The Basics Of Using Excel: Fill & Download for Free

The term Bantu Education is one of the most emotive and contentious issues in South Africa. It is also a subject that is greatly misinformed. Education has, as a result been politicized in South Africa from the dawn of colonialism and indeed right up to now in 2020.In fact the Soweto student uprising (the children you refer to) in 1976 did not “stop” the Bantu Education Act. This is one of the biggest misconceptions about the history of education in South Africa.To understand why a thing called “Bantu Education” was implemented we need to understand the basic history of what is now known as South Africa and its white settlers. Before I start, when I refer to education in this question, it is in the form of FORMAL schooling and academic subjects as has been taught in schools around Western and European world countries for centuries… and as opposed to basic survival skills like hunting, finding food sources, building shelters, cultural and tribal spiritual issues and beliefs.Prior to white people first setting foot on Southern African soil, on a tiny tip of the African continent in 1652 and what is now known as the Cape, there had not been any formal education since the dawn of time. In comparison to white people, the indigenous people of Southern Africa (known as the Khoi and San people) in the area around the Cape, were approx. 5 to 8 thousands years behind in technical evolution.Indigenous people right across Southern Africa had as yet not invented the wheel. Forging of metal to make tools had as yet not been widely learned. People had not yet began to domesticate animals to assist them. The skills of build permanent dwellings from stone had not been learned. Sustainable agriculture had not been learned or used. Clothing was very basic and usually made from pieces of animal skins. Indigenous people, more importantly had as yet not learned to record language in the written form. This is an important aspect to the slow progression of formal education.So it was when in 1652 white Dutch people landed in the cape, with the purpose of establishing a supply camp for their trading ships on the long sea voyages to and from Asia, India and the Netherlands, that there was little they could do to educate a people who had not wanted nor seen any need to be “educated” by white people. The Dutch however saw education as vitally important to their own children and the children of Malaysian slaves they had brought with them. And so schools to accommodate children of these mixed races were established… and needed as the supply camp in the Cape, out of necessity grew when farms were established to gradually became a formalized Dutch colony.Just prior to and then during the Napoleonic wars (1795 to 1806), the British occupied the Dutch Cape Colony.In 1835, Cape settlers known as Afrikaners and Boers (settler farmers of African birth), by now disenchanted with what they saw as draconian British rule and suppression of their culture and religion, decided to move away from the Cape colony and in search of their own homeland. And so what was known as The Great Trek began. The first wave of Voortrekkers (pioneers) consisting of about 6000 men, women and children with all the world goods packed into ox-drawn wagons, split into several different parties under their own leaders. The Great Trek lasted until about 1840.The Voortrekkers moved inland and also up the Southern Coastline in search of unoccupied land or land that they could buy and trade for. The main areas where whites trekkers settled was what was later known as the Natal region, Orange Free state and the Transvaal (although not confined specifically to only these areas).Over the years, from 1789 to 1900’s when white settlers (including Voortrekkers) developed communities with farms, industry and towns, so too schools began to develop, mainly by churches wanting to spread the word of God and bible teachings. Church mission schools attempted to teach native Africans (known as Bantu) the word of God and to replace the preliterate tribal education of native Africans in the South African colonies.Colonial governments (Britain) made occasional grants to these from 1854. Some mission schools included a mixture of races but, by and large, segregation was established by custom. It was soon discovered that black children, inherently illiterate, who had, had no history of formalized schooling or written word were slow learners and by a people who had as yet not embraced this form of “white education”. The churches then established “Bantu” schools and where predominantly black children of interested parents could be taught in “mother tongue” black languages… and although some mission schools were excellent, most only taught enough for inherently illiterate black people to be able to read and write the word of God.For many years, from 1789 to 1948, black education was as a result primarily funded by various church groups and not standardized or formalized nationally. Subject matter and curriculum as a result varied from school to school… and funding was also inconsistent. In addition to these educational challenges, war between the “Boers” and Britain raged throughout South Africa (1880 to 1881 and then 1889 to 1902) , which effectively halted any notion of educational development for many years.There was little to no self-development by the black people of South Africa themselves during the period of colonization, especially in regard to formalized education… and indeed throughout the period of British rule (Union of SA).In 1948, the National Party won elections. Afrikaans speaking whites, had experienced a long history of racial wars and atrocities, two eras of forced British rule, three major wars (Anglo-Boer war, First World War, Second World War), famine and poverty. And now fearing extinction as they were being overwhelmed by black people migrating from surrounding areas and various “homelands” seeking employment and settling around white established cities and towns. Fearing extinction of their culture, the new Nationalist government introduced the apartheid (apartness) system of separate development.This is Britannica’s description of apartheid and apartheid era education:“Fundamentally, the system of apartheid rested on three assumptions: (1) that each cultural group should be encouraged to retain its identity and develop according to its “unique” characteristics, (2) that, with a population of diverse racial-social groups, the way to ensure peaceful coexistence and general progress was through legal and institutional separation, and (3) that the only agency capable of exercising overall responsibility for this development was the central government. Implementation of apartheid policy led to a near-total separation of educational facilities for white, Black, Coloured (mixed-race), and Indian (Asian) populations, with resulting divergence of opportunity between the extremes of Black and white education.Concern over African education in the 1940s led to the creation of the Eiselen Commission whose report in 1951 accorded with the separatist racial views of the government that came to power in 1948 and laid the groundwork for subsequent apartheid (“apartness”) legislation in education. That legislation included the Bantu Education Act of 1953.” Education - South AfricaIt must be remembered that education of an inherently illiterate and historically educationally devoid culture of black people posed great challenges. This in addition to following the system of apartheid where blacks were being encouraged to follow their own path of development and culture within their own tribal lands.As well as state funding ALL education, the National Party then also funded and built universities and schools for black people in their respective tribal homelands.Britannica describes the administration of post 1948 education thus: “Administration of education was divided between national departments and provincial authorities. Because education was differentiated by race, four separate systems were established. Education for whites was controlled by the Minister of National Education, and provincial–federal coordination was accomplished through a National Education Council and a Committee of Heads of Education. Education for Coloured and Indian population groups was administered through the legislative bodies representing these groups, the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates, respectively. Education for Blacks was largely the responsibility of the Black “homeland” governments. All four systems were supposed to follow the same basic organizational and curricular patterns. For Blacks outside the homelands, the Department of Education and Training administered education.” Education - South AfricaAs early as early as 1975 it was very apparent to the Nationalist Party that the system of apartheid could not work. In preparation to the eventual dismantling of the system, they decided to standardize both white and black (Bantu) educational systems and curricula. Unfortunately this also meant that the languages of instruction for Bantu education had to change from mother tongue… to ENGLISH and AFRIKAANS as was compulsory in all white schools. Ironically this change was seen by “Black Consciousness” as forcing blacks to be taught in their oppressors language of Afrikaans. This led to the Soweto student riots of 1976, which the ANC then hijacked to ignite a struggle against apartheid.ANC’s Winnie Mandela stated… “REVOLUTION BEFORE EDUCATION”.So, although the uprising by school children was initially against AFRIKAANS and secondly against “Bantu Education”, the education agenda changed to a fight to end apartheid. And ironically segregated Bantu Education was already being dismantled.Note: All apartheid laws and legislation were repealed and changed BEFORE 1994 and before the ANC began to govern SA.It is interesting to note, that after almost 27 years of democracy, and integrated schooling and teaching, education in South Africa poses even greater challenges than in the apartheid era… and ironically subject matter and passing grades are being constantly modified downwards to accommodate better looking pass levels and grade achievements by majority of black learners. Teaching standards have also declined significantly. South Africa, as a result has one of the lowest standards of education in the world… especially in maths and sciences.

