose a question:  Did she receive the due process guaranteed by the Bill of Rights?  In some sense, yes, due process was observed:  that is, there was a public trial -- very public, in fact.  But the probity of her accusers, and the judges, and the politicians who hired them -- well, that would raise other questions.  And her actual guilt would be yet another question.  Robert Redford's recent movie, The Conspirator, revisits that very disturbing (to me, at least) episode in American jurisprudence.  I urge you to watch that movie, if you haven't already.  (No, it is not a feel-good movie.)

     Twelve years later, Crazy Horse, the Sioux war chief, was in federal custody when he died "resisting arrest" in 1877.  A look at the sequence of events which preceded his death is likely to make you wonder whether "resisting arrest" was the crucial part of the story.

     I am aware that I can be accused of a kind of "disloyalty to America" by bringing up such painful episodes from the distant past.  After all, the Civil War had just ended and feelings were understandably high, in the case of Mrs. Surratt.  And after all, in the case of Crazy Horse, the death of Custer and his men at the Battle of Little Big Horn had occurred only the previous year.

     I should like to make two points.

     The first is that I am not blaming your ancestors, or mine, for what happened either to Mrs. Surratt or Crazy Horse.  (Not at this point, anyway.)  After all, the deaths were carried out by paid agents of the government, both military and civilian.  If I am talking about rank injustice and administrative murder, I am faulting the Federal establishment, in both cases.

     But the Constitution of the United States, with its very fine Bill of Rights that seeks to restrain injustice, was in full force at the time -- and yet that Constitution had no decisive power in the minds of the men who were the agents of the government that it created.  At the critical moments in these cases, control was firmly in the hands of morally-challenged politicians, party hacks, and men under military constraints.

     This is disturbing.  We cannot blame "Communist infiltrators" or "Nazi agents" or the "New World Order" for these aberrations -- this was long before their time.  We may have the finest Constitution in the world; but if our government -- who "derives its just powers from the consent of the governed," in the words of our own Declaration of Independence -- ignores the restraints of that Constitution whenever it feels the urge to do so, then we do not have a functioning constitution at all.  We kid ourselves if we think that we do.

     I proceed to the second point.

     Feelings did run high.   There were hundreds of thousands (millions?) of Americans who hated white Southerners enough, as a class, to engage in the protracted killing-crusade that was the Civil War.  There were hundreds of thousands (millions?) of Americans who agreed with "exterminating" the plains Indians (William T. Sherman's word), since their lands were "needed" for the great manifest-destiny-fulfilling transcontinental railroads.  And, it is possible -- by no means certain, but possible -- that one or two of our ancestors, yours and mine, were numbered among those people with those strong moral or patriotic feelings.

     Old prejudices take new forms in new generations.  Large numbers of Americans have hated, in their turn, the French, the British, the Spanish, the Irish, the Germans, the Italians, the Japanese, the Russians, the Vietnamese, just for being what they are -- people with a distinctive nationality.  Or, in the most recent case, the Muslims, people with a distinctive religion.

     Have you noticed that this antagonism is highest when "they" have something that "we" want?  Like land?  Or new "trading markets"?  Or a "native" population that "we" want to work for us, cheap?  Or oil?

     Have you noticed that very often this organized hostility (is hatred too strong a word when the end is murder?), whether ethnic or religious in motivation, is enthusiastically supported by men who claim to speak for God? 

     Right now, for instance, and for the last decade since "Nine-Eleven,"  the political church and the political parties have maintained an anti-Muslim, anti-human-rights media chorus that is so consistently on-message, and so consistently ignorant of countervailing realities, that it could lead you to wonder . . .

     Was the "Nine-Eleven Event" a staged hypocrisy?  Folks who have read my earlier posts know that I find persuasive evidence that the media-government story is false.  False, as in physically impossible.  And if the last decade has been a media-political charade, what is the truth that is so dark that it must be protected, in Churchill's words, by a "bodyguard of lies"?

     Who is complicit in this?  Who benefits?