Dramatically. This drought builds upon long term trends stressing California's water system built 1-2 generations ago to accommodate a much less crowded state.Here's what that looks like in terms of aggregate supply and demand for Southern California from a canonical 2012 US Bureau of Reclamation Study (aka something done before the current drought stresses).That's why demand management is such a big deal as Steven McQuinn says. You might be tempted to say that this is "just a So Cal" problem but that neglects the minor fact that San Francisco and the other parts of Silicon Valley supplied by the SF PUC receive a decidedly nontrivial part of their water from the Sierras through the Hetch Hetchy project.We're all in this togetherCalifornia's water supply system connects close to 90% of our state's population through an incredibly complex system combining natural and man made water transfer systems. (There's a few parts of the state in the far North and the Sierra's that are largely hydrologically independent.)That big yellow line running down the middle of California is the big aqueduct you see beside the I-5 in the Central Valley. That aqueduct (formally the State Water Project) was built in the 60's by Governor Jerry Brown's dad Pat Brown and Jerry Brown is currently trying to provide some sensible system upgrades to improve water reliability and restore the Delta ecosystem (cool infographic and project description here: http://gov.ca.gov/docs/Delta_Fact_Sheets_4.30.15.pdf )Why California's water future begins with demand managementThe "Delta Fix" to the State Water Project at best only aspires to improve the reliability of existing water supplies and so barring some Captain Kirk-esque moonshot to beam water down from Alaska, we're going to have to figure out how to live with the water we have.The State Water Project dipped into a historically unprecedented zero percent allocation in 2014. That combined with record low Sierra snowpack prompted Governor Brown to declare California's first ever statewide 25% mandatory reductions a month ago and take aim at unnecessary ornamental lawns. It's not like you can't have pretty landscaping btw. There's tons of drought tolerant California natives out there. california native landscaping - Google SearchLook at the map at the right using the US Bureau of Reclamation's drought watch data. The saving grace so far has been that California has still received fairly healthy Colorado river supplies (note the "less red" along new Mexico and Utah and Colorado -- super scientific I know ;) ).What happens if that supply goes the way of the State Water Project and dries up? Then we're not talking about tearing out ornamental turf. That's when we start to have to consider restricting water use to essential health and human services and the big economic impacts to industry start happening. I'm not trying to scare anyone btw -- just give you all a clear eyed appreciation for the realities we face.And note it's tempting to trivialize all this talk of conservation as neglecting the "80% of water that goes to agricultural use" but it's important to know what that number actually means. Do Californians in cities not go to farmer's markets and eat produce? That's a huge amount of "virtual water" water right there folks and effectively zero of that is included in theThat 80% figure also has human uses as the denominator and ignores the 50% of water statewide on average that goes to "environmental" purposes. Though again the categories are a bit simplistic b/c that includes water used for fish like salmon which have some pretty clear human uses: deliciousness ;)And less whimsically, as John Muir wisely noted while traipsing about in the Sierras one summer with little more than a few loaves of bread, “When one tugs at a single thing in nature, he finds it attached to the rest of the world.” That deep perspective reminds us to stay humble in the face of future water uncertainty, particularly given we only have a rich historical record of water supply for about a century and climate change shifts California's baselines.The (Old?) Normal: are we ready for a Megadrought?Let's remember that we're only in the fourth year of the current drought. Australia recently had one that lasted over a decade. And scientists looking at tree rings and other ecological artifacts tell us that droughts spanning multiple centuries have occurred several times in the last millennium.See A 1,200-year perspective of 21st century drought in southwestern North America for detail.Will 25% urban conservation be enough to ensure our civilization can survive such an occurrence? No. Yet will we have any chance of dealing with a megadrought if we're still messing around with ornamental lawns that serve no useful purpose?The need for Silicon Valley's "pioneering spirit"There's some cool digital tools out there to communicate better with Californians about conservation like Water Smart and a whole bunch of "tattle on your neighbor" water waste reporting tools that pop up in every "hackathon" touching on water.Yet there's huge categories of demand management that could be done an order of magnitude better with modern digital tools that frankly Silicon Valley is blind to because these opportunities are shrouded behind a "pretzel palace of incredible complexity" to use Jerry Brown's memorable phrase for California's administrative architecture.Consider a few opportunities:1) How the governor's 25% statewide allocation is being implementedThere's a raging debate among water management insiders going on about how to allocate that 25% conservation mandate among ~400 of California's urban water utilities. But beyond all the in the weed arguments about fairness with past conservation, evapotranspiration differentials and other local context there's one glaringly obvious data management fact that you can see right on the State's drought website: State Water Resources Control Board.Here's a super simple Tableau dashboard a buddy and I threw together mashing up that recent State Board data with historical usage to provide a more robust picture of conservation trends:California Statewide Water Usage (February SWRCB + UWMP) And here's a blog post diving into all the water management nit grit: Balancing short and long term conservation to meet Governor Brown's 25% urban water use conservation mandateYet can't we do better than tracking statewide water usage via a giant excel spreadsheet thrown up on an FTP server? Why not parse water usage at a individual household rather than aggregate utility level? That data is personally identifiable but as the Sac Bee says commercial corporations aren't people that deserve privacy protection and residential usage could be aggregated at the Census Block level (on the order of thousands of people) and made public using the same logic as the US Census.That's a principled approach using technologies that exist today that could be implemented in a manner of months if not weeks with the right team and leadership from the top.2) Where are California's lawns?Southern California is spending well over $200 million to pay cash rebates to people that tear out their lawns. Yet good data on how many lawns there are across California at a household level are lacking and "you can't manage what you can't measure."A buddy and I started messing around with publicly available aerial and google streeview imagery for my hometown but there's a ton of ways to improve on our super simplistic approach that you can read about here:Dude where's my lawn?There's also a need to have a time series of landscape type so we can get a better idea of the decision calculus of all households that change from ornamental turf to California native landscaping. Google has that going back to 2007 for most of California but doesn't expose historical images through their streetview api.Strikes me that geotagging lawns and classifying landscapes to help the California drought would be a better toy problem for their image processing geniuses than deciding "cat / no cat" on the Youtube.3) Pioneering a new conservation ethicHere's where one and two come together. Everyone in the water management industry knows we can't get the permanent conservation necessary by paying out cash rebates. That'll run into 10+ figure range.No the strategy has always been to use cash rebates to incentivize early adopters and then a phased approach to achieve market transformation.The data gathered in one and two could be mashed up with other sources like home assessed valuation, party registration and maybe even all the social dataThe logic is pretty simple: do what the Obama campaign did with data to personalize outreach to win hearts and minds to California native landscaping.Digital tools like nationbuilder have proven pretty useful for organizing and galvanizing action so why not use them to develop conservation allies in the community and use volunteers like the California Conservation Corps to help plant California native landscaping?California's incredibly complex administrative architectureI've worked in and around California water issues from more organizations at a state, local and federal level than many (even policy savvy) folks know exist. I don't say that to be like "look at me I'm an expert" but rather to note that I've there's still infinities of administrative complexity that baffle me.For instance, I did the financing numbers on the Governor's Delta Fix a few years back and every time I talk to someone who's in the weeds on the Delta there's another key organization or bureaucratic process instrumental to the success or failure of the plan. It often feels like this "advert" about India's civil service:And note I don't mean that to mock California's dedicated civil servants (that'd lead to many an awkward dinner since I'm close friends with and related to a good number). In fact, I'd note that California's water management community has some of the most talented technocrats in the world.Singapore's the darling of the Aspen Ideas, Economist globe trotting good governance crowd. But where was the recycled water technology underpinning their vaunted NeWater system pioneered and scaled? Yup right here in California.Our states water managers have done an incredible job to manage demand with limited resources and working within an administrative architecture that frankly was built on a logic of supply and for another era. California has roughly a thousand water utilities, each with their unique local history and administrative powers.Try to wrap your mind around the differences between a city water department versus a nonprofit water mutual company versus a converted agricultural irrigation district versus a regulated private water company. Then consider that's just retailers and there's wholesale water suppliers like those that import from the Colorado or the State Water Project not to mention water quality regulators and actors from the state and federal government.Then work to grok that there's a slew of quasi-governmental organizational (somewhat?) outside of the formal administrative architecture