Saturday, May 19, 2012

The Mexican War : Politics and Jesus

     I intend someday to post an article entitled, "Truth in US Wars:  The Mexican War,"  but I'm not prepared for that yet.  In the meantime, a few observations.

     There is a song which carries the words of the poet, James Russell Lowell, who, in his day, protested the Mexican War.   The song has found its way into Christian hymnals; here are the lyrics:

Once to every man and nation, comes the moment to decide,
In the strife of truth with falsehood, for the good or evil side;
Some great cause, some great decision, offering each the bloom or blight,
And the choice goes by forever, ’twixt that darkness and that light.

Then to side with truth is noble, when we share her wretched crust,
Ere her cause bring fame and profit, and ’tis prosperous to be just;
Then it is the brave man chooses while the coward stands aside,
Till the multitude make virtue of the faith they had denied.

By the light of burning martyrs, Christ, Thy bleeding feet we track,
Toiling up new Calv’ries ever with the cross that turns not back;
New occasions teach new duties, time makes ancient good uncouth,
They must upward still and onward, who would keep abreast of truth.

Though the cause of evil prosper, yet the truth alone is strong;
Though her portion be the scaffold, and upon the throne be wrong;
Yet that scaffold sways the future, and behind the dim unknown,
Standeth God within the shadow, keeping watch above His own.

     As with many Christian hymns, this song shares its tune ("Ebenezer," by Thomas Williams)  with other songs, other lyrics.  Here is one: "O The Deep Deep Love Of Jesus,"  by Samuel Francis:

O the deep, deep love of Jesus, vast, unmeasured, boundless, free!
Rolling as a mighty ocean in its fullness over me!
Underneath me, all around me, is the current of Thy love
Leading onward, leading homeward to Thy glorious rest above!

O the deep, deep love of Jesus, spread His praise from shore to shore!
How He loveth, ever loveth, changeth never, nevermore!
How He watches o’er His loved ones, died to call them all His own;
How for them He intercedeth, watcheth o’er them from the throne!

O the deep, deep love of Jesus, love of every love the best!
’Tis an ocean full of blessing, ’tis a haven giving rest!
O the deep, deep love of Jesus, ’tis a heaven of heavens to me;
And it lifts me up to glory, for it lifts me up to Thee!

     One song looks outward through moral, ethical, even political eyes; the other looks inward and upward though spiritual, even mystical perceptions.  Yet, in my mind at least, those differing aspects harmonize.

     How different both are from the shrill greed, premeditated violence, and militant ignorance that characterized the United States' war on Mexico, and its discordant, reverberating aftermath, the American civil war.

*       *       *

      Links to "Once To Every Man And Nation." 

      Links to "O The Deep Deep Love Of Jesus."

     Thanks to Becky Akers' brief post at Lew Rockwell's website for the links that suggested this post.

Monday, May 14, 2012

"Hiroshima Tactics" For Total War on Islam?

     Please read this link, " 'Hiroshima Tactics' For Total War on Islam,"  about a course of study that has been used to train certain high-level decision-makers -- and orders-takers -- in our military, and then come back here, if you will.



      Now, let's slowly run down several questions.

     1.  Think about your friends and family who are in the military -- for the finest and most self-sacrificial of motives.  Are they being influenced (or controlled) by people who think that they should try to convince whoever they can that America's real "terrorist enemy" is the Islamic faith itself -- and that under foreseeable circumstances, "Hiroshima tactics" of nuclear obliteration of cities are to be seriously contemplated to deal with this perceived threat?

     2. Think about your favorite political party, or your favorite candidate for elective office.  Are they/he/she being influenced, or controlled, by people who think like this?

     3.  Think about your favorite social organization.  Is it being influenced, or run, by people who think like this?

     4.  Think about the shapers of our social thinking:  grade schools, high schools, universities, news presenters and commentators, media producers, and celebrities.  Not just the "other guys," but the ones you (and I) like.  Do they think like this?