like the Association of California Water Agencies that provide insurance through a JPA or funding vehicles at the intersection of all of the above... And of course many environmental and agricultural and other advocacy groups are all but de facto members of California's water governance... California’s Game of Thrones: WaterWhen you accept that despite how much you know you've still just been starting at the administrative "map" of California water and not the territory of how things actually get done, that you may have discovered the proverbial elephant as a blind man but are still blind, you can ease your mind and the lesson will be complete young jedi... Then we can proceed to the next step.The Next Frontier in Drought ManagementFirst note working within that legacy administrative framework California's urban water managers have held water usage constant for the past few decades despite adding millions of people to our cities. That's damn near heroic in my book.Of course there's a ton more that needs to be done. Here's two of the more obvious examples that serve as symbols of the larger opportunities for data science to transform how we manage demand:Better data on agricultural groundwater use so we don't just have pictures like this to judge historical trends:Basic water price informationWhat’s the average price of water charged in California? How has that changed in the last month? In this day and age, why can’t that question be a simple database query rather than a five+ figure survey billed out to some overpriced consulting firm that doesn’t even gather a comprehensive dataset?Look I get to Silicon Valley types with all the oodles of opportunity you kids got that water demand management may not sound like the sexiest thing. But it's necessary. Water has been fundamental to civilization since mankind first built cities in ancient Sumeria.And water management has followed epochal shifts in public administration from the Roman aqueducts that still stand today to the progressive era that not only gave us the public utilities but the civil service system that defines government administration today.California's next gold rush: good governmentWhat story will you want to tell your grandkids? About the great pivot your startup made to create some service that was cool for half a day but made you a million bucks in an aquihire?Or about how you helped transform California's water management to safeguard the California dream for the next generation? Since at least the Post WWII boom, lawns have been an integral part of many California's dream of a better life and that's simply no longer sustainable.Here's our opportunity to not just help California better manage demand but to take the pioneering spirit that's built Hollywood and Silicon Valley and use it to transform how we tackle public problems... pioneer a whole new California dream if you will...Silicon Valley types like to say things like "software is eating the world" but ponder this: where are the barriers that have been holding back the digital revolution for decades? Like say where is data managed in giant excel spreadsheets on FTF servers straight outta 1995...Hint we've been talking about the big ones (politics, bureaucracy...) this whole time... Now imagine what might be possible if those weren't walls but instead wind... ;)Anyway, enough talk for one day. Gotta get back to the water data mines.Hit me up @patwater if you're down to make some plays.Cheers,PAPatrick

The federal soldier had the most abundant food allowance of any fighting man in the world at the time, and shortages were commonly short-lived. Most of the food ration was grown in the North and shipped to the theater of operations by using a diverse network of railways and roads, and by taking advantage of an almost unchallenged ability to ship supplies by water.The staple ration of the federal army was a square cracker, 3 1/8 by 2 7/8 inches, with small holes in its top, known as hardtack. Hardtack provided a good-quality ration when combined with other foods, but it took some time for the soldiers to learn to appreciate its value. Nine to ten crackers comprised a daily ration weighing only about one pound. Referred to as both army bread and biscuit, it was a very dry, incredibly hard product without leavening, and bore little resemblance to either. The army was not being purposely cruel to its soldiers by giving them hardtack to eat. Hardtack was not a new product. It was used as ship's bread for centuries. The dryness and hardness were functional characteristics. It was dry when packaged to keep the cracker from spoiling, and hard so it could be carried in the soldier's haversack without crumbling. Fresh bread was almost unheard of on campaign in the field. However, several soldiers attest to its presence in established camps.A soldier wrote home to his girlfriend—with some sarcasm—about the unrelenting presence of hardtack in his diet, "Nett, I have become a model cook since entering the Army, and I think you will agree with me when I tell you how many kinds of dishes I can make out of hardtack, 1st make pancakes out of them, 2nd hoecake, 3rd flour gravy, 4th sauce, 5th coffee, 6th, fry them." An officer wrote home sarcastically, "We are living very high nowadays, have pork, hardtack and coffee for breakfast and of course for dinner coffee, hardtack, and pork for a change. Then for supper we have a little coffee, pork, and fried hardtack. . . . I am in danger of getting the gout on account of so high living."Southern soldiers, serving in the midst of a