     5.  Is our nation, and are other nations, being influenced/run by people who think like this?

     6.  Think about yourself, your friends, and your family.  Are you/they being influenced by people who think like this?  Are you/they starting to think like this?  Why do you think what you do, and why do other people see things the same way, or differently?

     7.  Think about your church (or synagogue, or mosque).  Are you/they being led by people who think like this?  Perhaps a more ultimate question:  Does the Holy One think like this?   Does He really?  Why?

     8.  What is to be done, if anything?

*       *       *

     Thanks to the Doc for sending me the link that inspired this post.  Comments always welcome.

Sunday, May 13, 2012

Jesus Rediscovered

A book review

     I just finished re-reading Jesus Rediscovered, by Malcolm Muuggeridge, and I have to say that it is once again a great read.

     It was first recommended to me by a good friend named Fred, probably some time in the late Seventies.  At that time, I didn't know much, if anything, about this rather well-known -- may I say, social critic, for lack of a better label?  I came away from the book with the sense that Muggeridge was somewhere in the middle of a good walk from somewhere very unpleasant to somewhere much better.  How far he had gotten, I wasn't sure.

     But I certainly remembered him a few years later, when the time came to discover a couple of his later books --  The End of Christendom and A Third Testament; and I found both of these books to be a distinct blessing.

     I am not going to analyze or critique the book, Jesus Rediscovered, for two reasons.  The first reason is, I am no good at it -- critical analysis, that is.  It just isn't the way I read books:  when I am reading, I am usually just trying to get acquainted with the author; to help me do this I mark relevant passages, and make notes in the margins.  Attempting to remember, but not to analyze.

     The second reason not to comment in an analytical or systematic way is that I don't think Muggeridge wants me to.  His first paragraph in his foreword seems to say as much:

     "It is with the utmost trepidation and diffidence that I have collected together these miscellaneous pieces all directly or indirectly concerned with my attitude towards, and feelings about, the Christian religion.  They do not set out to present a coherent, or even consistent, statement of faith.  I am well aware that they are often contradictory, repetitive and imprecise; I have deliberately refrained from trying to trim and prune them into conveying an impression of coherence and consistency which would falsify my own actual mental state.  All they represent -- and it is little enough -- is the effort of one ageing twentieth-century mind to give expression to a deep dissatisfaction with prevailing twentieth-century values and assumptions, and a sense that there is an alternative -- an alternative propounded two thousand years ago by the Sea of Galilee and on the hill called Golgotha." (p.6)

     Muggeridge wrote most of these "miscellaneous pieces" between 1965 and 1968.  By that time, the social utopia dreamed of by his father, and promised by the Labor Party in Britain, had failed long since, and nobody even wanted to seriously talk about it; classical liberalism in general was discredited;  marxism, in those days, was in its intellectual high noon in the West, or just a little bit past it; and America was dominated by the dual crusades of the Great Society and the Vietnam War.  Furthermore, most of the institutional church in the West -- or at least its intellectual leadership -- had slid, if not into marxism, then into mere materialism: and whether revolutionary or non-revolutionary, what did it matter?

     Muggeridge, then in his middle-sixties, felt thoroughly estranged from both the political world and the institutional church; and he expected to be dead within a decade.  And I think he was glad at the thought.  He was not an optimist, at least not of the kind who join clubs, though he would call himself "a tactical pessimist and a strategic optimist."

     Whence the strategic optimism?

     During his lifelong process of abandoning successive utopias, he had begun to rediscover Jesus.  First, perhaps, in his favorite writers -- Pascal, Blake, Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Simone Weil, and several others; and then, later, in the Holy Land.

     He was there to do a series for the BBC, and visited various historic sites in Galilee and around Jerusalem.  At the close of the filming, he and his friend Allan Frazer walked on the road from Jerusalem to Emmaus, recalling St. Luke's story of Cleopas and his friend making that same walk on the day of the Resurrection.  Here are Malcolm Muggeridge's words about that experience:

     "The story, you know, is so incredibly vivid that I swear to you that no one who has ever tried to write can doubt its authenticity.  There is something in the very language and manner of it which breathes truth.  Anyway, they went in to eat their supper, and of course when the stranger broke bread they realized that he was no stranger but their Saviour.  As my friend and I walked along like Cleopas and his friend, we recalled as they did the events of the Crucifixion and its aftermath in the light of our utterly different and yet similar world.  Nor was it a fancy that we too were joined by a third presence.  And I tell you that wherever the walk, and whoever the wayfarers, there is always this third presence ready to emerge from the shadows and fall in step along the dusty, stony way." (p.98)

     We may be thankful that, in the succeeding decades, neither his personal history nor our cultural history turned out as badly as Malcolm Muggeridge thought they would.  He lived more than twenty years more, during which time he wrote several good books; he became a close friend to Mother Teresa; and he and his wife, Kitty, were received into the Roman Catholic Church in 1982.  He died in 1990 at the age of 87.

     He lived long enough to watch the sun begin to set on marxism as a serious historical or philosophical revolutionary movement.  The imminent collapse of civilization did not come.

     So, is Muggeridge's book at all relevant after more than forty years?  I would say yes, very much so.  The things that concerned him -- the crass materialism, the epidemic of ignorance, the hypnotics of the media, the inflamed and empty eroticism, the love of violence, the absence of spirituality, and the general decline of the formerly Christian West continue to worsen.

     The very good news, though, is that Malcolm Muggeridge is far from alone in rediscovering Jesus.   Jesus is here; He is being rediscovered.  And not only, in Mother Teresa's words, in "one of His most distressing disguises" as the poor, though certainly there.  Listen to the stories!  And tell your own.

     The words of Malcolm Muggeridge are true:  "Wherever the walk, and whoever the wayfarers, there is always this third presence ready to emerge from the shadows and fall in step along the dusty, stony way."

*       *       *

I hope to put some good quotes in the comments.  Join me there.

Jesus Rediscovered was published in Glasgow by William Collins Sons, 1969.  Some (later?) editions are available online.

Tuesday, May 8, 2012

The Riddle of Judgment

     The Lord of All Worlds has said, "Judge not, that ye be not judged.  For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged."

     One of His holy Apostles has said, "Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?  Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?"

     I see a riddle here.  Riddles invite answers; or at least, thought.

     But if it is a riddle, it is a holy riddle.  If it is a holy riddle, it invites a serious answer; or at least serious thought.  I have been thinking seriously about this.

*       *       *

     Your thoughts are most welcome.

Thursday, May 3, 2012

Some Railroad History With Commentary

Guest post by Ben Carmack

 What follows is a part of my recently submitted paper titled "Understanding Railroads," submitted for my transportation engineering course at U of L.        