largely agricultural area, began the war with sufficient foodstuffs. However, living off the land and relying on seasonal harvests led alternately to a superabundance of food or almost none. The Confederacy was hampered in its effort to ship foodstuffs by a lack of adequate railway facilities, by an inability to maintain control of the major water arteries within its own territory, and by the increasingly successful interdiction efforts of federal forces.The supply-starved Confederates appreciated captured federal hardtack in place of the cornbread that was the staple of their daily diet. At times the entire Southern army seemed to run on nothing but cornbread and captured hardtack. The cornbread was usually coarse, dry, and rather tasteless. Baked loaves of cornbread were sometimes available to the troops, but most often dry, ground meal was issued from which the Confederate soldier needed to make his own bread. Without an oven he needed to resort to his ingenuity. A thick corn disk, called hoecake or ashcake, could be made by mixing cornmeal with water and salt into a thick paste in an oilcloth and baking the product in a frying pan or on a hot, flat stone. Such cakes could withstand moderate abuse in a haversack and, like hardtack, were a sight common at mealtime and during breaks along the line of march. Cornmeal could be mixed with hot water to form a mush, and was sometimes eaten with honey, molasses, or milk if they were available. Some soldiers improvised a full dinner stew called Confederate cush, or kush, of cornmeal mush, cooked meat, garlic, and bacon grease, ironically similar to a common preparation of plantation slaves. Cornmeal was also added to soups as a thickener.Standard rations were issued in bulk by the company in the federal army. The company cooks were generally appointed, and arrangements were made for company cooking with company cooking utensils. In his basic kit each Civil War soldier had a tin cup and plate as well as a spoon, knife, and fork which he kept in his haversack. Southern men initially formed messes, each consisting of about ten men, many employing a “Negro” man as a cook. These cooks quickly disappeared from the line of march, and rarely were any soldiers other than officers so served.Initially the government in Richmond ignored the need for the wide-scale provision of camp equipment, and little beyond firearms, bayonets, and canteens was issued. On the other hand, the federal authorities encumbered their troops with several standard items of camp equipment, including kettles, mess pans, and coffeepots. A set of metal crutches with a sturdy crossbar served to hang the pots over the fire. The kettles were made of tinned sheet iron in sizes that allowed them to be nested within each other for ease of transportation. Large iron mess pans were used to serve the food. The company mess kettles were provided to make coffee, soups, and stews, but in typical soldierly fashion, they proved excellent for washing clothes. The mess pans were made to fry pork and bacon, yet they also served as washbasins. Such double duty was less than polite society would have tolerated, but for the soldiers any other course was considered impractical.The concept of company cooking quickly disappeared under all but the most favorable of circumstances. In this manner both Johnny Reb and Billy Yank found themselves in surprisingly similar situations. Each soldier was obliged to use only the limited array of cookware that he could carry. A coffee boiler of some sort was considered a necessity, and any utensil that could serve as a frying pan became indispensable. Small groups of men would pool their money to purchase a coffee boiler or a real frying pan from the sutler, and each would take turns carrying it on the march. The person so designated often was entitled to the utensil's first use when camp was made. If one of the owners was wounded, killed, or otherwise removed from the companionship of his fellow investors, his share could be sold to an outsider.The government rations distributed to the troops varied slightly with the season and the availability of local supply. Nonetheless, a complete list of all the possibilities is short. These included hardtack, coffee, sugar, soft bread, flour, rice, cornmeal, dried peas, dried beans, desiccated vegetables or dried fruits, fresh or dried potatoes (called chips), salt pork, bacon or ham, pickled beef (called salt horse), fresh meat, and occasionally onions, molasses, salt, pepper, and vinegar. The officers' mess and hospitals seemed to have had a significant variety of canned items, but they were seldom available to the troops unless they were purchased from the sutlers. By 1861 the list of common canned items had expanded to include several types of meat, peas, sardines, peaches, and other fruits; but the most common canned item encountered in the field was condensed milk, much of which was purchased by contract from Gail Borden.There were two standard rations in the federal army. One was the camp ration, and the other was the campaign or marching ration. The camp ration tended to be more diverse, and for one soldier in the federal army consisted of meat (1 ¼ lbs. of salted or fresh beef, or ¾ lb. of pork or bacon); and bread (1 lb., 6 oz. of soft bread or flour, or 1 lb. of hardtack, or 1 ¼ lbs. of cornmeal). He also received approximately 1 ½ ounces of dried vegetables, rice, dried potatoes, peas, or beans. Fresh potatoes were to be had, but fresh vegetables were rare and allotted in only very small quantities. Salt and