          Railroads were built and financed by a combination of public and private support. In the beginning, roads were built with state charters, as in the case of the New Albany and Salem Railroad.[i] Finance would be provided in the form of bonds, both private and government bonds. The amount of capital required to build and operate a railroad was (and is) very high, which meant that it was very difficult for a railroad to make any money. Consequently, railroads relied on government influence and support, but this support was frequently controversial.
            Abraham Lincoln, in his legal career, was distinguished as a railroad attorney. One case that he argued is particularly instructive from the standpoint of railroad history. In 1852 Lincoln represented the Alton & Sangamon Railroad in a right of way acquisition case. The road argued that it was not bound to pay damages to an affected property owner for right of way acquisition because the expected rise in value of the land from the construction of the railroad would cover the cost of the acquired right of way. The Illinois Supreme Court ruled in Lincoln’s favor and upheld an Illinois law that allowed such “just compensation,” though that same year the Illinois legislature passed another law which removed “community interests” from the accounting for just compensation. Many states had similar laws.[ii] Lincoln also defended the same railroad in 1851 when a stock subscriber refused to pay for his subscription when the Alton & Sangamon changed its route and built its line far away from property the stock subscriber owned. The subscriber argued that since he was promised economic benefits from the construction of the railroad, the railroad was bound to keep its agreement to build its line close to his lands. Lincoln argued that stock subscribers had to pay the railroad regardless of mitigating circumstances. The Illinois Supreme Court held in Lincoln’s favor, making him one of the most prominent railroad attorneys around, since the case became a major precedent in railroad law.[iii]
            Lincoln’s work with railroads influenced his policy positions: he strongly supported building a transcontinental railroad and began working to make it a reality when he became president in 1861. He position was so well known that it was part of the reason why various Southern states decided to secede from the Union after his election as president.[iv] At issue were two very different ways of reading the Constitution: one, devised by Alexander Hamilton and defended by Northern industrialists, argued that the Constitution through implied powers gave the federal government the right to support and build public improvement projects. The other interpretation was devised by Thomas Jefferson and was defended by Southern politicians, plantation owners and farmers. They argued that the Constitution prescribed very limited powers, and the federal government could only exercise those powers enumerated by the Constitution. James Madison, the “father of the Constitution,” made an argument like Jefferson's as president when he vetoed a spending bill for a canal project.[v]
One may see the difference in philosophy in the text of the Constitutions for the Union and the Confederacy. In the federal Constitution, still in effect today, one power given to Congress in Article I, Section 8 is “to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” The Confederate Constitution included that language but added, “but neither this nor any other clause contained in the [Confederate] Constitution shall be construed to delegate the power to Congress to appropriate money for any internal improvement intended to facilitate commerce…”[vi]
Legislation for building the first transcontinental railroad was passed not long after Lincoln became president.[vii] The Constitutional issues involved with the road were ultimately settled by the outcome of the War Between the States, won by the Union. Henceforth it has been taken as a given that the federal government has the Constitutional authority to construct public improvements, which is the basis of much of our transportation planning and funding in the U.S.
The intricacies of how the first transcontinental railroad was financed are far beyond the scope of this paper. Suffice it to say that both the Union Pacific and Central Pacific enjoyed tremendous subsidies from the federal government in the form of public land grants (much of the Western territory was not yet settled) and thirty year federally guaranteed bonds. The roads did not even have to pay interest on the bonds during the thirty year period due to the ambiguity of the law authorizing construction and financing of the railroad; the taxpayers picked up the tab.[viii] The ambitious project crossed empty territory where expected traffic would be minimal, let alone turn a profit,  and so potential investors were quite reluctant to sign on, even with large government incentives. To get around this difficulty, the owners of the Union Pacific in particular set up the Credit Mobilier corporation as the construction firm to which the Union Pacific would give contracts to construct the railroad.[ix] Because the same men owned both the railroad and the construction company, it was easy to sell stock—the Credit Mobilier would be paid for its services in part with railroad stock.[x]
The Credit Mobilier became infamous during the Grant administration when Congress learned that Congressman/businessman Oakes Ames had sold key members of Congress of both parties as well as the Vice President, Schuyler Colfax, stock in the Credit Mobilier below par, that is at a discount, in exchange for political favors for the railroad. Congress found that a particular piece of legislation regarding the regulation and setting of rates of the Union Pacific was opposed by those same members who had purchased stock from Mr. Ames; Congress concluded that collusion and corruption was the true cause of the opposition, and removed Oakes Ames and several others from office.[xi]
Since the same men owned the Credit Mobilier as owned the Union Pacific, and since the Credit Mobilier was a limited liability corporation, it was quite easy to overcharge for the construction of the railroad and make a handsome profit for the insiders at government expense. By record, the total cost reported to build the road was about $42.825 million, while the Union Pacific paid $93.546 million to contractors to complete the project; if the true value of the Union Pacific stock were taken into consideration (it was worth 30 cents on the dollar on average), the profit margin narrowed to a mere $20.874 million.[xii] Considering that the transcontinental railroad, when completed in 1869, was unable to generate enough revenue to pay its debts, resulting in the Panic of 1873, one may ascertain the true value and profitability of the railroad.[xiii]
            What lessons may an engineer learn from the episode of the transcontinental railroad? Engineers are capable of designing just about anything, but whether or not it will actually work is another consideration entirely. In the case of the transcontinental railroad, one finds again and again tales of private corporations profiting from federal largesse and getting bailed out by taxpayers ( a familiar story throughout American history even to the present day). Not only is the transcontinental railroad and the Credit Mobilier scandal a cautionary tale regarding the wisdom of public support of questionable private ventures, it calls into question the whole idea of extensive federal intervention in the economy at all. From Abraham Lincoln to Barack Obama, American politicians talk of “dreaming big,” proper judgment and the Bill of Rights be damned.  For the good of country, wise engineers and planners should ask, “Why are we doing this?” “Where is the money going to come from?” “What does the Constitution say?” Sadly, one often finds such questions will make one quite unwelcome and even the subject of derision, though one would think they are surely prudent questions, ones engineers often ask and should ask.
The Future
            Another federally funded transportation scheme, the national interstate system, is strained by heavy use which depends upon a large supply of cheap fuel. This fuel, however, continues to grow more expensive. The federally subsidized interstate apparatus has fostered an economy that depends upon long distance transport of freight, often to the detriment of local economies and resources. As a result, we are bound to continue to spend more and more because we cannot do without food, clothing and other necessities. The high cost of fuel persists even though the U.S today, for the first time since the 1940s, exports more gasoline than it imports.[xiv] On average, one freight train can replace 250 tractor trailers on our roadways, using far less fuel.[xv] Ironically, railroads today are perfectly capable of making a profit shipping freight, without government assistance, while interstate highways are, for the most part, entirely government run and operated. If some of the massive highway investment were directed to renewing railroad infrastructure, the country could stand to save much on fuel while continuing to ship the freight we need to keep the global economy running. It is certainly worth our serious consideration.
It will do us no good to simply repeat the mistakes of the past. If public money is to be spent on transportation infrastructure, pains should be taken by all involved to make sure that wise investments are being made, and that “bubble economics” is carefully avoided in favor of sound economics which takes into account the benefit of all the people, especially the small, and not only the privileged few insiders. 

[i] Perring, Thomas Carter. “New Albany-Salem Railroad—Incidents of Road and Men,” Indiana Magazine of History. Vol. 15, No. 4 (December 1919). Pgs. 342-362. Published online courtesy of the Trustees of Indiana University Bloomington:
[ii] Ely, James W., Jr. “Abraham Lincoln as a Railroad Attorney,” Indiana Historical Society, 2005 Railroad Symposium: Lincoln and the Railroads, Available:
[iii] Ibid, endnote ii.
[iv] DiLorenzo, Thomas J. “Why the Republican Party Elected Lincoln,” Lew Oct. 1, 2003. Available:
[v] Woods, Thomas E., Jr. and Kevin R.C. Gutzman, Who Killed the Constitution? New York: Crown Forum, 2008. pg. 75.
[vi] Thomas, Emory M. The Confederate Nation. New York: Harper & Row, 1979. Pg. 311
[vii] Ibid, endnote iv
[viii] White, Richard. Railroaded: The Transcontinentals and the Making of Modern America. New York: W.W. Norton, 2011. pg. 23
[ix] Crawford, J.B. The Credit Mobilier of America: Its Origin and History. New York: Greenwood Press, 1880. 1969 ed. pg. 14.
[x] Ibid White pg. 28
[xi] Ibid Crawford, pgs. 77-78 and Ibid. White pg. 64.
[xii] Ibid Crawford pgs. 66-67.
[xiii] Ibid White pg. 78.
[xiv] Brady, Jeff. “Gas Pains? U.S. Diesel, Gas Exports Surpass Imports,” National Public Radio, December 29, 2011. Available:
[xv] Odom, Les & Rick Rayback. "Surveying Railroad Corridors With Respect to Property Lines," Indiana Society of Professional Land Surveyors' 60th Annual Convention, Indianapolis, IN, January 20, 2012