pepper were allowed in minuscule quantities. About ½ ounce of vinegar was provided for each man daily to help prevent scurvy. About the same amount of molasses was allowed when available. The marching ration consisted of 1 lb., or 8 crackers, of hard bread; ¾ lb. of salt pork, or 1 ¼ lbs. of fresh meat; sugar, coffee, and salt. The beans, rice, and so on, were not issued to the soldier when on the march, as he could not carry or cook them.Confederates were almost always on the edge of starvation once the first days of the war were past. A federal soldier noted that his opponents were "very seldom well supplied, [but] they often bravely fought when even weak with hunger." They were known to have depended on cowpeas, or field peas, to round out their sparse rations. General Lee considered these field legumes one of the Confederacy's best friends. The men also grubbed for wild onions, scallions, dandelions, and groundnuts. Swamp cabbage could be made palatable by having the unpleasant flavor boiled out of it. The closest thing to a sutler's wagon seen by most Confederate troops was a cider cart or fruit wagon pushed by a slave or a roadside display of pies and cakes set up by a civilian.With only a rudimentary understanding of balanced nutrition, it is a wonder that any soldier survived the war on such a diet. However, the standard ration provided a daily average of over 3,000 calories, heavy in carbohydrates and fats, but providing few vitamins or complete proteins. The vitamin deficiencies and the lack of protein could have been devastating. An unrelieved diet of cornmeal and salt pork, while sufficient in calories, would ultimately produce such diseases as scurvy and pellagra. Fresh meats will provide protein but cannot afford sufficient protein to make up the deficit alone. Both beans and cornmeal are high protein sources but are individually incomplete in amino acids; yet, in combination they are complementary and provide all the essentials needed to sustain health. Rice and peas are another complementary pair with similar characteristics. In offering these pairs among a small variety of foodstuffs, the government unwittingly supplied a nearly complete diet to its soldiers, yet the unresolved question of a lack of essential vitamins had serious health consequences that cost many lives.The soldier added both quantity and variety to his diet in many ways. Gifts of food from home were always welcome. These included hams, smoked meats and cheeses, pickles, onions, potatoes, chocolate, condensed milk, sugar, salt butter, coffee, tea, cakes, cookies, applesauce, and preserves. Moreover, he could always buy food from farms that he passed or from sutlers. Both sides resorted to foraging for foodstuffs, and sent out groups of men, usually cavalry, to strip the countryside of provisions—a standard practice of armies since ancient times. Many farms were visited repeatedly and stripped bare by friend and foe alike.Foragers brought in foodstuffs common to the civilian farm diet. Foragers could wipe a Southern farmstead clean in a few minutes without the least pity. This usually included ham, bacon, cornmeal, roasting ears of corn, and sweet potatoes. Livestock, in the form of cattle, pigs, hogs, sheep, chickens, geese, and turkeys, was sometimes driven into camp to be slaughtered. The meat was often thin and tough, especially if taken from a Southern farm late in the war; but the soldiers usually found it possible to prepare it for consumption without extensive processing. Roasting ears were a particular favorite as they could be thrown into the fire ash with the shucks on, cooked, and retrieved with little ceremony; but recruits quickly found that green ears of corn, consumed without proper preparation, brought on stomach and lower bowel ailments that could have been avoided by a judicious roasting.Southern foragers understood the "terrible necessity" of depriving friendly families of most of their stock of food in order to feed the army, and some voluntarily cut cord wood, helped with the harvest, repaired farm machinery, and toiled at any other farm work in repayment for the willing donation of food. A favorite ploy of Southern foragers was to linger about the house of an unsuspecting farm family until they were at supper, "and then modestly approach and knock at the door." This procedure almost always resulted in an invitation to dinner as "honored guests."The troops often resorted to the unauthorized stealing and killing of livestock. "Bear hunting" seems to have been a popular pastime for foragers in both armies. Pigs, which generally were allowed to roam the scrub and woodlots of most farms, seem to have been a favorite target of the "bear" hunters. One forager, caught with a roasting pig on the spit by the enraged farmer who owned it, excused his acquisition of the meat by explaining that the pig had violated the grain allotted to the horses of his artillery battery. The horses, swore the soldier, had sensed the pig's intrusion, kicked out, and killed the pig instantly. To mollify him, the farmer was invited to partake of the meat, but he came to suspect the soldier's sincerity "after his teeth had come down hard on a pistol bullet, and continued to doubt, though assured that it was the head of a horse-shoe nail." By sending a hind-quarter to the company officers, and by similarly placating the sergeants, the soldiers "alloyed any murmurs over violated discipline."See: Daily Life in Civil War America, 2nd Edition: Dorothy Denneen Volo, James M. Volo: 9780313366031: Amazon.com: Books